
SFMTA Offers Two Permits for One-Year Powered Scooter Pilot - coloneltcb
https://www.sfmta.com/blog/sfmta-offers-two-permits-one-year-powered-scooter-pilot
======
gok
> In its application, Scoot demonstrated a strong commitment to safety. For
> example, the company proposed to educate and train its users in safe scooter
> operations with mandatory instructional videos, helmets included in rentals
> and free in-person trainings.

I've often wondered what would happen if bicycles were invented today. Surely
cities would ban them immediately for being unsafe ("exposed chains and gears?
what if a child put their finger in there?!") and they would completely fail
to gain traction, right?

~~~
aphextron
>I've often wondered what would happen if bicycles were invented today. Surely
cities would ban them immediately for being unsafe ("exposed chains and gears?
what if a child put their finger in there?!") and they would completely fail
to gain traction, right?

It just comes down to power. Bicycles are fundamentally different because they
are human powered. A powerful adult cyclist can produce maybe 500 watts at a
full sprint for a few minutes. Compare this to an electric scooter which gives
even a small child nearly 1 kilowatt of power, making it quite easy to hurt
themselves or others. It's just a different level of responsibility, like the
difference between firearms and archery.

~~~
woolvalley
The city / journo complaints about them don't really seem to be about the
electric part of the scooters & bikes, but the dockless nature of them.

~~~
maccam94
Dockless bike shares in China have had similar problems as scooters in SF.
This isn't about scooters vs bikes. It's about clogging public spaces with
private property, and how a sudden influx of new vehicle operators need to be
trained to not constantly violate traffic laws (like riding on the sidewalk).

[https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-
oversup...](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/03/bike-share-oversupply-
in-china-huge-piles-of-abandoned-and-broken-bicycles/556268/)

------
throway99998
SFMTA boss Ed Reiskin hates uber/lyft/bird/lime/jump etc. as an afront to his
authority so this is outcome (Skip, Scoot) is unsurprising.

anyway I suppose its good they are allowing 1k to 2k scooters in a city of
<checks google> 500,000 cars.

------
ghobs91
Between NIMBY antics with housing development and absurd levels of gov
overreach in situations like this, SF is going to end up cannibalizing its
tech industry.

So many cities would kill to be the center of such a fast growing and high
paying industry, and they're squandering it because their old guard is a bunch
of gate-keeping snobs.

Oh well. NYC, LA, Austin, and other cities will gladly grab the fruits of tech
talent.

~~~
woolvalley
I don't think NYC is much better in that regard. Look at how they created taxi
2.0 recently with driver limits, how e-bikes are illegal and a lot of
downright hostile reactions in the press to citi bikes a few years ago.

~~~
ghobs91
At least the taxi thing was meant to curb road congestion. SFs scooter
regulation seems like the intent is "how dare you run a business without our
oversight?".

------
hkmurakami
_After a thorough review of 12 applications and more than 800 pages of
proposals received, the SFMTA will offer permits to Scoot and Skip.

The SFMTA’s decision is based on the strength of the proposals submitted by
the two companies, combined with their experience of owning, operating and
maintaining a shared mobility service in the public right-of-way. The agency
looked for applications that prioritized the city’s concerns around safety,
disabled access, equity and accountability.

...

In its application, Scoot demonstrated a strong commitment to safety. For
example, the company proposed to educate and train its users in safe scooter
operations with mandatory instructional videos, helmets included in rentals
and free in-person trainings. Furthermore, Scoot’s model was unique in its
proposal to use swappable batteries instead of manually taking the scooters
off the street for regular recharging. This method could help the city reduce
the number of vehicle miles traveled on San Francisco streets, which helps
reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

...

At the tail end of March, three companies -- Bird, Lime and Spin -- unloaded
hundreds of motorized scooters across San Francisco. While they were
operating, several concerns were raised by the city and our communities.

From April 11 to May 23 alone, San Francisco’s 311 Customer Service Center
received nearly 1,900 complaints regarding scooters. Complaints ranged from
scooters blocking sidewalk access to unsafe riding in the public right-of-way.
San Francisco Public Works had to impound more than 500 scooters that were
blocking sidewalks or otherwise improperly parked._

So looks like Bird, Lime, and others are out on the sidelines. And it also
looks like the era of brazenly ignoring the regulatory environment profitably
a la Uber is over.

------
singularity2001
In the mean time there are already 100 million (!) electro scooters in use in
China:

[https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2010/electric-two-
wheele...](https://www.accessmagazine.org/fall-2010/electric-two-wheelers-
china-promise-progress-potential/) .

Quoth: "Having lived in China for the last year it’s pretty much 99.8% ebikes.
Petrol motorbikes don’t make an appearance except in very poor areas."

------
cbhl
I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'd like to see an increase in
parking garages in San Francisco.

Then we could convert on-street parking into parking for bikes and scooters,
as well as bus lanes and bus stops (both for tech shuttles as well as for
public transit).

We should make it as easy, cheap, and convenient to use an alternative
transportation method as it is to call an Uber.

~~~
xvedejas
There really is an awful lot of street parking in SF. In the neighborhoods I'd
like to see some project to turn some of the on-street parking into
lawns/gardens. I believe at one point, in the 60s or 70s, most homes (at least
in my neighborhood) paved over their front laws for additional parking space.
There's a lot that could be done to improve land use in SF. The street parking
in particular seems unnecessary, especially when you're a 10-minute walk from
BART.

------
extrapolate
tl;dr Scoot & Skip were selected.

The PDF[0] outlining SFMTA's evaluation criteria for each company application
is interesting. A lot of them were rated pretty poorly, even Lime & Bird
(especially) which both had a large presence before the shutdown.

[0] [https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-
docume...](https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and-
documents/2018/08/application_rating_summary_table_08.320.2018.pdf)

~~~
steadicat
Can’t help but think that spite factored in significantly in the decision.
There’s a row that conflates “applicant’s history in complying with city
regulations” with “applicant’s experience in operating and maintaining shared
mobility systems”. Bird, Lime, and Spin all got “poor” for this row, even
though they obviously have experience operating and maintaining such a system.

~~~
eridius
Bird, Lime, and Spin were only operating for a short time (at least in SF, not
sure how long they were operating in other cities). Versus Scoot which has
been operating in SF since 2012 (I know nothing about Skip; I assume they've
been operating elsewhere).

This also isn't just "length of time operating", the same row covers
"applicant's history" and "history of their users", and Bird/Lime/Spin all
have a very poor history here:

> _From April 11 to May 23 alone, San Francisco’s 311 Customer Service Center
> received nearly 1,900 complaints regarding scooters. Complaints ranged from
> scooters blocking sidewalk access to unsafe riding in the public right-of-
> way. San Francisco Public Works had to impound more than 500 scooters that
> were blocking sidewalks or otherwise improperly parked._

~~~
steadicat
Bird/Lime/Spin have a very poor history only because they’re the only ones
with any history at all. They just happened to be around when the controversy
started. It seems unfair to penalize them for that, and give them zero credit
for previous experience. Scoot’s been around, yes, but with a very different
service.

~~~
sharkmerry
But they only have history because they flaunted the regulations, no?

~~~
steadicat
Operating a scooter service was not illegal at the time. It was only made
illegal as a retaliatory response. SFMTA and the supervisors would have liked
those companies to proactively ask for permission, hence the retaliation. Skip
is the only company (AFAIK) that made it a point to ask for permission first –
and they’re getting rewarded for it – but I’m pretty sure they only did that
with the benefit of hindsight. They were late to the game, saw the backlash
against the early players, and saw that as their opportunity.

~~~
eridius
This is not true. AIUI the SFMTA told these companies that they were working
on regulations governing these scooters and that they couldn't deploy them
yet. Then one of the companies (I forget who) jumped the gun and deployed them
anyway, so the others rushed out to deploy them too.

I don't know if this was strictly _illegal_ , but it was certainly flaunting
explicit instructions from the SFMTA.

~~~
rrix2
> I forget who

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/28/san-francisco-will-
regulat...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/28/san-francisco-will-regulate-
electric-scooter-sharing/)

ISTR it was Lime, and this article from March seems to back that up. The other
two launched shortly after because they were afraid to lose first-mover
benefits. Woopsie.

