
San Francisco announces next steps in regulating shared, powered scooters - aj_icracked
https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2018/05/23/san-francisco-announces-next-steps-regulating-shared-motorized-scooters/
======
ChuckMcM
It astonishes me how rapidly San Francisco has mobilized to get the scooters
off the street in comparison to how little they have been able to accomplish
to get the poop, needles, and condoms off the same streets.

I know which I would choose, if I was told to pick one or the other to be
removed from city streets.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
One is a well defined company you can sue into oblivion, the other are
homeless people with almost no assets who are probably in and out of jail all
the time. See also the difference in fighting a well defined country in a war
(which can be won) and fighting an insurgency (which is much harder to win).

~~~
ChuckMcM
On the surface yes. But to sue a company into oblivion you have to create
statutes (legislation time cost) and create a process for identifying
violations (do cops do this? meter maids? city workers?) establish a legal
team task force to handle those prosecutions (more money for the DA? a new
team? outside counsel?), follow through those prosecutions (court costs,
sheriff costs), and finally collect judgements (collection costs)

As compared to putting accessible restrooms and disposal bins around the city
and cleaning them weekly.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
One could argue that putting out more street side bike racks would also help
the problem if you are arguing that rule enforcement isn’t the answer.

------
cjlars
>For the first six months of the pilot, a total of 1,250 scooters may be
permitted. If the first six months are successful, the total number of
scooters may increase to 2,500 in months seven through 12.

While I support the city's efforts to balance the downsides, mainly the
sidewalk parking issue, with the upsides of cheap, clean, and accessible
mobility, I think there are two wrongheaded decisions the city is making.

1\. Why limit the number of operators? Is this an effort to create a medallion
system or similar? That failed tremendously as it was administered under the
old Cab system. It also risks preempting new developments, e.g. at some point
the scooters will be able to drive themselves to you. You do not want to give
incumbents a legal mechanism to block that competitive challenge.

2\. Why limit the number of scooters? It is already difficult to find one of
these for a ride to / home from work. Limiting the number just creates
incentives for bad behavior by users. Ever seen someone 'guarding' an inactive
scooter? I saw someone hiding one under his lunch table (it was 'available' in
the app), presumably so that he could ride it home when done. Artificial
scarcity is likely to create many more problems than it solves.

In both cases a better public policy proposal would be marginal taxes per unit
on the scooters themselves with no cap on number. The community incurs an
externality in allowing these operators to enjoy free on sidewalk parking,
simply set a price to balance that and let commuters decide how many units
should be around. Or to put it into econospeak: Pigovian taxes are better than
quotas.

~~~
eridius
> _Why limit the number of operators? Is this an effort to create a medallion
> system or similar?_

No. It's because this is a pilot program. At the end of the program, if the
program is successful and a decision is made to allow this on a more permanent
basis, then presumably the restrictions will be lifted.

For context, the bike share pilot programs (e.g. the Ford GoBikes and the JUMP
bikes) also have similar restrictions.

Same answer goes for why limiting the number of scooters.

~~~
cjlars
They may regulate it appropriately in the end, but it sets a bad framework as
precedent.

Regardless, the deadweight loss from this decision is substantial. Imagine
that the equilibrium number of scooters (the # the market will support, note
that we are in the 'rapid adoption phase' right now) is 5000, instead of 2500.
At 10 rides per day, times $3 per ride, times the duration of both levels of
the quota, that's about $40M in lost economic value. You may fairly argue
about those assumptions, but if the city were to propose a special $40M (or
$5M or $10M) tax to pay for a study on the scooters, we would rightly be
outraged. But they both have the same impact -- people in the city are $40M
worse off with what, exactly, being gained in return?

Also note specifically that a big issue with the taxi medallion system was
that the quotas prevented the discovery of the equilibrium # of taxis. If we
do not allow a market equilibrium to be reached, it's very easy for regulators
to endlessly argue over the 'right' number without ever getting close to what
the market actually wants. Politics has a lot of inertia -- the medallion
system perpetuated itself for generations -- so I do not think you can
understate the importance of bad precedent.

~~~
eridius
> _it sets a bad framework as precedent_

Not really, this is how pilot programs generally always work. You limit the
scope of the program for two reasons:

1\. It keeps the program manageable, and it keeps the data more consistent. If
the number of operators or scooters are constantly changing it makes it hard
to actually draw any conclusions from the program.

2\. The pilot program is being run because the SFMTA hasn't yet made the
decision to allow this going forward (or they haven't finalized the rules
governing it). Not having any restrictions on the program is basically the
same thing as simply approving it, but the pilot program exists to determine
if it should be approved and what rules it should be governed by.

> _Regardless, the deadweight loss from this decision is substantial._

The theoretical loss under certain assumptions, true. What if it turns out
that the usage of scooters actually produces a net economic drain in the city?

The pilot program limits the potential benefit, but it also limits the
potential downside too.

> _Also note specifically that a big issue with the taxi medallion system was
> that the quotas prevented the discovery of the equilibrium # of taxis. If we
> do not allow a market equilibrium to be reached, it 's very easy for
> regulators to endlessly argue over the 'right' number without ever getting
> close to what the market actually wants. Politics has a lot of inertia --
> the medallion system perpetuated itself for generations -- so I do not think
> you can understate the importance of bad precedent._

It sounds to me like you don't understand what a pilot program is. The pilot
program only lasts a year, so these restrictions are only in place for a year.
After the pilot program ends, the SFMTA will determine the new rules to use
(assuming they decide to allow the scooters to continue operating at all) and
the rules that governed the pilot program won't apply anymore.

Presumably the SFMTA will continue to require companies operating in this
space to obtain a permit, but they'll also likely drop the "only 5 companies
can participate" rule because that rule exists to limit the scope of the pilot
program and keep it manageable. As for restrictions on the total number of
scooters allowed, I guess that depends on the outcome of the pilot program.
However, if the outcome is "2,500 scooters is better, or at least not worse,
than 1,250 scooters" then the SFMTA is unlikely to put a cap on the scooters
(since, as you said, they won't know what the optimal number is at that
point).

------
tomatotomato37
>As part of the pilot, up to five qualified companies could be issued permits
to operate shared, motorized scooters in San Francisco

So essentially if you're not fast or well connected enough to get one of those
permits then you're shit out of luck? What happens if a company scooter-
sharing hurts gets one of those permits to sit on? Why did this industry need
a limited pilot in the first place??

~~~
ChuckMcM
We'll call them "Scooter Medallions" and they will be an investment property!

------
maerF0x0
>offer a low-income plan

This one is odd to me. BMW doesn't have to offer low income cars. AFAIK Uber
doesnt have to cut fares for low-income folks. Walking and the bus/train is
the low income plan.

~~~
bdcravens
Perhaps some of the scooter companies are arguing that they provide a solution
to overcrowded mass transit; SFMTA provides options like the Lifeline Pass
([https://www.sfmta.com/fares/lifeline-
pass](https://www.sfmta.com/fares/lifeline-pass)). Additionally, they are
relying upon public streets and areas to sell their services (as I understand
it, you don't go to a private depot to pick up a scooter you wish to rent),
whereas BMW dealerships conduct their business on private property.

~~~
wbl
Ever look at where cars end up parked?

~~~
bdcravens
Generally those are privately owned, ostensibly by those paying taxes. A
better analogy would be if Enterprise left rental cars parked on public
streets for customers to pick up as part of the transaction.

------
cft
So you can pitch an unpermitted tent on a city sidewalk, full of stolen
bicycle parts, but you cannot leave a scooter there?

~~~
k_sh
The tents aren't owned by a company that rents them out, and the scooters
aren't used as a last-resort shelter for homeless folks.

------
adomanico
How about dealing with the human feces on the sidewalks and rampant
homelessness instead of stifling innovation.

~~~
justboxing
Strawman argument. The feces are not a safety threat for pedestrians.

~~~
conanbatt
> The feces are not a safety threat for pedestrians.

John Snow would disagree.

------
joshe
It's actually pretty good that there are 5 spots. Bird, Lime, Spin are here
now. Lyft has expressed interest. SkipScooters, from 2 of the founders of
Boosted skateboards, seems like they might know how to make a great scooter.
Maybe Uber/Jump would make 6?

The other interesting competition aspect is that each is limited to 250
scooters. Not enough to build a network. So you'll have to join a few of them
to make it reliable. This will keep some less competitive companies alive a
little longer.

Long term it would be crazy to prevent competition like this. And worth
watching, cities are laughably poor at good licensing. There are supposed to
be 45,000 licensed uber/lyft drivers vs 1,500 taxi medallions in SF. 30 times
too few taxis! It's amazing that was the status quo for 40 years. [1]

The slow ramp is the huge bummer though. Three months of 1250, 6 months of
2500 would make more sense. Then 10-30 thousand for a couple years. You need a
lot of vehicles to make a reliable network. Same goes for Jump style locking
bikes.

Scooters are a little objectionable and probably need to be managed, but wow
cars are so much worse. Any possible replacement for SF's 500,000 cars should
get the fullest support and permissiveness from government. They take up huge
amounts of space for parking, kill people, cause pollution, and sit in traffic
jams. Tesla is cool but in cities cars are not the answer (go Boring company
go!).

It's worth pointing out that in SF you can still buy and operate your own
electric scooter or ebike. Unlike the baffling NYC situation. SF is actually
ok at adapting, just really slowly.

Some numbers:

    
    
      500,000 cars registered in SF [2]
      20 traffic fatalities in 2017, killing 
        14 pedestrians 
        2 cyclists
        4 motorcycle drivers 
        0 car drivers
      It sounds like they were all killed by cars.[3]
    

[1] [http://www.ktvu.com/news/clogged-streets-45000-uber-and-
lyft...](http://www.ktvu.com/news/clogged-streets-45000-uber-and-lyft-drivers-
in-san-francisco-grab-lawmakers-attention)

[2]
[https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/add5eb07-c676-40b4...](https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/add5eb07-c676-40b4-98b5-8011b059260a/est_fees_pd_by_county.pdf?MOD=AJPERES)

[3] [https://sf.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854592/traffic-deaths-
san-f...](https://sf.curbed.com/2018/1/5/16854592/traffic-deaths-san-
francisco-2017)

~~~
DrScump
Sometimes, bicyclists kill pedestrians.

[https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-
ross/article/Cyclist-p...](https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-
ross/article/Cyclist-pleads-guilty-in-Castro-crosswalk-death-4680814.php)

------
mLuby
"share trip data with the city" sounds easily abused. I hope they mean in
aggregate rather than individual trips.

------
themark
"Specifically, operators would need to...have a privacy policy that safeguards
user information..."

That's pretty cool.

------
justboxing
> San Francisco supports transportation innovation, but it cannot come at the
> price of public safety,” Herrera said. “This permit program represents a
> thoughtful, coordinated and effective approach to ensure that San Francisco
> strikes the right balance. We can have innovation, but it must keep our
> sidewalks safe and accessible for all pedestrians.

This. Exactly. In the past week alone, I've been witness to, or victim in, 3
pedestrian safety incidents. In the first one, a dude and a lady companioned
were riding the "Bird"s and turned into the sidewalk I was walking on
(Fillmore Street) and crashed into me. They awkwardly apologized and were
gone, didn't even bother to see if I was injured. In another incident on
Market and 1st (going towards the bay bridge) a scooter "Parked" on the
sidewalk was blown from the wind and had falled on the sidewalk ramp. Saw an
old black lady in a wheel chair struggling to get around it to get on the
sidewalk. The 3rd was a Muni driver honking at 2 riders who were bank in the
middle of the road on Howard St going towards the Ferry Building. He almost
crashed the bus into them.

While I'm all for innovation, it cannot come at the cost of pedestrian safety.
Even if these startups meant for their scooters to be riden on the road, and
not the sidewalk (It's ILLEGAL to ride a motorized vehicle on the sidewalk of
San Francisco[1] ) only a small minority of the riders seem to be following
it. I've seen so many riding it on the sidewalks.

[1] Source: Reminder: It Is Illegal to Ride Scooters On City Sidewalks =>
[https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/1/11831080/scooters-
sidewalks-i...](https://sf.curbed.com/2016/6/1/11831080/scooters-sidewalks-
illegal-fines-transportation)

~~~
conanbatt
My main concern walking down market street is the drug traffickers having
fights for the payday loans corner, human shit, needles and sick and mentally
deranged people walking about.

I wish scooters made the top 5 public safety issues.

~~~
justboxing
This is also a straw-man argument.

~~~
praneshp
Why is it a strawman argument? A cent spent on this is a cent not spent on the
top 5 issues, no?

