
San Jose unveils proposed scooter regulations - DrScump
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/22/san-jose-unveils-proposed-scooter-regulations/
======
googlemike
> In addition to paying operating fees, Smith said the city wants the
> companies to provide multilingual customer service at all times, and to
> commit to addressing problems quickly. And like Ford GoBike — which
> currently has an exclusive contract with San Jose to operate a docked bike
> sharing program in the city — the city says scooter companies should be
> required to offer discounts to low-income residents and operate in what it
> calls “communities of concern.”

What a world we live in, where a company cannot operate as it would like to.
As long as no one is getting hurt, why can't a company choose its target
demographic? Where does it end? Do all movie theaters have to show films in
all languages? Are Whole Foods and starbucks required to open discount price
stores for the same goods in "communities of concern"?

I lived in San Jose for 5 years. I was flat broke, and living in a rundown
12-people-in-a-5-bedroom apartment, in the most violent and dangerous part of
town. San Jose still has an immense amount of issues with drugs, violence,
gangs, and a lack of pedestrian friendly streets. The city's priorities, much
like San Francisco's, are laughably backwards.

~~~
ggg9990
Sorry, I’m reasonably libertarian but “operating in communities of concern” is
fine by me for transit infrastructure providers. Taxis used to have laws that
required them to go to any destination requested, and stop for any person
hailing a ride. Now that Uber has largely replaced taxis, a vital piece of
community infrastructure (point to point transportation) is only available to
people with smartphones. I have no problem requiring that Uber take fares by
phone, or that scooter companies service all areas, as transit infrastructure
shifts from publicly owned to privately owned.

~~~
crazy1van
>Taxis used to have laws that required them to go to any destination
requested, and stop for any person hailing a ride

Laws that in my experience the taxi drivers completely ignored with no
consequences. At least with Uber they pick you up before they find out the
destination.

------
megablast
Can they crack down on rampant use of cars? Are car companies paying operating
fees? (Not quite the same, I know, but still).

~~~
almost_usual
If cars start driving on sidewalks I’m sure they’ll crack down on it.

~~~
dionidium
The irony of this statement is that cars _created_ the modern, rigid
distinction between street and sidewalk. The term "jaywalking" was around
before cars, but its modern meaning was heavily promoted by pro-automobile
interests in the 1920s:

[http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defe...](http://www.slate.com/articles/life/transport/2009/11/in_defense_of_jaywalking.html)

Cars don't need to drive on the sidewalks, in other words, because they
already took over everything else (and in doing so relegated all other
transportation modes to what was left).

~~~
almost_usual
Kind of what I was getting at. Car culture isn’t going away any time soon.
It’s a lot easier to regulate something new than something that’s been a part
of American society for nearly a hundred years.

------
ibejoeb
Which other businesses will be forced to operate multilingually? Will mine?

~~~
toomuchtodo
If you provide what amounts to a utility, possibly.

~~~
ibejoeb
Is a scooter rental a utility? Is a jet-ski rental a utility? Is a luxury car
rental a utility? Is a cheap car rental a utility? I'm just having trouble
codifying it.

------
Xcelerate
I would prefer that dense cities allow the scooters and instead prohibit cars.
Granted, we would need to solve some issues with accommodating those with
disabilities in a way that is more effective than using a car, but I think it
could be done.

In the meantime, levy huge fines on anyone who uses the scooters irresponsibly
so we can quickly set the precedent of socially acceptable scooter usage.

------
heliophobicdude
Austin, TX has forced all dockless scooter companies to have up to 500
scooters total in the city.

------
MakerWorld
Things are are left on the street should be re-cycled into other things

------
dogruck
This shows the benefits of local government. I think this is a bad policy.
Fortunately, I also don’t live in San Jose. If I did, I’d try to elect new
local politicians.

------
pascalxus
This doesn't surprise me, from the same stupid state that shut down a startup
just for putting more buses on the road

~~~
gruez
the story isn't as simple as "shut down a startup just for putting more buses
on the road". it's that the local transit authority has a monopoly on public
transport, so no other companies can compete. the logic for that is that
otherwise, for-profit entities would only operate profitable routes, leaving
distant/poor/low density areas unserved. by operating as a monopoly, the
transit authority can subsidize the less profitable routes with the more
profitable routes, ensuring everybody has service, not just the people who
live near the profitable routes. a similar logic exists applies to the USPS,
which has a monopoly on letter mail (except for express services).

~~~
pascalxus
Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private
companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't
prevent government from adding more.

Furthermore, if you regulate everything before it has time to flourish, you
deny society all the benefits of any tech that would have developed.

Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your
house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't
mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for
everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.

~~~
gruez
>Government transportation does have a monopoly but not necessarily private
companies. If private companies set up new transportation lines, it doesn't
prevent government from adding more.

Are we talking about the same thing (monopolies on public transport) here? The
whole point of granting the transit authority an monopoly is so they can
exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable routes to
the less/not profitable routes. If private companies are allowed to run their
own buses, they can undercut the transit authority's fares, because their
fares don't include the "subsidy" to the other routes.

>Also, it's short sited to shut down bus routes that don't go directly to your
house. Just because it doesn't go to your specific neighborhood (yet) doesn't
mean you can't benefit. Increasing bus service, decreases pollution for
everyone (c02) and may even reduce the amount of traffic on your commute.

Obviously having some buses is better than no buses, but what the monopoly is
trying to ensure is that _everybody_ can ride the bus, regardless if they live
in the outskirts or downtown. You can disagree with whether or not it's the
government's job to guarantee public transit for everybody, but that's the
logic for why the laws were enacted.

~~~
mmt
> they can exercise that monopoly to transfer funds from the more profitable
> routes to the less/not profitable routes.

As pointed out in a different sub-thread, using monopoly power to effect this
transfer can be detrimental to consumers.

The more traditional wealth transfer power of governments is taxation, which
seems like a more straightforward method.

------
mathattack
I was in San Jose today and noticed they hadn’t gotten rid of scooters. I
guess this is why we can’t have nice things.

~~~
MakerWorld
You can, there are many free scooters and Ebikes on the streets of San Jose.

------
Hello71
> requiring the companies to pay a deposit to cover potential scooter-involved
> damage to city property

so I guess if they damage non-city property, tough shit?

~~~
thelastidiot
It doesn't make any sense at all. It's not like we are living in Vienna or
Paris. It's freaking California with Stucco walls and cheaply made buildings.

~~~
tomjakubowski
"City property" encompasses much more than "some of the city's buildings".

