Beset by Homelessness, Rising Rents, SF Cracks Down on Dockless Scooters | Hacker News Reader

Beset by Homelessness, Rising Rents, SF Cracks Down on Dockless Scooters

reason.com

29 pointsFins30 comments

These scooters are amazing. Wish the city would focus on the drug addicts running around defecating on sidewalks and not try to regulate these convenient scooters.

We really need to organize "how to write letters in support of nice things" sessions for techies.

It really would not take many of us (maybe fifty or a hundred) writing letters to city hall to drown out the voices of these anti-tech activists.

This is actually an awesome idea.

Why is this a tech issue? There are plenty of folks who work in the tech industry who would like to see these scooter vendors take at least minimal steps to play nice.

Could even go full social techno-utopia and make the scooters free for registered addicts to use on rides to any municipal sanitation facilities.

You'd have to build some of those first.

The scooters are left scattered on the sidewalk like so many turds, your critique is misplaced.

In the middle of a city, a pile of scooters is considered by most people to be a less pressing problem than a pile of human shit, both in risk and aesthetic. If either pile gets big enough it will solve itself economically, however the difference in inconvenience while waiting for that to occur is not close.

The scooter problem is more simple. Both in complexity and ability to take action. I'm glad the city took swift, simple actions to reign in illegal activity before it became worse.

The defecation issue is more complex in terms of causes and ability to take action. I agree the city should move more quickly with stopgaps like increased cleaning frequency. However, "solving" the root of this problem will take much more time, energy, and money.

You can’t charge the drug addicts fees.

This program is moving so quickly because it is both a revenue and bureaucratic expansion opportunity.

Meanwhile, dockless cars park wherever they want, block sidewalks, inhabit large swaths of the city without paying to do so, etc.

What a weird world where "scooters" are the problem.

Don't cars generally park in designated locations, pay large amount of money in taxes, often also in parking fees. Even in SF I think you are more likely to walk into a pile of excrement or scooters in a middle of a sidewalk than into a car...

Parking fees, tolls, taxes, etc aren't market rate.

Also, visit any of the neighborhoods on the western half of San Francisco and you'll discover that it's de facto not allowed to be handicapped or pushing a stroller due to cars owning the sidewalks.

Not sure how taxes could be "market rate" to begin with, but don't those scooters just get dumped anywhere without any payments to the city or something?

Also, just one of many reasons why I don't go to San Francisco if I can help it at all.

The taxes you're referring to, I presumed, are things like DMV fees. Those are used for things like roads (construction, repair, salting, plowing, etc), bridges, highway patrols, etc. They aren't market rate because they don't actually cover their stated purpose, thus are subsidized from other taxes. Additionally, they don't price in externalities like noise, pollution, emergency services due to accidents, death and injury to persons, etc.

The scooters are indeed left on sidewalks. Luckily the 20 pound scooters aren't actually killing or maiming people, spouting out toxins into the air, ripping up the asphalt, blaring "honk" noises at all hours of the day, etc. Not much of a public nuisance all things considered :)

Bridges and stuff sometimes pay for themselves in increased economic activity, as do highways etc. Not sure about SF, but in Chicago, say, on top of the state fee for the license stickers (far more reasonable than California's, of course, but still) there is a city fee for a city sticker that has to be applied to all vehicles registered in the city.

Practically speaking, though, as nice as it would be to get rid of cars, pollution, etc., it's not happening unless you can offer something better to the public, and scooters aren't it. And scooters, at least how I am reading news about them right, aren't exactly paying for any externalities either.

As an SF resident, I love these things and regularly use them instead of calling an Uber. Requiring helmets (as the draft regulation does) is a bad idea; it would drastically reduce usage and push people back into cars.

One problem that some of these scooters have is that they seem to be easy to sabotage. I’ve seen vandals pulling on the brake cables near the front wheel, which would probably weaken the brakes or make them not function.

Good. I’m all for better and more eco-friendly forms of transport, but after seeing a number of scooters thrown into the street haphazardly, this could not make me happier. People don’t seem to respect property that isn’t theirs.

Respect isn’t necessary. You paid for it, had your way with it, and moved on. This isn’t charity, it’s business. If the owner has a problem with how the scooters are used they should be using docks.

Scooters that become a traffic hazard are more than just the company's problem.

So, the dockless part is a problem because when not secured to something they really do end up in the street.

The sidewalk belongs to everyone. It's a public space.

+1, wish they would start towing cars that park on the sidewalk.

_you can only fix one of these things!_

seriously the reason scooters were addressed was because 3 companies decided to dump all of them sometime near the end of march and they had no legislation against it. and it was causing problems with pedestrians.

i find these articles annoying, why not harass midwestern cities with large opioid problems about doing X, when they haven't "solved" the opioid issue first.

Vehicles on sidewalks are a menace. Do it in the street, hipsters!

Poop and needles are not a menace?

Personally I think poop & noodle cleanup should be a higher priority than dockless scooters.

By all means, hipsters should also police up their poop and needles. But given the choice, I'd rather deal with that--at least it isn't usually moving toward me at high speed.

Can we add "roads worse than 3rd world countries" to the list?

You haven't seen third world countries' roads, have you?

I have: I just drove from SF to Merida, Yucatan. San Francisco's roads are on par or often worse that most Mexican state capitals.

Because you can only focus on fixing one thing at a time?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com