Boston looks to require registration, insurance for third-party food deliverers in bid to curb roadway, sidewalk mayhem

the Boston Delivers program, which has ended by the way, "aims to improve safety on our streets by reducing the size, speed, and environmental impacts of delivery vehicles." Sounds like Mayor You wants to solve a problem before you've collected data on it? Sounds like you're looking to make some subjective decisions about this. Ready, FIRE... Aim! I sure hope that imaginary pedestrian you threw in front of a delivery vehicle just now, to distract from your specious naysaying, survives.

Yes, she's in her re-election campaign and this is an issue that's universally felt and a good starting solution. Those who demand registration and insurance (mainly her critics like you!) are getting what they want, which will help hold SOMEONE responsible for when there are crashes and so if you are hurt by one of these riders it won't cost you an arm and a leg.

The Boston Deliver's program was also aimed SPECIFICALLY at easing the issue of double parking and inner city traffic, both also huge issues felt universally and brought up regularly by critics. The program had nothing to do with two-cylinder motorcycles which are predominantly fueling the issue, as it specifically was a program incentivizing low-speed e-cargo bikes, an entirely different vehicle.

The issue here is that these delivery companies which have blown up in popularity post-2020 demand drivers deliver as fast as possible and have no monitor for safety. Using motorcycles and breaking laws always means faster delivery times which these companies and their customers love. The companies don't want to hand over any driver data because they KNOW that their drivers are delivering at illegally fast speeds. It is the COMPANIES that are causing the problem, and that's why the city is targeting them.

When services/products are only available for disabled folks or only targeted toward disabled folks, they are typically ridiculously expensive and impossible to use.

When these things are marketed toward everyone, they magically become affordable and user-friendly.

Keep in mind as well that a lot of these services provide accessibility for people who wouldn't even qualify for disability-specific programs. My neighbor is a single parent of an elementary-aged child with multiple severe disabilities who lives at home. They don't qualify for any sort of errand-running or homemaking assistance, as the parent isn't disabled and those aren't considered tasks that a child is responsible for. But if the kid has had a day filled with bodily fluids and meltdowns, the parent is not going to pack up kid and all their equipment to go to the laundrymat or go buy dinner for an exhausted family. There are apps that will do those things affordably though.

A coworker with chronic illness manages a 40-hour job, only because we're massively flexible, and because they have a home life in which they can go home and crash most days. They qualify for basically no disability services - if you can hold down a job, you can manage a household, right? No, they can't, especially if they've used up all their body and mind resources at work. They can't afford to hire highly skilled folks who run full-time assistance businesses, and their routine tasks usually don't actually need a trained tradesperson or home health aide. TaskRabbit/DoorDash/Prime has been a lifesaver in connecting them with college students and young immigrant parents who will run an errand or replace a high lightbulb affordably.

Let's just put in measures to have these services operate safely and respectfully of neighbors, rather than deciding they shouldn't exist because abled people can go buy their own shit.

Because they do a lot of delivery and are not usually part of a large chain. Why not use Chinese restaurants as an example?