6 ms·

There’s no way to profitably run a company like Bird without foisting the externalities on someone else. Their model is literally to dump a bunch of electric sc

There’s no way to profitably run a company like Bird without foisting the externalities on someone else. Their model is literally to dump a bunch of electric scooters on the side of the road with QR codes on them and just hope for the best. Of course they’re going to get fined when their property is left blocking driveways, of course they’re going to be expected to clean up the piles of scooters that get thrown in the bay, of course their scooters are going to get stolen. Yes, all of that is ruinously expensive to deal with - it’s not a viable business plan. It’s not “onerous regulation,” it’s holding the company accountable for the costs of its business model.

jasmer 4y ago
There are places in the world where citizens have high levels of concientiousness. Obviously there's a threshold problem in most of urban USA. There's sufficient pedestrian concientousness maybe in Salt Lake City or some small New England city. Definitely in Japan. Probably most Swiss communities, but beyond that there's just too many sketchy people. It only takes 1 in 100.
pyb 4y ago
Not to mention the extra costs to the healthcare system. These things are not safe!
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  In SF, _what_ healthcare system? Wouldn't surprise me if some HMO is bankrolling Bird and waiting for those sweet, profitable trauma cases.
  - htag 4y ago
    How does an HMO make money from trauma cases? My understanding is a member of the HMO seeking medical treatment will cost the HMO money, and their only source of revenue is insurance premiums.
  - danans 4y ago
    The business model of health insurance it's generally about minimizing the amount of avoidable medical care dispensed, not maximizing it.
- taeric 4y ago
  We talking about cars or scooters? :D
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Yeah, I guess they do add costs to the healthcare system since they only injure their drivers instead of outright kill them like cars do to 46,000 people in the US every year.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    Falling from an electric scooter is often fatal.
    - latchkey 4y ago
      The lack of helmets is totally absurd.
notatoad 4y ago
"foisting the externalities on someone else" is how all profitable transportation works though. Uber clogs the streets with circling cars waiting for pickups. private cars are scattered all over the streets and are the single most dangerous thing in a city. cars, trains, taxis, buses, everything all create huge amounts of noise pollution. airplanes and gas powered cars create air pollution. just pushing through and providing enough value to the demographics who make the laws until people accept your negative externalities as "normal" or "acceptable" is totally a viable business strategy, and holding companies accountable for the costs of their business is definitely not the norm. i don't necessarily like it, but you can't say bird has more negative externalities than any other private transport option in the city. they're just new and different.
- roughly 4y ago
  Bird's big mistake is they chose a particularly stupid variety of a business plan here - if they'd done something like selling the scooters for cost but making people pay a subscription to use it or something, they'd be free & clear, because what people did with their scooters wouldn't be Bird's problem. Bird's mistake is that every Bird scooter is owned by Bird Inc., which means Bird Inc. is held accountable for every stupid thing someone does with a Bird scooter.
  - Zak 4y ago
    Why would anyone buy a scooter that they have to pay a subscription to use? Scooters without subscription fees are available for purchase.
    - roughly 4y ago
      I don’t care, that’s not the point. The point is Bird retained ownership of all its scooters, and so it retained liability for its scooters, which is why it’s having to pay fines. If they’d managed a business model that doesn’t maintain a giant scooter fleet and all the liability on their books, this’d be a different story.
jmeister 4y ago
Too bad. The state puts its thumb on the scale in every market. Others have commented on cars below. If the city wanted to encourage scooters it would have. In America people actually try to build a Bird. Elsewhere they just don't bother. Thankfully there are other states in America that don't take the existence of business, innovation, or material prosperity for granted.

jasmer 4y ago

There are places in the world where citizens have high levels of concientiousness. Obviously there's a threshold problem in most of urban USA. There's sufficient pedestrian concientousness maybe in Salt Lake City or some small New England city. Definitely in Japan. Probably most Swiss communities, but beyond that there's just too many sketchy people. It only takes 1 in 100.

pyb 4y ago

Not to mention the extra costs to the healthcare system. These things are not safe!

ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
In SF, _what_ healthcare system? Wouldn't surprise me if some HMO is bankrolling Bird and waiting for those sweet, profitable trauma cases.
- htag 4y ago
  How does an HMO make money from trauma cases? My understanding is a member of the HMO seeking medical treatment will cost the HMO money, and their only source of revenue is insurance premiums.
- danans 4y ago
  The business model of health insurance it's generally about minimizing the amount of avoidable medical care dispensed, not maximizing it.
taeric 4y ago
We talking about cars or scooters? :D
fallingknife 4y ago
Yeah, I guess they do add costs to the healthcare system since they only injure their drivers instead of outright kill them like cars do to 46,000 people in the US every year.
- hulitu 4y ago
  Falling from an electric scooter is often fatal.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    The lack of helmets is totally absurd.

notatoad 4y ago

"foisting the externalities on someone else" is how all profitable transportation works though. Uber clogs the streets with circling cars waiting for pickups. private cars are scattered all over the streets and are the single most dangerous thing in a city. cars, trains, taxis, buses, everything all create huge amounts of noise pollution. airplanes and gas powered cars create air pollution. just pushing through and providing enough value to the demographics who make the laws until people accept your negative externalities as "normal" or "acceptable" is totally a viable business strategy, and holding companies accountable for the costs of their business is definitely not the norm. i don't necessarily like it, but you can't say bird has more negative externalities than any other private transport option in the city. they're just new and different.

roughly 4y ago
Bird's big mistake is they chose a particularly stupid variety of a business plan here - if they'd done something like selling the scooters for cost but making people pay a subscription to use it or something, they'd be free & clear, because what people did with their scooters wouldn't be Bird's problem. Bird's mistake is that every Bird scooter is owned by Bird Inc., which means Bird Inc. is held accountable for every stupid thing someone does with a Bird scooter.
- Zak 4y ago
  Why would anyone buy a scooter that they have to pay a subscription to use? Scooters without subscription fees are available for purchase.
  - roughly 4y ago
    I don’t care, that’s not the point. The point is Bird retained ownership of all its scooters, and so it retained liability for its scooters, which is why it’s having to pay fines. If they’d managed a business model that doesn’t maintain a giant scooter fleet and all the liability on their books, this’d be a different story.

jmeister 4y ago

Too bad. The state puts its thumb on the scale in every market. Others have commented on cars below. If the city wanted to encourage scooters it would have. In America people actually try to build a Bird. Elsewhere they just don't bother. Thankfully there are other states in America that don't take the existence of business, innovation, or material prosperity for granted.