Scooter firms get a lesson in manners
The scooters
first descended on San Francisco like bees on a hot dog stand roof: they caused
annoyance, inconvenience and fascination - before ultimately having to be
cleaned up by city officials.
On Thursday
those San Francisco officials made a big call: punishing the big players in
scooters who chose not to seek permission to operate, while rewarding those
which did.
It was in
March when Bird, Lime and Spin, backed by millions of dollars, placed hundreds of
scooters all over the city - assuming that seeking forgiveness would be the
best approach.
It wasn’t.
Their hopes of an Uber-esque explosion - whereby the new tech became so popular
no-one would dare ban it for fear of a revolt - were dashed when San Francisco
said “Enough!” and ordered the scooters off the streets.
The San
Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) said it wasn’t opposed to
scooters. It was just that the companies had to play within the city’s rules
and desires over safety, reliability and accessibility. Firms that wanted to
get a piece of this new opportunity were invited to submit their proposals. The
best would be picked for a trial. Twelve applied.
The SFMTA
has now announced the winners. Lime and Bird, considered the leading names in
on-demand scooters, were told they weren’t good enough.
On several
key criteria, they apparently came up short. Neither firm demonstrated a
satisfactory plan for helping low-income residents use the service. Nor did the
companies have a good strategy, the SFMTA felt, for promoting the use of
helmets. There was also not enough being done to stop riders misbehaving - or
for banning those who did. Spin fared slightly better, but it too was deemed
unsatisfactory.
Instead, the
two firms awarded a one-year permit were Scoot and Skip. Scoot is already
well-known to the people of the city having operated a moped rental service.
Skip less so - it’s a scooter company that launched first in Washington DC
before moving on to Portland, Oregon. It’s also testing in San Jose, Oakland
and Berkeley.
That’s far
fewer cities than the dozens offered by Lime and Bird. Indeed, Lime accused the
SFMTA of choosing "inexperienced scooter operators that plan to learn on
the job, at the expense of the public good”.
"I
don’t think that’s true,” said Tom Maguire, director of SFMTA’s sustainable
streets division. "These are operators with a proven track record.”
‘Being
patient'
When I
reached Skip’s chief executive by phone on Thursday, he said his company’s slow
roll-out wasn’t just intentional - it was polite.
"You
know, starting your process off by working with cities often means waiting and
being patient before putting scooters on the ground,” Sanjay Dastoor told me.
“We're based
in San Francisco, but we actually first launched our scooters in Washington DC
- and that's because we were able to work with DC to create a permit pilot
programme for electric scooter sharing.
"It's
always been our intention from the beginning to work with cities collaboratively
as the first step.”
In San
Francisco, where the general populace hates tech more than you might think, the
scooters became a symbol of immense arrogance.
While Uber
was hugely disruptive, they were just cars. The scooters were a new sight,
stored in places designed for pedestrians, and in your way whether you used
them or not. In just over one month, residents logged 1,900 complaints with the
city.
"Complaints
ranged from scooters blocking sidewalk access to unsafe riding in the public
right-of-way,” the SFMTA said.
"San
Francisco Public Works had to impound more than 500 scooters that were blocking
sidewalks or otherwise improperly parked.”
Mr Maguire
told the tech firms they must innovate to solve some of the problems scooters
had created. In awarding the trials, the SFMTA said it was impressed by Scoot’s
plan to "use swappable batteries instead of manually taking the scooters
off the street for regular recharging”, which it said would reduce congestion.
The scooters are charged by a network of people who drive around and pick them
up, sometimes to be charged in front rooms, as I experienced myself recently.
Skip
proposed a plan to give a “50% discount for low-income users” and training in
maintenance and management. Other ideas from Skip include incentives, like ride
credits, to park the scooters in more favourable locations.
San
Francisco wasn’t the only city making scooter decisions on Thursday.
Santa
Monica, the beautiful beach city near Los Angeles, said it would allow four
companies to take part in a 16-month trial. The Shared Mobility Device
Selection Committee chose Bird, Lime, Lyft and Jump (which is owned by Uber).
In great
contrast to San Francisco, Skip and Scoot performed poorly against Santa Monica’s
criteria, which considered “experience” and “ability to launch” as key factors.
And so it’s
clear each city might make a different call on this one - as well they should.
Every city is different. Creating policies that suit best its residents, rather
than letting technology companies call the shots, is what people should demand
- without fear of being branded “anti-innovation” or luddite.
What
scooters could represent, you might hope, is a shift from technology companies
wearing rapid disruption as badge of honour, and instead displaying a modicum
of respect for the institutions set up to protect and serve society. The streets
are paid for by us, not them.
And if tech
companies don’t see it that way, city officials are at least showing signs of
adapting to the challenges, having been caught on the back foot by the
ride-sharing boom.
"I
think the change of attitude has been that we will continue to support and
welcome innovation,” Mr Maguire says. “But we’ve been much more proactive in
defining what the public interest is."
Comments