Hacker News Reader

Comment by baby | Hacker News Reader

Meanwhile in San Francisco we are stuck with two unknown companies, a very low amount of scooters, no scooters in the evening (after 9pm I think?), and you can't ride one if you don't have a driver license.

For a tech-pole, it is quite a backward city.

View on HN

The scooters must be lowering someones land value.

You need a driver's license? Why?

No idea.

From the article:

> On safety: In the year or so that scooters hit the mainstream in the U.S., there were casualties. Moreover, many — kids included — realized just how easy it is to get away with scootering sans helmet, while others rode throughout the night. Bird, to keep children off scooters, at least, requires customers to provide a driver’s license when they sign up. Given the number of issues that have arisen as scooters become increasingly popular, improved safety measures are bound to be in the news in the year ahead.

Apparently it's for a reason colinear to needing licenses to drive cars, ie, to limit irresponsible scooterers and minors who tend to disregard rules and be the most brash riders.

It just so happens it's also conveniently a great way to keep poor people and homeless people from making use of this even if they had the money for a ride, but then again maybe that's for their own good.

It happens to also penalize people who are of age but do not have a driver's license, like me. Why would I need to learn how to ride a car to drive these? No way.

Do you think riding a scooter that can go 20mph shouldn't require a driving licence - which is a very low bar in the states I believe.

You can ride a bike much faster with no license.

Well it's a given bike riders should be licensed and plated. It's insane that in many places bike riders using the public roads don't require 3rd party insurance.

For what purpose other than locking kids and poor people out of the world and worsening traffic and health issues. If 2 cyclists crash in to each other they will cause minimal property damage and any medical costs should be covered by the government.

There are so many other situations where people can accidentally cause property damage that don't require insurance. Its just the cars have a very high risk of causing huge amounts of damage very easily.

  If 2 cyclists crash in to each other they will cause minimal property damage

Cyclists hitting pedestrians have caused death in SF.

True! Would a license or plate on the bike have changed that?

With license and registration can also come better enforcement of traffic laws, which would help. Anecdotally, I haven't seen anyone on here support car drivers breaking traffic laws (except maybe minor speeding) but on several occasions seen people defending bicyclists breaking traffic laws- trading safe behavior for convenience.

Additionally, I imagine it would be easier to get (and require) bicyclists to carry catastrophic insurance, since carrying a license would at least go some way towards demonstrating safe behavior. By carrying such insurance, both cyclists and surviving family would be protected from at least some of the financial burdens of accidents.

So, yes on two counts: Incentive for safer cycling and easier access to (and possibly mandated) financial protection from accidents.

Good point about insurance.

It's very hard for a cyclist to hit and run. On a bicycle, even when it's not your mistake, a mistake will usually end up killing or hurting the cyclist. It's not like a car where you can kill a non-trivial amount of people and see zero repercussions.

  It's very hard for a cyclist to hit and run

Actually, in most SF bike-pedestrian collisions resulting in pedestrian injury, the cyclist flees.

Example:

https://patch.com/california/san-francisco/pedestrians-hospi...

You say in most cases but then link to a single case. You can find a single case of anything on the internet. Doesn't make it meaningful.

I should have written most reported, since there can be any number of unreported cases. But the fact stands; you can check with SFPD and SFMTA. I could post 3 more examples, but you'd just claim that there are more that don't flee but somehow evade SFPD documentation.

Not if your a 25 year old coder.

because cars haven't...

> any medical costs should be covered by the government

Why? If I get sick, I need to go bankrupt if I don't have an insurance, but if I run a stop sign on a bicycle, government should pay for medical bill?

This would make more sense in countries that have universal healthcare. USA isn't one of those.

no, government should pay in both cases as is the norm in most developed countries.

> it's a given bike riders should be licensed and plated

No, it's not a given. I've never heard anyone want that before

Pretty common position here in australia.

Maybe for bogans ranting on talk back radio but its absolutely not a common position for regular people otherwise it would have become the law.

They meant bicycles, not motorcycles.

So you shouldn't be able to ride a bike until you're 18? All of that because cars? Good joke.

Maybe we should also require people going skateboarding to be licensed. Or licence people who are running too quickly - who knows, they could accidentally knock someone over. Better ensure they get liability insurance.

Motorized bikes don't require one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com