The motivation behind the idea seems reasonable enough but, as always, the devil will be in the details. Obtaining one of these permits could be as simple as posting a cleanup bond for the case your company fails. Or it could be a giant bureaucratic maze of red tape. Or it could be a ban by another name.
There’s also the question of identifying what is and isn’t “emerging technology”. Arguably the scooter companies could already be liable under well-crafted littering or public nuisance laws[1], or maybe something like incitement to litter. Uber relied on differential rules for street hailing vs. pre-ordered rides to avoid buying taxi medallions in the early days, using only already-licensed car services. Tech companies’ private bus services were/are controversial, and use no new technology at all: just internal combustion, human drivers, fixed routes, and a regular timetable. Which of these would have needed one of the new permits, and would they be able obtain one?
1) I have no idea if today’s version of these laws is capable of this or not.
The laws should be agnostic to whether the technology is emerging or traditional. For example, parking private property on public space should need to be done responsibly whether it's part of a WiFi connected emerging technology startup or not.
And the laws should restrict only the offending behaviour, not all behavior subject to approval.
Centralized permissioning is a terrible way to structure an industry:
1. It encourages rent-seeking by those in and close to the regulatory-body/political-leadership. It's not a coincidence that the region of the US that has seen the fastest income growth over theast 40 years is the suburbs of Washington D.C. and that the wealthiest counties in the US surround Washington DC. The phenomenon of the revolving door between government and highly regulated private industries is a manifestation of rent seeking.
2. It does an enormous amount of collateral damage in the form of onerous barriers to embarking on entirely responsible business initiatives.
3. It reduces accountability for regulators by flipping the burden of proof to the party facing restrictions, and wanting them to be lifted, instead of the regulator wanting to impose the restriction.
> laws should be agnostic to whether the technology is emerging or traditional
In a world where everyone can anticipate the consequences of everything, this would be correct. However, such a world does not exist.
Traditional technology has the benefit of having known social cost/benefit consequences. Emerging technology has no track record, and there is not enough data to perform a proper cost benefit analysis.
A relevant example: Cities have a lot of experience regulating taxis and analyzing how they affect traffic, transportation, public safety, and cost of living. In contrast, the consequences of adding scooters to the streets are unclear. They likely improve transportation options, but they may also slow down vehicular traffic, create public safety hazards, and siphon money away from public transportation systems. A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis may eventually show scooters are a net positive or a net negative. However, because it's an emerging technology, there is not enough data to do such an analysis.
When there is less confidence and data, it's entirely reasonable to take that uncertainty into account when drafting policy. Some localities may choose to be faster adopters, a higher risk tolerance for risk in exchange for faster innovation. Others may have a lower tolerance for risk, preferring to value stability over quick improvements.
Reasonable people can disagree on the appropriate risk tolerance, but regardless, risk of the unknown is still a legitimate factor to weigh when crafting policy.
>>In a world where everyone can anticipate the consequences of everything, this would be correct. However, such a world does not exist.
That's the wrong way to approach the issue of what laws to craft. The action itself should be judged on its own merit, in its cost to society, independent of its connection to other factors that may have negative or positive impacts on society.
The cost to society of an object being place in a pedestrian path way should be measured, regardless of whether that object is a scooter that improves transportation options or a rock that doesn't.
If those imposing negative externalities are made to stop, or made to pay for them, then only those activities that have a net positive impact on society will be economically sustainable.
With the scooter example, if the benefits scooters provide in increasing mobility outweigh the charges levied on scooter rental companies for the costs of increased sidewalk congestion, then the business model will be viable. The cost-benefit analysis should be done by entrepeneurs, not by one set of regulators making all decisions. The regulator's job should be to calculate the negative externalities each action imposes and ensure entrepeneurs pay for them. That in turn will align the financial success of entrepreneurs with the social good.
Each party confining itself to its own role is a more scalable way to organize society than the state attempting to model every factor as part of a large-scale cost-benefit analysis and effectively make business decisions that should be made by numerous private investors with their own capital on the line for their respective business. Central economic planning is not an effective way to organize and run society.
>>Cities have a lot of experience regulating taxis and analyzing how they affect traffic, transportation, public safety, and cost of living.
If cities knew what they were doing, there wouldn't be so many poorly run regulated taxi services.
> The action itself should be judged on its own merit, in its cost to society, independent of its connection to other factors that may have negative or positive impacts on society.
I think you're missing my point. I agree that many policies should largely be measured with an objective cost benefit analysis. However, for emerging technologies, it can be very difficult to accurately perform such a cost benefit analysis. There is less data, and confidence levels are lower.
It's much easier to evaluate the cost/benefit of taxis than scooters simply because there is far more historical data.
My point is that it should not be the job of regulators to do cost-benefit analyses on product categories. It should be to simply measure the cost of a negative externality, in a technology/product agnostic way, and make sure entrepeneurs pay that cost.
The cost-benefit analysis is then done by private parties, in order to avoid losses and maximize profits.
> The cost-benefit analysis is then done by private parties, in order to avoid losses and maximize profits.
This is such a theoretical statements that ignores so many realities. Uber wants to enter a new city. The city has an established taxi industry and policies in place to manage pollution, congestion, housing, and new development. What "private parties" are supposed to do the cost-benefit analysis here? Obviously it's in Uber's interest to move in, but what if that increases pollution or the livability of the city to the existing residents? There are no private parties that are in a position to do a credible and representative analysis of the costs and benefits.
Given the 5 or 6 brands of (mutually incompatible) scooters littering Bay area streets right now this is not such a terrible idea. They weren't declared a public nuisance by heartless bureaucrats (indeed this didn't happen at al where I live): they just started taking up street space and getting in the way of disabled people, people with kids, and anyone needing to push a cart on a sidewalk. I've lost count of the times I've had to move one or more of the things out of the way to get where I was going, where's my check?
There’s also the question of identifying what is and isn’t “emerging technology”. Arguably the scooter companies could already be liable under well-crafted littering or public nuisance laws[1], or maybe something like incitement to litter. Uber relied on differential rules for street hailing vs. pre-ordered rides to avoid buying taxi medallions in the early days, using only already-licensed car services. Tech companies’ private bus services were/are controversial, and use no new technology at all: just internal combustion, human drivers, fixed routes, and a regular timetable. Which of these would have needed one of the new permits, and would they be able obtain one?
1) I have no idea if today’s version of these laws is capable of this or not.