Posts Tagged ‘enforcement’

The Anatomy of the Great SFPD SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY Speed Trap on Fulton

Friday, September 11th, 2015

Here it is, looking west at around 37th Avenue:

7J7C3581 copy

And here’s what you should be looking at – the aging SFPD SUV with radar on the left, the 30 MPH speed limit sign in the middle, and the SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH / SENIOR CITIZEN FACILITY signs on the right:

7J7C3581a copy

Read all about it here, courtesy of a disgruntled Prius driver what got a ticket last year, when the speed limit zones on this stretch of Fulton went 35-25-35. As you can see, these days it goes 30-25-30, but the concept’s the same.

One would think SFGov would want to put in a few more traffic signals in this area, but one would be wrong.

Anyway, here’s the perspective from inside a police car via Stanley Roberts of People Behaving Badly fame: Fulton 500 Speedway.


Friday, August 28th, 2015

Well, I suppose it’s three peds, actually. Now let’s see how they do:

7J7C2396 copy

See that?

7J7C2411 copy

The two peds on the left act properly and the jogger ped does not.

As per usual…

There’s room for improvement at this intersection, SFGov/SFMTA.

Just saying.

This is What an SFPD Pedestrian Enforcement Action Looks Like at Oak and Masonic, Where Peds are Injuring Themselves Lately

Wednesday, July 22nd, 2015

The past few months we’ve had at least three jaywalkers/jayjoggers blow across Masonic on the north side of Oak against the ped signal only to end up getting hit and injured by a vehicle.

Therefore, Park Station had a pedestrian-focused enforcement action* a few days ago.

Here you go, here’s a Stanfoo grad hopping down the bunny trail – right past a cop and into traffic about 15 seconds too late (assuming you’re legally allowed to run into a crosswalk, even with a green**):

P1260182 copy

Guess what – no ticket for her. Not even a warning. (Dude just told me he was specifically out there to hand out tickets, oh well. Maybe he was saving his energy for more flagrant violations, IDK)

Oh, here we go – here’s a ped red citation on the south side of Oak:

P1260198 copy

On It Goes…

*I’ll tell you, I’ve never seen an SFPD ped-only enforcement action in all my quarter-century plus on the Streets of San Francisco. I’ve seen numerous cyclistfocused and driver-focused actions, but never for peds. 

**There are nuances here. Is this crosswalk part of a “wilderness trail” ala Masonic at nearby Fell? I know not. 

Joggers in the Panhandle Have Less Than a 10% Chance of Getting a Green Light at Oak and Masonic, So That’s Why They Jaywalk

Tuesday, July 14th, 2015

From Hoodline:

Two Pedestrians Injured In Oak & Masonic Collision

And that comes on the heels of this, back in April:

Pedestrian Struck By Vehicle At Masonic & Oak

The way our SFMTA has this intersection set up now is that joggers only have about 7 seconds to start crossing Masonic during a 75 second signal cycle. Assuming they don’t purposefully speed up or slow down to catch their green, that means they have less than a 10% chance of not encountering a red signal for crossing. Human nature being what it is, people jog across against the light and the resulting accident is the jogger’s fault. Check it:

Anyway, that’s why so many people are getting hit by cars at this intersection.

For whatever reason, the SFPD isn’t motivated to enforce the CA Vehicle Code upon peds, so this is the result.

If you believe in ped safety, you’d be in favor of a ped enforcement action here, to learn the joggers. OTOH, if you get paid to promote ped “rights,” then you’d disfavor a ped enforcement action here – you’d bend over backwards to displace blame. I mean, these peds aren’t “mistakenly” jaywalking, they’re doing it on purpose, right?

Choose or lose…

SFMTA Update: New Market Street Turn Restrictions to be “Enforced by SFMTA Parking Control Officers and the SFPD?”

Thursday, June 25th, 2015

1. Well, here’s the news:

“The paint crew began restriping at Hyde Street in preparation for the turn restrictions yesterday (June 23rd), just a week after board approval. The paint crew will continue their work through July along with the sign and meter shops, to install the turn restriction signage and loading zones respectfully. It is expected that the work for the turn restrictions, loading zones, and painted safety zones will be complete by early to mid-August. The signs will be bagged until all are complete, at which time the turn restrictions will go into effect, and will be enforced by SFMTA parking control officers and SFPD.”

I can sort of see how the SFMTA is able to enforce CA’s “block the box” law, as the drivers cited are literally parking in intersections, sometimes for as long as a minute.*

But, I can’t see how the SFMTA is going to be able to “enforce” the coming turn restrictions on Market Street.

What am I missing here?

Is this simply the clumsy SFMTA talking bad agin? We’ll see.

2. And since we’re here at the above link, look at what the SFMTA considers an example of a “news article” – it’s some dude on Medium. What the SFMTA means to say is here are some news articles plus links to fawning supporters, those who’d never pointy out that we operate the slowest, least-efficient big-city transit system in America. I mean how wude for ppl to say that, right?

3. Ah, what else. Hey, SFMTA! Why not now ban SFMTA taxis from making the turns you just banned Uber, Lyft and the other TNC’s from making? Hear me out – we’d be doing it for safety. And actually, the actual position of Uber and Lyft is that taxis should be similarly banned from making these restricted turns. SFMTA board members complaining about the “nightmare” of enforcement should be placated – if you see a taxi making this turn, give it a ticket just like you do with all the other cars. Easy peasy. Oh what’s that, you don’t want to, you’d have to change some rule? Well, then why not do that? Don’t you care about safety?

4. And, what else. Oh yeah, what about handicapped drivers? They’ll be getting four new spaces to park on Market betwixt 3rd and 8th (or between 8th and 3rd, as most people like to phrase it, so I guess my brain’s not hooked up right) but then they won’t be able to make the turn onto Market to get to the spaces? Or, maybe you can make these turns? But then you’d be in a private vehicle, right? I don’t get it. The SFMTA of 2014 wasn’t afraid to discuss this issue, but the SFMTA of 2015 is, apparently.

5. And hey, what about MUNI’s accidents along this stretch of road? Let’s find the stat here, direct from the SFMTA. Oh what’s that, Gentle Reader, is your link busted too. Well, who busted it – the SFMTA itself? Why’s that? In fact, the info on that web page is gone forever from – it’s down the Memory Hole, Comrade. So let’s go way back, via the Wayback Machine:

“Between 2012 and 2013, there were 162 reported injury collisions on Market between Van Ness Avenue and Steuart Street, including 2 fatalities. 33% of collisions involve Muni.

So, help me out here. What percentage of vehicles on this part of Market are MUNI vehicles? I’m thinking it’s way less than 10%. (You ever wait for the outbound buses? Just count the number of cars and taxis and cyclists what pass you by.) And yet, a third of the collisions involve MUNI? Hey SFMTA, don’t you have a problem here? Hey SFMTA, aren’t you yourselves a part of the problem?

Just asking…

*Now this is kind of stupid, as SFGov is profiting off of an intersection that it’s in control of, an intersection near the foot of Bush Street what’s managed, by SFGov, poorly, IMO. Nevertheless, the oblivious suburbanites heading home shouldn’t be blocking the box light cycle after light cycle.

Wow, SFPD Enforcement Action at Oak and Masonic – Massive Number of Luxury / Electric Cars Pulled Over, Over and Over

Monday, March 23rd, 2015

Here’s what it looks like – an SFPD enforcement action, this latest one at Oak and Masonic. (Note modern-looking SFPD Kawasaki Concours 14P (which looks to me like a CHP BMW) juxtaposed with the ancient Harley Davidsons what make up most of the Motor Patrol.)

7J7C4032 copy

This action meant that every driver who commited some infraction turning left from inbound Oak onto northbound Masonic got pulled over at the Masonic Chevron.

One supposes that the new left turn arrow phase at this intersection was the instigation for the enforcement action. (Back in the day, traffic didn’t back up during the Morning Drive due to the Double Left Turn that’s no longer there, owing to concerns over ped safety, one supposes.)

All right, here’s your money shot, here’s your scene at Fell and Masonic with a brace of drivers, drivers who “know” they’re special, so fucking special, you know, your Prius hybrid drivers, your Range Rover drivers, and your new funky BMW i3 (with absurdly tall, absurdly narrow Conestoga wagon wheels) electric car drivers:

7J7C4013 copy

That was the scene I initialy came upon and this is the same area as I left. Note the all-black Mercedes Benz, Audi and Lexus. It’s not a coincidence that the drivers of all these cars got pulled over at the same time, just saying:

7J7C4056 copy

Of course, the SFPD will also pull you over if they notice you doing something wrong going the other way, but the funny thing was that the two cars I saw getting pulled over heading south on Masonic, against the current, heading towards the Financial, were normal ones, like VW Golfs. (I’ll ask you, should you ever be proud of your car? The answer is that no you shouldn’t be, because Pride Goeth Before The Painful Traffic Ticket What’s Going to End Up Costing Your Four Figures. JMO.)

Moving on, to this – peds coming up to chat up the cops to cheer them on.

7J7C4035 copy

Now I’ll tell you, I didn’t see any driver run a red during the time I was at these intersection taking photos of the enforcement action, but I was paying more attention to the cops as opposed to the drivers. And I’ll note that sometimes the traffic lights would cycle red green red green red green without anyone getting pulled over.

I’ll leave you with this, my misfocused shot of a ped giving a black power salute to the SFPD to thank them for this latest enforcement action:

7J7C4019 copy

Yakking on a Cell Phone While Driving, the SFPD, and You: The Meaning of “Primary Enforcement Authority”

Friday, June 20th, 2014

SFPD officer to woman driving this pony car, after handing her a citation:

“Why don’t you do me a favor and stay off the phone?”

Enforcement. The police have primary enforcement authority for a violation of this law. That means that an officer can pull you over just for this infraction.”

Cycling Hipsters Busted by SFPD on Market Near Fifth, San Francisco’s Hotspot for Bicycle Violation Crackdowns

Wednesday, November 28th, 2012

This is the new normal, with the SFPD routinely handing out tickets to bicycling hipsters on Market at or near the Powell Street turnaround crosswalk.

Like this, yesterday, when MACAFRAMA and fedora LEGO bag here got cold busted for, one presumes,  running a red light and/or listening to tunes using both the left and right earbuds:

Click to expand

When will we learn?

A Tip for Cyclists on Market Street: When Getting Cited by the SFPD, Make Sure to Check Your Email

Monday, May 14th, 2012

‘Cause that will save you time when you finally make it to the office.


Cold busted:

Click to expand

OMG, It’s a Huge, Brand-New, 137-Page Cycling Safety Study from the Mineta Transportation Institute – Here’s Your Free PDF

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Here it is:

Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety(PDF 2.2MB)

Big, in’nt?

And oh, did I say “brand-new?” What I meant to say was slightly dated. Check it:

Click to expand

(“Procedural review?” The Ghost of Mr. Anderson lives on. Injunction junction, what was your function?)

Now, realize first that everything in San Jose is named for Norm Mineta, and here you go:

“Study Shows How To Improve Bicycle Commuter Safety; SF Bay Area, Portland, OR Are Case Studies

Mineta Transportation Institute’s free report evaluates risks, safety, planning, enforcement and more.

SAN JOSE, Calif., Feb. 22, 2012 — The Mineta Transportation Institute ( has published a report that leverages literature review and case studies in the San Francisco Bay area and Portland, OR to recommend ways to improve safety for bicycle commuters. Promoting Bicycle Commuter Safety includes chapters on risks, application of social psychology to bike safety, dimensions of effective practices, and more. The report also includes illustrative tables and photos. Principal investigator was Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., with several chapter contributors. The 157-page report is available for free PDF download from

“A basic premise in this report is that cycling should be encouraged because as the number of cyclists increases, the attention of motorists and safety improve,” said Dr. Osland. “However, an important caveat is that the number of cyclists must be commensurate with the infrastructure built for cycling to enhance their safety. This report discusses and evaluates various bicycle commuter settings against a framework of what are called the 5 Es – engineering, education, enforcement, encouragement, and evaluation.”

Dr. Osland noted that, of those five categories, engineering is essential because the infrastructure is vital to protecting cyclists. Education is emphasized because safety is the central focus of the report. A number of case studies was included, and the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in the Portland OR area was prominently featured as an effective example of the “education” and “encouragement” dimensions of the 5 Es. The report concludes with a discussion, and it notes the need for continued research or evaluation, with particular reference to using the social psychological model.

As part of the literature review, researchers found a large amount of crucial data, including:

—  In 2008 males accounted for 87 percent of bicycling fatalities in the
U.S. More cyclists are male, but females may follow the rules more.

 —  Bicycle accidents that involved a motor vehicle were a very small
percentage of all bicycle accidents; however, the vast majority of fatal
bicycle accidents involved a vehicle. This is why engineers suggest
keeping cyclists separate from vehicles.

—  Too many cyclists violate the rules of the road, yet enforcement is
often lacking.

 —  Driver aggression, drivers “squeezing past” bicycles when there isn’t
enough room for them to safely pass, and cyclists riding poorly were
mentioned as problems in the Berkeley surveys.

—  A lack of empirical data on outcomes makes it difficult to identify true
best practic­es regarding safety education programs. However, wearing
helmets, maximizing conspicuity, and maintaining one’s bicycle in good
working condition while following the rules of the road seem logical.

Tables in the report include those detailing bicycle rider injuries and fatalities; risks associated with riding against traffic, with traffic, and on sidewalks; bicycle stress level values and components; comparison of several bicycle trip factors in the U.S. and Northern Europe; and more.

Illustrations include before-and-after photos of street redesign; examples of safety posters; a children’s bike rodeo; an example of a “bike garden” in Switzerland, where cyclists can practice safety skills; bike safety web pages; street markings and signs; and more. Of special note are the maps detailing the city of Berkeley, Calif. bicycle boulevard network, built on existing and newly-created calmed streets.

The complete 157-page report, including an application of models to the 5 Es, is available for free PDF download at


Asbjorn Osland, Ph.D., is professor of management at San Jose State University. He received his doctorate and MBA from Case Western Reserve University. He also holds a Master of Social Work and a post-baccalaureate in accounting. He has taught full time since 1993. Before that he worked in Latin America and West Africa for 13 years for Chiquita Brands, for ten years in several countries for Plan International, and for the Peace Corps in Colombia. His research interests include case writing, business and society, and international HRM, with over 60 published articles, cases and chapters, and a comparable number of conference presentations..


The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) conducts research, education, and information and technology transfer, focusing on multimodal surface transportation policy and management issues, especially as they relate to transit. MTI was established by Congress in 1991 as part of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and was reauthorized under TEA-21 and again under SAFETEA-LU. The Institute has been funded by Congress through the US Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Research and Innovative Technology Administration, by the California Legislature through the Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and by other public and private grants and donations, including grants from the US Department of Homeland Security. DOT selected MTI as a National Center of Excellence following competitions in 2002 and 2006. The internationally respected members of the MTI Board of Trustees represent all major surface transportation modes. MTI’s focus on policy and management resulted from the Board’s assessment of the transportation industry’s unmet needs. That led directly to choosing the San Jose State University College of Business as the Institute’s home. Visit