San Jose unveils proposed scooter regulations

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/22/san-jose-unveils-proposed-scooter-regulations/

by DrScump • 8 years ago

36 53 8 years ago

mercurynews.com

Hello71• 8 years ago

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• 8 years ago

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• 8 years ago

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

megablast2• 8 years ago

I guess it is the same for when cars damage non-city property, and that happens 1000s of times every day. I bet you are ok with that?

googlemike• 8 years ago

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.

closeparen• 8 years ago

This is what it means to oppose inequality. If we cannot all have something, no one can.

rayiner3• 8 years ago

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.”

Ironically, this is exactly what caused the current de facto local monopolies for broadband. Until Congress made the practice illegal in 1992, cities would grant legal monopolies in exchange for funding various community access channels, serving all neighborhoods, and offering a basic tier of service at very low, regulated prices. The legal monopolies are gone, but the effects of that municial-government idiocy persist to this day.

Cities love granting monopolies in exchange for various concessions, because it’s free money to them. The citizens are taxed indirectly through suppression of competition. It’s a practice that is well-intentioned but misguided. Cities do it because it hides the cost from residents. But it also hides the cost from the government—they have no idea how much extra their residents will pay to secure these social benefits.

gruez3• 8 years ago

How else do you handle natural monopolies? Obviously the best solution would be if the city does it, the only thing that kills it is the political opposition (inefficiency, corruptions, "communism", budget, etc.). The other possibility is a free-for-all, in which companies overbuild (house is serviced by multiple cables from multiple companies) in the densest areas, and the sparse areas get no service at all. When you consider the other options, government granted monopolies is the least bad option. Of course, you need to keep the monopoly in check, eg. regulating the price and/or forcing unbundling.

briandear3• 8 years ago

A scooter isn’t a human right, it’s a luxury. Requiring discounts for low income people is ridiculous. Perhaps San Jose should focus on solving real problems, such as the housing shortages that plague the region.

ggg9990• 8 years ago

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.

chrischen• 8 years ago

That problem was caused by taci regulation as well. Governments forbade ride hailing services to be hailed off the street.

crazy1van• 8 years ago

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.

briandear3• 8 years ago

Lol. I still remember when I drove a taxi back in the day a street in Houston called Coke Street. Nobody would pick up there. And me, being an idiot, picked up a trip there and was promptly robbed at gunpoint. I’m laying on the ground with a gun in the back of my head while thugs took everything from me.

You can make laws, but self-preservation always trumps some misguided attempts by government to legislate “equal access.” When certain areas of town are higher risk than others, it’s immoral to require someone to service that area. I bet a member of city council never once visited that street at 3am, yet those same jackasses are those trying to require a private business owner/employee to put their life at risk in order to assuage their social justic guilt.

The people that can afford private taxis and Uber generally would have a smartphone. The ultra poor aren’t riding in taxis, but taking the bus. We shouldn’t be designing society around the idea that every single person deserves every single product or service available to the general public. Some people won’t get to ride in taxis; that’s just life. Some people can’t eat in restaurants— that doesn’t mean restaurants ought to be required to have a “low income menu.” Access to a taxi or a scooter isn’t a human right, it’s a luxury.

wpietri4• 8 years ago

As long as no one is getting hurt, why can't a company choose its target demographic?

They can, as long as they're not using public resources or imposing significant negative externalities. On the other hand, if you want to be part of the municipal transportation infrastructure, the stated goal of these scooter companies, cities may want a quid pro quo for that.

rayiner3• 8 years ago

If that is the rationale (it isn’t), then the externalities should be priced in fairly for everyone, including those driving private cars. Otherwise you distort the market.

almost_usual3• 8 years ago

Sounds like moving was a good choice for you?

alaskamiller• 8 years ago

What a world we live in, where a company can operate however it would like. Using up public roads and sidewalks, relying on 911 when things go awry, and pushing all the responsibilities to the community.

Things sure sound funny either way.

wpietri4• 8 years ago

Absolutely. It's sort of like "Lemon Socialism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_socialism

llukas• 8 years ago

This is OK as long as they pay their fair share of taxes.

thereare5lights• 8 years ago

As long as no one is getting hurt,

You seem to have missed this line

San Jose resident Doug Smith said he fell and hurt his shoulder after being hit by a scooter speeding outside Martin Luther King Jr. Library in March.

delinka• 8 years ago

Wouldn't that be a bit like blaming Budget Rent a Car when one of their customers driving a rented car hits a pedestrian?

Frqy3• 8 years ago

Why? Because governments like to achieve social outcomes by mandating cross-subsidies from profitable customers to non-profitable customers instead of explicitly funding the outcomes themselves.

However, like the proverbial hole in the bucket, this then requires additional pieces of legislation added over time to keep it working. In this case, to stop newer entrants from cherry picking the profitable customers.

The biggest advantage of direct explicit funding (which can be provided through competitive tendering) is that it allows competition to work better. The other advantage is that the cost of achieving the desired social outcome is explicit as a budget line item, rather than hidden as indirect costs, allowing for a more informed debate about what social outcomes the community wants.

briandear3• 8 years ago

Multilingual customer support is a problem? According to California law, English is the official language. It seems onerous to require companies to support multiple languages. If they choose to do it for a competitive advantage, that should be their choice. This isn’t a government agency that has a vested interest in serving all citizens, this is a private company.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

pascalxus2• 8 years ago

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

gruez3• 8 years ago

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).

pascalxus2• 8 years ago

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.

PretzelFisch2• 8 years ago

I don't think the city representing all of it's citizens expressing their power to try and have services provided equitably to all it's citizens throughout the city is stupid. Sure they are not market driven and screw up the economics for the company. But if you look at what tools the city has available then most of that stupid becomes an understandable compromise.

ibejoeb2• 8 years ago

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

toomuchtodo• 8 years ago

If you provide what amounts to a utility, possibly.

ibejoeb2• 8 years ago

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.

megablast2• 8 years ago

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

wpietri4• 8 years ago

It has happened in some cities. Look at London's congestion charge, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

And in NYC, taxis and psuedo-taxis like Uber and Lyft are indeed paying fees: https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/02/new-york-surcharge-uber-...

It's politically much harder to impose fees like that when people are used to something being free. But there's no reason for them to repeat that mistake with novel things like scooters.

almost_usual3• 8 years ago

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

dionidium• 8 years ago

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...

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).

jseliger• 8 years ago

Every time I see these absurd city government efforts to strangle human-sized personal vehicles, I think of "Wow. Look at These Astounding Photos of Abandoned Dockless Vehicles in America." https://slate.com/business/2018/04/astounding-photos-capture...

heliophobicdude• 8 years ago

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

mathattack• 8 years ago

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.

MakerWorld2• 8 years ago

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

MakerWorld2• 8 years ago

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

dogruck• 8 years ago

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.

Xcelerate• 8 years ago

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.

San Jose unveils proposed scooter regulations

Related Stories