Posts Tagged ‘safety’

An Endangered Species: The Solitary Squad Car Used by UC Hastings Law School “Public Safety Officers” in the Twitterloin

Wednesday, May 18th, 2016

This is it – they have just this one, as seen on McAllister:

IMG_5650 copy

All the deets

“UC Hastings-UCSF Public Safety Partnership Proposal – Presenting the initial UC Hastings proposal to replace the college’s Public Safety Department with the University of California San Francisco Police Department.

A Public Meeting was held this morning to present the initial UC Hastings proposal to replace the college’s Public Safety Department with the University of California San Francisco Police Department (UCSFPD). All UC Hastings students, faculty, and staff were invited to attend.

UC Hastings General Counsel Elise Traynum welcomed attendees and introduced the proposal.

“The UC Hastings community is in need of additional protection which can only be provided by a police department,” said Traynum. “An advantage to entering into an agreement with UCSFPD is access to a broad array of basic police services and support services that the college cannot fund.”

“It is proposed that UCSFPD would handle all street patrols, investigations, and crime prevention services, emergency management functions in the event of life-threatening disasters, homeland security and related community policing responsibilities,” said Traynum.

Traynum also outlined options for the five affected UC Hastings Public Safety officer’s unit members, listing four possibilities: 1) Officers may be hired as police officers for UCSFPD if they meet requisite qualifications; or 2) Officers may be hired as security guards, or security guard supervisors, for UCSFPD if they meet required qualifications; or, 3) Officers may be hired for positions at UC Hastings if they meet requisite qualifications; or, 4) for Officers who do not qualify for jobs with the UCSFPD or alternative position with UC Hastings, or officers who elect to not apply for these, the College would consider buying them out, at an amount to be determined.

Finally, Traynum underscored that reducing labor costs is not the motivation for contracting out public safety. “The motivation for contracting out public safety is to give the UC Hastings community access to a broad array of basic police services and support services that the college could not fund.”

UCSFPD Chief Mike Denson then presented “A Study of a Public Safety Partnership” (click here to view), and highlighted the department’s commitment to safety and security externally and internally, including the physical and emotional well-being of students.

Time for public comment was provided following the presentation, and the UC Hastings Public Safety Officers Association (PSOA) and representatives were also offered the opportunity to present a counter proposal at the meeting.

Acting Chancellor & Dean David Faigman called the input “enormously helpful” and laid out two basic principles he and the college will follow in making this decision. First, that any change would be to create a more secure and safer campus. Second, that UC Hastings will do the best we can for our current officers. He also noted that UC Hastings does not plan to raise tuition to improve safety and security. “If in the end it doesn’t make sense for our campus, we’re not going to do it,” concluded Faigman. “And if it does, we’ll do so in a conscientious manner.”

The college will hold a follow-up public meeting in April to present its final proposal. Details will be publicized widely.

MEDIA CONTACT
Alex A.G. Shapiro
Director of External Relations
UC Hastings College of the Law
Office: (415) 581-8842
Cell: (415) 813-9214
Email: shapiroa@uchastings.edu

Our Sad-Sack SFMTA, a Part of the SFGov, Violates SF’s Sign Posting Rules to Advertise Itself to You

Monday, May 16th, 2016

Here are the rules you have to obey.

And now here comes our SFMTA to remind you how great the SFMTA is:

7J7C6072 copy

7J7C6088 copy

I’ll tell you, I’m meh about this project for the 3000 feet of Masonic betwixt Fell and Geary and I’d still be meh about it even if the money earmarked came from planet Mars for free and even if all the work required could be done in just one day.

I don’t think Masonic will be “transformed.” I don’t think we’ll end up with a “new” Masonic.

I don’t think I like our SFMTA promoting itself like this…

Anyway, our SFMTA seta a bad example, but here are the rules what applies to you, Joan Q. Public:

“Tips for legally posting signs on public property

To legally place a sign on a utility pole, it must:

Be less than 11 inches in height

No higher than 12 feet from the ground

Conform to the shape of the pole

Be attached with tape or other non-adhesive material such as twine, string or other non-metal banding material

Include a legible posting date in the lower right hand corner

Be removed after 10 days, if the sign is promoting a date specific event

Be removed within 70 days of the posting date

Not be installed on historic street light poles*, traffic signal poles or traffic directional sign poles.

* Historic street light poles are on these streets:

Market Street from 1 Market to 2490 Market

Mission Street from 16th Street to 24th Street

Grant Avenue from Bush Street to Broadway Street

The Embarcadero from King Street to Jefferson Street

Lamp Posts on Fisherman’s Wharf from Hyde to Powell

Howard Street from 3rd Street to 4th Street

Lamp Posts within Union Square

Mason Street from Market to Sutter

Sutter Street from Mason to Kearny

Kearny Street from Bush to Market

A Tale of Two Recent Photos: Distracted Driving – Supervisor (and “Urbanist!”) Scott Wiener(?) + SFMTA PCO + Uber Driver with Handicapped Placard

Monday, April 11th, 2016

Let’s start with Future Senator and Current Urbanist Supervisor Scott Wiener, you know, if this from KevMo is accurate.

Capturefsfddd copy

I know why someone Living In America would own a car, but it’s surprising to see a sanctimonious Urbanist operating one. Is this aging Nissan his car? Wow. Does Jane Kim do this? IDTS.

Moving on, to this. Some deets on the PCO here and now onto the Uber driver. Uh, what’s he doing? Is he holding a phone up high so his eyes can easily switch back and forth from his device and The Road Ahead? IDK. And hey, what would be a nicer gift for an Uber Lyft driver than a handicapped placard? I’ve never seen this. Gee, I bet that really cuts down on the parking hassles one might have Ubering about Frisco.

7J7C3754 copy

Anyway, this is How We Live Now in 2016

Exactly Which Handheld Device is This MUNI DPT PCO Operating Illegally While Driving? – Are SFMTA Quotas Really This Bad?

Thursday, April 7th, 2016

IDK, is this illegal? She was driving her INTERCEPTOR scooter about 20 MPH inbound on JFK in GGP the other day.

Is this the machine what allows her to ticket parkers? She doesn’t have enough time to process tickets whilst dismounted?

7J7C3756 copy

Or is this some kind of GPS, which might be legal to operate in CA these days, based on the latest judicial interpretations, you know, maybe? Or it’s a cell phone and she’s calling in an emergency that’s important enough to call in but not important enough to stop for, and then it’s legal?

And there aren’t quotas for PCOs at the SFMTA? Perhaps they’re just targets and guidelines?

What kind of operation is this?

Our MASONIC AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT is a GO for Mid-2016, Apparently – The Pros and Cons of This Grand Mal Projet

Thursday, January 14th, 2016

Here you go, some non-pdf images that ppl will actually be able to find in six months, you know, after this official link will no longer be working, for whatever reason:

masonic1 copy

Y dos:

masonic2 copy

Getting Ready for Construction After a multi-year, community-driven planning and design process to create a safer and better Masonic Avenue, the city is pleased to announce that construction on the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project will begin in mid-2016!

After all the delays, one doesn’t know how the SFMTA knows that it will actually get going. IRL, what the SFMTA is saying here is that it’s PLANNING on getting going in mid-2016 or later. I’d prolly lose any and all exclamation points as well. Also, instead of “community-driven,” I’d read that as SFMTA-driven. As far as safety is concerned, we’ll have to wait and see. The primary effect will be to slow this part of Masonic down down down. In recent years, pedestrian / cyclist deaths on Masonic have been caused by two severely drunk drivers, and one jaywalking pedestrian. So, will this happily-named “Streetscape!” pork-barrel project prevent DUI drivers? Nope, not at all. Will it lessen the bad effects of drunk driving? I srsly doubt it, but we’ll see. And, since this project’s northern border is at Geary, it will necessarily have little to no effect upon jaywalking Trader Joe’s shoppers at the top of the hill area. As far as whether Masonic will become “better,” well that’s debatable. I’ll concede it might be a better street for some. Of course, the SFMTA, being the inefficient political beast it has become, won’t never concede nothing nohow. It won’t even agree to test out how much these changes will slow down traffic, even for one day. What you’d do is cone off the slow lane of inbound Masonic one random morning and then watch the traffic back up and then spend your time explaining away all the consequences. Obviously, the SFMTA doesn’t want to do that, so it makes excuses. Fine. I’d expect nothing else from it.

San Francisco Public Works will be the managing the construction phase and is in the process of hiring a contractor. This project will bring a variety of new features to Masonic Avenue, including a landscaped median, better lighting, an improved sewer system, raised bikeways, bus stop enhancements, and a new public plaza at Geary Boulevard.

It will also take away some things. What are those, SFMTA? Oh, you don’t want to say? OK fine. One of these effects will be a slow down of MUNI on Masonic during the morning and evening drives. But, because they’ll put in some bus shelters, public “access” to transit will be “improved.” This makes no sense. How much will MUNI be slowed? We’ll have to wait and see. And then, the SFMTA will step up a few years later to spend more pork, more of The People’s Money, to “tune-up” Masonic. So that’s a double-win for the SFMTA, even though it’s not clear that the current plan will be a net “improvement.”

These enhancements are all in support of San Francisco’s Vision Zero goal of eliminating all traffic deaths in the city.

This is a simple definition of VisionZero. The complicated version is that, somehow, without really even trying, SF will miraculously eliminate all transportation deaths in SF County by the year 2024 and all in years future. If you acknowledge that this impossible goal is in fact impossible, then there are many positions at the SFMTA for which you’d be ineligible. Oh well.

If you have any questions about construction, please contact Alex Murillo at Alex.M.Murillo@sfdpw.org or 415.558.5296. Parking Management The SFMTA’s recent launch of Residential Permit Parking Area Q has helped keep parking available for local residents and businesses—additional evaluation data will be available in the coming months.

As a general rule, our SFMTA tends to favor Masonic Avenue area residents vs. the current users of Masonic and to a ridiculous degree. JMO.

To offset some of the parking being repurposed…

What would a neutral word be for “repurposed?” Would it be “eliminated?” Yes it would.

by the Masonic Avenue Streetscape Project, the SFMTA is evaluating nearby streets for opportunities to increase on-street parking supply and will be engaging the community for feedback.

So, our SFMTA has been saving up its energy to “create” parking spaces exactly at the time it wants to hush complaints of eliminating parking spaces? Apparently. Looking at the map on the second page, some of these blocks would appear to be non-starters. Our SFMTA certainly approves of illegal double-parking  on Central Ave, but this map would make a hash of that, oh well.

These efforts are in addition to the 20 spots already added on Fulton between Central and Baker as part of the separate Muni Forward 5 Fulton Rapid Project.

Our SFMTA boasts of putting in bike lanes on Fulton, and then pushing them towards the center of Fulton, but then come two blocks of 90 degree parking, the least cyclist-friendly thing I can imagine. But this placated residents and that appears to be one of our SFMTA’s Most Important Things.

And on it goes. If you want to read about Masonic, start here and spend all day if you want, I don’t care. Anyway, that’s the update for 2016. Traffic’s going to get a lot worse as soon as parts of Masonic start getting shut down and then it won’t get much better after construction is completed, oh well.

If you have any questions about potential added parking near Masonic Avenue, please contact Maurice Growney at Maurice.Growney@sfmta.com or 415.701.4549. For more information: sfmta.com/masonic MASONIC AVENUE STREETSCAPE PROJECT N Masonic Avenue Area Proposed Parking Changes Potential Back-In Angled Parking Potential 90 Degree Parking Forthcoming Back-In Angled Parking (Legislated 2012)

Here’s Why People at This Train Station in Japan Don’t Fall / Get Pushed Onto the Tracks – Could MUNI / BART Afford This?

Friday, January 8th, 2016

Here’s how things look in Japan in 2016 at a nothingburger, random train station:

43d31d42-9702-4409-88e2-f43d9bfb359f copy

What do you call these, pocket doors?

Hey BART! Are you up to speed on this?

Imagine installing these automatic safety doors at just one station, like at Powell. It would be an implementation nightmare, just saying.

(OTOH, those cool-looking exposed bulb chandeliers, well putting those into a BART would be a snap…)

Anyway, hop to it BART/MUNI – get on this, like stat.

A Hobbit Jail Under the Stairs Near Post Street – Not a Good Place To Be When the Next Big One Comes

Tuesday, December 8th, 2015

Redeveloping the Fillmore was a horrible horrible idea is what I think when I see all the concrete and clay and general decay around Post and Buchanan.

Oh look, a big parking garage – this is the last place you’d want to be in an earthquake, but there’s no money to fix anything, oh well.

And this cubby hole here needs to be locked up, else people would sleep here, of course:

IMG_8786 copy

On It Goes…

19th Avenue is the New Alternative to Poorly Designed and Administered Sunset Boulevard, Believe It Or Not

Wednesday, October 21st, 2015

Here it is, 19th Avenue in the Sunset / Parkside, with traffic going about 38-40 MPH through green light after green light in sections marked for 30 MPH:

7J7C8975 copy

Historically, Sunset has been the alternative to congested 19th, but things have changed lately. Of course, Sunset was a bad idea, a big wide boulevard with pointless medians up the yingyang. The question now is what to do about it.

Oh well.

Profiles in Courage: SF Bicycle Coalition Claims “NO AFFILIATION” with Critical Mass – And Yet – Supposed Safety Organization

Wednesday, September 2nd, 2015

Let’s take a look:

“‘Critical Mass has definitely brought attention to bicycle issues, and we wouldn’t have been able to do it without them,’ said Leah Shahun, executive director of the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition.”

And now, let’s fast forward to today to get this:

SF Bicycle Coalition@sfbike Aug 31 @HansOngchua We heard and have no affiliation, of course. Terrible news, though we appreciate you looping us.

Now srsly, I don’t think people were accusing the SFBC of being “affiliated” with Critical Mass, I think they were looking for the SFBC to disavow the actions of the U-lock attacker.

So to have a blanket response like “no affiliation, of course” [you ignorant fool], well that doesn’t really cut the mustard now, do it.

‘Cause this is coming from a taxpayer-subsidized org, right? A government-funded organization that takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from us for the purpose of bicycle-related safety, and all they can come up with is:

Capturegdggg

OK fine.

Comes now Chris Carlsson to disavow, to fill the void.

What are we spending all our money on, if the SFBC washes its hands of the matter and says, NO COMMENT, like literally to this, to 165k Views and counting?

IDK.

LED Lighting for the Golden Gate Park for “Safety,” But Not Really – Installers Witness Lamps Blazing Away 24-7

Wednesday, August 26th, 2015

SFGov has learned to justify anything and everything as a matter of “safety.”

As here, where LED lights are going in:

7J7C2123 copy

Now IRL, what these LEDs will do is save money, prolly, over time. The connection to safety is tenuous, certainly.

Hey, what’s that in the background? Is it Yet Another Streetlight in the area what’s been on 24-7 for half a year? Yep.

Does SFGov care? Nope.

Are there many other examples of this in the area? Yep.

Oh well.