4 ms·
I find it really frustrating that the NYC DOT fought their original business model in order to protect Lyft’s monopoly. I had assumed that Lyft’s monopoly was o
by paulgb 2y ago
I find it really frustrating that the NYC DOT fought their original business model in order to protect Lyft’s monopoly. I had assumed that Lyft’s monopoly was on the right to use DOT’s street space for their program (which at least makes sense), but it feels like a bike rental service operating on private property should not be the DOT’s jurisdiction.
The argument was essentially “we need to give Lyft a monopoly because that’s the only way they would invest in the system”, but the fact that Joco had a structural disadvantage (no public space) and was still willing to enter the market is a sign that we could have a competitive market without giving it all away to Lyft.
- vinay427 2y ago> it feels like a bike rental service operating on private property should not be the DOT’s jurisdiction. I’m not sure I see how the private ownership of docking spaces should be relevant to DOT jurisdiction specifically. Rental car services are regulated, and owning the land housing the pickup location doesn’t avoid that probably because the vehicles are obviously used on public roadways.
- whimsicalism 2y agoare bike rental services regulated as rideshare? either way, it's sorta symptomatic of the kneejerk overregulation that is plaguing a lot of blue states. i can understand the impulse to want to regulate dockless bikes that can cause problems... but just any bike rental?
- asdasdsddd 2y agoI bet it's some bullshit like, "bikeshare businesses" have to display advisories on the app to tell people not to ride on the sidewalk and to use helmets.