Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwilliams | Hacker News Reader

Just signed up for this in San Francisco -- Only to find that Russian Hill, Nob Hill, and North Beach are excluded. Plus Fort Mason, the Presidio, and anything west of the Panhandle.

"San Francisco" it is not. Which I guess is fine, but they make you pay up-front, so I found that a bit of cheek.

Admittedly it's only $2, but even on principle it's annoying. They should be much more transparent in the signup process. They even geolocate you, so they'd be aware you're out of their coverage zone.

Edit: This is the coverage map: https://www.evernote.com/l/ACu5gnYkvnNKq6r8MPguZAczRDuT1B7p6...

View on HN

One factor that may limit the deployment is San Francisco’s permit requirement, which specifies that stationless bike share companies must commit to a “service area” which must have at least 3 bikes per square mile all day, and 20% of bikes must be in Communities of Concern. See regulation http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/transp... and permit application https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/projects/2017/Bike...

I feel for them having to deal with SF regulations - so no beef there.

My main niggle is a UX one. They really need to communicate the coverage in the signup process (especially if you're outside it when you sign up).

To their supreme credit - I contacted support asking clarification. They got back to me with an answer in minutes. Plus they refunded my initial payment.

That explains the map regions

This is a result of NIMBYism in those neighborhoods, not any Jump bike policy.

Do you have any evidence of that? Just looks like they've excluded areas with more tourists.

Irrespective, would still be easy (and overall nicer) if they made that transparent.

Sorry, nothing I can link to, just personal conversations with employees.

> looks like they've excluded areas with more tourists If it's anything like NYC they did this to avoid upsetting the existing bike rental businesses in those areas. They need to do this to get local government buy-in of the program.

This is exactly the case. My understanding is that they've pitched themselves as a commuting solution to get approval, and the local tourist bike rental places complain as they get closer to the standard tourist biking areas of Golden Gate Park and the bridge.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/bike-battle-ignited-rentals-fear-f...

Edit: The lack of bikeshare on 24th street is a separate issue with Calle 24, which could reasonably be called NIMBYism.

Having experienced the mess caused by dockless bikes in my city, Sydney, I wish we would ban them too.

"coverage zone" hasn't stopped tourists from taking them to Sausalito

Reply on news.ycombinator.com