Posts Tagged ‘Scott Wiener’

The “Good” Double-Parkers of Post Street, Six in a Row – But They Aren’t Selfish Church-Goers – One Simple Trick

Friday, November 10th, 2017

So yeah, this sort of looks like, IDK, anywhere in Frisco, like the left hand lane of Bush in the Upper Fillmore where people see fit to park for like five hours at a stretch on weekends  and of course our SFMTA actively makes sure that any cars parked like that don’t get ticketed.)

And it even looks like this at the other end of this block near Steiner, out in front of the giant church where Willie Brown got his start politically back in the ’50’s.

No, this is closer to Fillmore Street. People come (some in UBERs, some in Lyfts, some in short-term rental cars, but most in their own rides), double park for about two minutes to unload, and then they leave. Can you guess what they’re doing?

20171029_134222(0) copy

No, it’s not for the French Laundry you can see there in the middle. It’s for the Goodwill drop-off location you can see on the left.

These people have purchased clothes, drained them of their joy-spark, and now very generously are simply giving them away.

These are the best double parkers in the world.

Now, what could be done. Our SFMTA could paint the Goodwill a drop-off zone by taking out a few parking spaces, but it would prolly want tens of thousands of dollars from Goodwill for that.

Oh well.

(A certain sanctimonious Senator could benefit by visiting the non-eastern sections of his own district once in a while afore he spouts off again about how easy it is for delivery drivers to legally park in Frisco, one might think…)

Why It’s Completely Absurd for the SFMTA to Claim that Carshare Car Rental Means “60,000 Fewer Vehicles on the Street”

Monday, July 31st, 2017

Here it is, from Hoodline:

“Data also showed that 17% of members got rid of their cars after joining a car-sharing company, with as many as 24,000 vehicles sold. When taking into account people who did not purchase cars because of car-sharing, there were as many as 60,000 fewer vehicles on the street.”

Well let’s call horse-shit on this.

So, when did “car-sharing” get started in Frisco – over the past half-decade? So here are the latest stats for AUTOS registered in San Francisco County, per the DMV.

Capturesdfsrrrrr copy

2011: 380,621
2012: 385,442
2013: 397,238
2014: 403,246
2015: 407,656
2016: 413,147

Do you see a trend here? Do you see registered vehicles going up by about 6000-something cars per year, year in and year out? That’s the trend lately, for whatever reason.

So where’s the supposed “60,000 fewer vehicles” kicking in from the SFMTA’s inconsequential program? Does the SFMTA really think we’d have 473,000 registered cars but for its heroic car “share” car rental program?

Obviously, our SFMTA really doesn’t know what’s it’s doing. So why not have an independent agency assess how effective its policies are instead of this, this Pyongyang-inspired Ministry of Truth stuff coming from SFMTA spokesmodels who are obviously just winging it day by day, DJT-style.

You know, what I’m talking about is having somebody around saying, “Is this really true?”

Or, in the case of attaining the goal of VisionZero 2024, which will somehow, by administrative decree, eliminate all transportation mishap injuries by 2024 and through eternity, “Could this possibly be true?”

It’s Official: Frisco Now has More Cars, Drivers Than Ever – DMV Sez We Now Have Over 500,000 Vehicles

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Here it is, your brand-new DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ESTIMATED VEHICLES REGISTERED BY COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2016

2016a copy

The figure on the right shows our full one-half million vehicles.

cf19b3c98d0cf2fcd16480ee05c1a4586725ac37c090a56f68b8a4716612e6c0

Cf. the data for 2015: est_fees_pd_by_county.

Of course this count includes motorcycles and trucks and trailers, but the vast bulk of that is made of plain old cars, the likes of which the people employed at our SFMTA and SFCTA falsely say are now “disappearing” from the streets of San Francisco.

You want another example? How about something like:

“SFMTA officials said this was due to factors including increased compliance from drivers, reduced vehicle ownership…

Simply, your “urbanist” friends are lying to you, or rather, lying to themselves. IRL, car ownership was going up in Frisco back then and it still is now. (Are repeated SFMTA misstatements like this Trump-style lying or Trump-style incompetence? You tell me. Moving on…)

To this: These DMV stats don’t count unregistered vehicles, and rides owned by many many ppl with out-of state-plates who live in town but don’t feel too groovy about paying any kind of annual ad valorem taxes to the CA DMV, and all the many UBER/Lyfts driven by all those new-to-Frisco drivers (how many, 40,000?) who live in Sac and Tracy and Santa Clara.

And let’s see, what other shibboleths can we… oh, Driver Licenses are up too, see?

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES DRIVER LICENSES OUTSTANDING BY COUNTY AS OF DECEMBER 31 OF YEARS LISTED

That’s also brand-new from the DMV. The relevant numbers for Frisco for 2012-2016 are:

2016 copy

(Darn it: My prediction for 2016 was  588,392 instead of the actual 588,228. Close enough.)

But Somebody told you that Young People Don’t Drive Anymore? Sry, Gentle Reader, that’s another misunderstanding. You see, it turned out that the recent recession-related dip in Vehicle Miles Traveled was actually RELATED to a RECESSION.

I’ll cheerfully concede that changes are afoot transportation-wise these days, but I just need to point out that our supposedly all-knowing and all-seeing SFMTASFCTA people have made a lot of mistakes and errors lately. That’s all.

What else. Oh, how about the reason why it still makes sense to own a car in Frisco. Take a look at this character:

11925351_supervisor-scott-wieners-transportation_t69e1c92f

Yes, that’s sanctimonious urbonaut and State Senator Scott Wiener in his aging, gone-to-Hell Nissan. (And of course he won’t cop to this 2016 incident of getting caught and photographed by a journalist while texting in traffic, because, IDK, it would draw attention to his foolishness? But that’s not my point.) My point is that the reason why it makes sense for him to operate this cheap, old, reliable car in Frisco, even though he lives close to transportation and even though he could UBER Lyft everywhere, is because he can drive around for as many miles as he wants for less than $1000 a year, including insurance, registration, gasoline, gasoline taxes – the whole lot. I’m aware of this because I have an aging, gone-to-Hell Toyota that I drive around as much as makes sense. So I can’t see how our existing stock of indestructible Nissans and Toyotas, Cadillacs, Lincolns too, Mercurys and Subaru are going to be obsolete this year or next year or the year after that or the decade after that.

That’s my point.

Look at all these rides in the Sunset for example. This is Frisco in 2017:

7J7C9047-copy

I don’t see how our SFMTA is going to take away these cars, have them whither away, Comrade, only to have some unknown transpo system spring up to remobilitate these isolated souls living way out in the west side. MUNI is a high-cost low-speed system which is run mostly for its employees and is hobbled by union “work rules.” How is that going to change anytime soon?

And UBER Lyft, well the current service offered at current pricing is unsustainable, you know, financially. If you want to tell me how everything’s going to change I’ll concede – sure, eventually things will change. But how are you going to stop Sunset and Parkside residents from going to the nearby malls and Targets of San Mateo County by using the cars they own now and the cars they continue to buy? Our installed base of rolling stock is our installed base of rolling stock – these cars can and will live out their lives for decades more on the Streets of San Francisco. Sry.

PREDICTION: Car ownership and Driver License possession in the City and County of San Francisco will be once again UP to record-breaking numbers in 2017.

For better or worse.

Sry.

Whoo Boy: Scott Wiener Boosters are all, “Jane Kim Will Go Against Chinese Values”

Monday, October 31st, 2016

Here you go, two recent political fliers:

cv3et9dusaaffmu-copy

A couple randoms on a flier say that Jane Kim doesn’t share their values, for better or worse, so fine whatever. That’s the English part.

But what about the Chinese part?

It’s:

“Jane Kim will go against Chinese values”

See the difference there?

Now I thought I could just drag this image into Google Translate for a second opinion but that don’t work. What do work, sort of, is simply pointing your phone at the Chinese characters, and then you get a translation like this:

screenshot_20161031-0536161-copy

And then the Google gives you a kind of summary.

screenshot_20161031-0534321-copy

Suffice to say, wouldn’t Scott Wiener want to disavow this kind of thing?

Supervisor Scott Wiener’s Transportation Issue – Shamed by Stanley Roberts – Potential Senators Behaving Badly?

Monday, September 12th, 2016

Obviously, Supervisor Scott Wiener needs a driver to squire him around Frisco (and the very small slice of San Mateo County what he pretends to actually care aboot these days, eh?).

So here’s two strikes earlier this year – driving and double parking, as reported by former ValleyWagger Kevin Montgomery:

capturefsfddd-copy-1

Of course, if I were Scott Wiener, I’d be all, “Man, I don’t even own an aging silver Nissan.” Or something. But no, he simply ignored this situation.

Or I would have taken these incidents as a wake-up call. And then have gotten a volunteer to drive me to my daily engagements.

But no – so here comes well-known KRON-TV’s Stanley Roberts, of People Behaving Badly fame:

captureddfsddd-copy

Now this sitch here I don’t understand, you know fully:

capturelijoijoij-copy

Perhaps Scott Wiener should clear things up for us, you know, explain what his issues are here. (IDK, maybe somebody stole his Nissan and then parked it here – who knows. Or maybe he was so busy texting that he doesn’t really know what he’s doing IRL anymore.)

But why would such a sanctimonious “urbanist” even own a car in the first place, in Frisco of all places?

“W: What I will say is my perspective is neither the SFMTA or SFPD takes double-parking seriously. And I don’t say that lightly. I’m a fan of both agencies. I work with them. I believe SFPD and SFMTA are committed to Vision Zero. There are some really good people within SFPD who do want to see it happen. But double parking is one area where both agencies have just failed… it’s private automobiles, it’s taxis, it’s garbage trucks… it’s an unending situation. They cause traffic jams, they block Muni, they block the bike lane, it undermines our entire transportation system and makes our streets more dangerous. It is one of my significant frustrations.”

Scott Wiener – sell your car or get a driver.

ENDOFLINE

 

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

From the Mind of CWNevius: An Ad for Senator Scott Wiener, More or Less – Today’s Topic is Tech Shuttle “Vilifiers”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

HERE YOU GO:

Vilifiers of tech shuttles are taking us for a ride

The Municipal Transportation Agency is just concluding an 18-month pilot program for the tech buses meant to calm fears…

REALLY, THAT’S WHAT THE PILOT WAS FOR, TO “CALM FEARS?” I THINK NOT, I THINK IT WAS FOR OTHER REASONS. IT WASN’T JUST A THERAPY SESSION FOR US IRRATIONAL “HATERS,” RIGHT?

provide a way for the shuttle companies to pay for using Muni bus stops.

UH, NO. THE PILOT FEES WERE A WAY TO PAY THE SFMTA TO RUN THE PILOT.

Most people thought…

IS THIS THE STANDARD? LIKE, DO “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MAYOR ED LEE’S JOB PERFORMANCE? NOPE! NOT CURRENTLY, ANYWAY. SO, DOES THAT “PROVE” HE’S NOT DOING A GOOD JOB? HEY, DID “MOST PEOPLE” APPROVE OF MOST OF SFGOV SERVICING THE NFL FOR FREE AND FOCUSING ON THE SUPER BOWL 50 PARTY FOR THE BULK OF THE PAST TWO MONTHS? NOPE! SO WHAT DOES THAT PROVE, CHUCK?

But the progressive wing of the supervisors, particularly Jane Kim

SO LET’S SEE HERE, JANE KIM SUCKS AND SCOTT WIENER IS OUR SUN, OUR MOON, AND ALL OUR STARS? IS THIS GOING TO BE THE THEME OF CHUCK’S COLUMNS FROM HERE TO ETERNITY / NOVEMBER 2016? I THINK SO.

“They’re playing politics,” says MTA Board director Gwyneth Borden. “We’re separate agencies, so they don’t get to tell us what to do.”

OH BOY, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, OUR BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ISN’T AN “AGENCY,” RIGHT? SO OUR LOCAL PARTY APARATCHIKS SHOULD PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN TRYING TO EQUATE THE BOS WITH THE SFMTA. OF COURSE, THE SFMTA _IS_ AN AGENCY, BUT IT’S A BIG POS AGENCY THAT SHOULD BE DISBANDED. ITS PRIMARY JOB IS RUNNING MUNI BUT IT CAN’T REALLY DO THAT WELL, SO IT FOCUSES ON TRYING TO EXPAND ITS POWER, BUDGET, PAYROLL, ETCETERA. I’LL TELL YOU, PROP E FROM 1999 HAD SOME YARDSTICKS FOR THE SFMTA – CHECK OUT “SEC. 8A.103. SERVICE STANDARDS AND ACCOUNTABILITY.” IT’S ALL “at least 85 percent of vehicles must run on-time.” HEY, ARE WE THERE YET? NO? SO WHAT DID THE 85% MEAN? OH, NOTHING? OH, IS 85% SOMETHING THE SFMTA TRIED TO COOK THE BOOKS TO TRY TO ATTAIN, BUT EVEN THEN IT COULDN’T? YEP. SO WHY DO WE HAVE THE SFMTA STILL AROUND THEN? OR MAYBE THE 85% FIGURE IS MEANINGLESS, JUST SOMETHING TO GET “MOST PEOPLE” TO VOTE YES ON PROP E BACK IN ’99? BOY, IT SURE SEEMS THAT WAY, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF 2016. WHAT IF THAT ON-TIME FIGURE COMMITTMENT HAD BEEN 100% – WOULD ANYTHING BE DIFFERENT NOW? OR WHAT IF PROP E PROMISED VOTERS A 110% ON-TIME PERCENTAGE? WOULD THAT HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE? IDTS. IN ANY EVENT, THE BOS ISN’T JUST ANOTHER RUN OF THE MILL “AGENCY” FILLED WITH RUN OF THE MILL APPOINTED BOARD MEMBERS, FTR.

OH NEW ISSUE: ISN’T THE SFMTA’S PILOT CONTRARY TO STATE LAW? I THINK IT IS. I THINK THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO CHANGE CA STATE LAW TO TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE, BUT I NEVER HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT SINCE. OH WELL.

“As Supervisor Scott Wiener says…”

CWNEVIUS SHOULD LEAD OFF EVERY SENTENCE IN EVERY ONE OF HIS POLITICAL BITS LIKE THIS, ‘CAUSE THAT’S PRETTY MUCH WHAT HE’S DOING.

The shuttle companies already have parking lots and white zones picked out for stops and will just use those.

I DON’T KNOW WHAT CHUCK IS TALKING ABOUT HERE. THERE ARE SOME PARKING LOTS THAT AREN’T CURRENTLY BEING USED, BUT ARE ALREADY “PICKED OUT” JUST IN CASE? IF I CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT CHUCK’S TALKING ABOUT, HOW WILL HIS EVERYMAN, ARCHIE BUNKER-TYPE READERS UNDERSTAND WHAT HE’S TALKING ABOUT? HEY, WHAT IF CHUCK HAD AN EDITOR, OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY TO RUN THINGS BY AFORE PUBLICATION? MAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING.

hubs

IDK, MAYBE. MOST OF THESE ROUTES FUNCTION LIKE LIMITEDS, RIGHT? LIKE THE NX JUDAH, WHICH HAS STOPS AT BOTH ENDS WITH A LONG-HAUL STRETCH IN THE MIDDLE. SO, WHAT IF THE NX HAD JUST ONE STOP OUT IN THE AVENUES? IT WOULD BE STILL BE USEFUL TO MANY, BUT PERHAPS NOT AS USEFUL AS BEFORE. I’LL TELL YOU, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT “PLAYING POLITICS,” THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON WHEN SCOTT WIENER SAYS THAT EXPLORING HUBS WOULD “DESTROY” OUR CORPORATE BUS LINE SYSTEM.

The pilot program created some changes, like taking big buses off narrow streets, and it seemed to be working.

REALLY? I DON’T KNOW THIS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CHANGES? I’LL TELL YOU, OUR SFMTA, WHICH HAS GOTTEN MILLIONS AND MILLIONS WORTH OF “BEHESTED” MONEY FROM, WELL, I’LL JUST LET YOU GUESS FROM WHOM, GENTLE READER, IS AWFULLY CAGEY ABOUT THE ENTIRE PILOT. HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE, “WELL, WE HAD THIS INTERSTATE BUS TRYING TO MAKE A TURN AT THIS INTERSECTION AND IT WASN’T WORKING OUT, SO NOW WE’RE USING … SMALLER BUSES? OR, A DIFFERENT ROUTE? “IDK.

…hard-core progressives are mad as hell…

SO WHO ELECTED THIS HARD CORE, CHUCK? YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS OF FRISCO, AKA YOUR NEW-FOUND HOME? HEY, PERHAPS YOUR POLITICAL HERO SCOTT WIENER IS CONSISTENTLY RIGHT OF CENTER, SF POLITICS-WISE? ISN’T THAT TRUE? PERHAPS, BOTH CHUCK AND SCOTT ARE HARD-CORE CONSERVATIVES, SF POLITICS-WISE? DOES THIS TYPE OF DISCOURSE HELP MATTERS, ONE WONDERS?

They’re angry that the techies not only have good, high-paying jobs…

REALLY, CHUCK? SO ANY CRITIQUE OF OUR POS SFMTA IS BASED UPON THIS ALLEGED ANGER? IDTS. (AND HEY, CHUCK, DO _YOU_ HAVE A “GOOD HIGH-PAYING” JOB? OH, NO, BUT YOU’RE WORKING ON IT?)

Now they want them to leave

SO JANE KIM WANTS “TECHIES” TO LEAVE SF? REALLY?

wonderful, desirable place to live

ONE WONDERS IF THE MSM OF PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA HAS A CHUCK NEVIUS CHEERING ON THE GOV’MINT LIKE THIS?

haters

ELECTEDS KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS, TO USE TERMS LIKE THIS, SO THEY SHUNT THIS KIND OF HEAVY LIFTING TO THEIR PR PEOPLE. BUT, THE PR PEOPLE SIMILARLY KNOW BETTER THAN TO VENT LIKE THIS. SO THEY ASSIGN THE TASK TO … SFGOV HEAD CHEER LEADER [GIVE ME A] C! [GIVE ME A] W! [GIVE ME A] NEVIUS!

all in the name of “improving” the program.

SO, ANY ATTEMPT TO ALTER WHAT THE SFMTA WANTS TO DO MUST FAIL BECAUSE WHATEVER IT’S DOING AT WHATEVER TIME IS PERFECTLY FINE? OK FINE. HEY, SPEAKING OF FINE, DID CHUCK EVER PAY FOR HIS RECENT DOCUMENTED FARE EVASION FROM THE SFMTA? IDTS! (WELL, HE DIDN’T PAY IN MONEY, ANYWAY)

ALL RIGHT, LET’S HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW GREAT SCOTT WIENER IS, ALL THE WAY UNTIL NOVEMBER 2016 ESPECIALLY, AND THEN, AS NEEDED, BY SCOTT WIENER, OR OTHERS. CHUCK IS OUR MEDIA’S CHESTER, AFTER ALL…

END OF LINE.

A Few Points About the Proposed “Idaho Stop” “Bike Yield Law” Before Our Board of Supervisors

Tuesday, December 1st, 2015

SF’S BIKE YIELD LAW BEFORE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS’ COMMITTEE BY CHRIS CASSIDY ON NOVEMBER 30, 2015

…it’s going to take all of us uniting and speaking in one diverse and clear voice.

WHAT? LET’S ALL JOIN IN LOCK STEP TO BECOME “DIVERSE?” WTF. (GET ME REWRITE.)

common-sense safety legislation

WELL THIS IS SOMEBODY’S CONCLUSION. OF COURSE IF THIS EFFORT DOESN’T END UP INCREASING SAFETY THEN IT WOULDN’T HAVE BEEN “SAFETY LEGISLATION,” AND I, FOR ONE, DON’T SEE THIS AS AN OBVIOUS, SIMPLE, “COMMON-SENSE” ISSUE. AVERAGE BIKE SPEED OVER STOP LINES ON THE VAUNTED “WIGGLE” ROUTE ARE ALREADY TOO HIGH, RIGHT? WOULD THIS LEGISLATION GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO MAKE IT HIGHER?

cautiously rolling through stop signs

I’LL TELL YOU, YOU CAN CAUTIOUSLY ROLL THROUGH STOP SIGNS LIKE EVERY DAY FOR DECADES AND YOU’LL GENERALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM FROM THE SFPD UNDER THE APPARENTLY NON-COMMON-SENSE RULES WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. THIS KIND OF THING ALREADY IS A VERY LOW PRIORITY FOR THE SFPD EXCEPT IN PROBLEMATIC AREAS LIKE THE SO-CALLED WIGGLE ROUTE, WHICH ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE WOULD EITHER AVOID _OR_ WOULD USE MORE CAUTION THAN THE AVERAGE, TYPICAL WIGGLE RIDER. HERE’S WHAT’S GOING TO HAPPEN – THE SFPD IS GOING TO GET MORE COMPLAINTS FROM PEDS ON/NEAR THE WIGGLE. THIS INFO IS GOING TO GET TO THE MOTOR PATROL. THE MOTOR PATROL IS THEN GOING TO CAMP OUT ON THE WIGGLE. WHICH PART? WALLER AND STEINER, FOR VARIOUS REASONS. EVERYBODY SHOULD KNOW THIS ALREADY. WHY SOME NON-PROFIT WOULD WANT TO FUNNEL MORE BICYCLE TRAFFIC THROUGH AN ALREADY OVERLOADED INTERSECTION IS A MYSTERY TO ME. IN ANY EVENT, YES, DURING THE RARE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PERIODS YOU WILL GET TICKETED FOR GOING OVER A STOP LINE EVEN AT A VERY LOW SPEED LIKE TWO MPH. SORRY. AS STATED, YOU CAN EASILY GET AROUND TOWN BY AVOIDING THIS SPECIFIC ROUTE, IF ONLY BY ONE BLOCK. AND IF YOU CAN’T SEE THE COPS SITTING THERE, THEN YOU’RE NOT PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION. AND IF YOU WANT A NON-WIGGLE ROUTE TO GET WHERE YOU’RE GOING, JUST ASK ME. MY ROUTE WILL HAVE FEWER TURNS TO BOOT. TURNS ARE BAD FOR SAFETY AND STRAIGHTER ROUTES ARE BETTER FOR SAFETY, RIGHT?

lowest traffic enforcement priority

I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU’D ENFORCE THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PEACE OFFICER – YOU KNOW THEY LEARNED US IN COLLEDGE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF MICROMANAGING INDIVIDUAL POPO. SO YES, OF COURSE, THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF TRYING TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION _DOES_ “SEND A MESSAGE” TO THE SFPD AS A WHOLE, BUT I WOULDN’T GET ALL WORKED UP ABOUT THIS ISSUE. IT’S NOT REALLY GOING TO MATTER IRL

The ordinance only applies to people biking through stop signs where others, including people walking, are not present at the intersection up their arrival.

OUR SFPD ALREADY DOES STING OPERATIONS WHERE THEY HAVE A FAKE PEDESTRIAN WAIT FOR A CAR AND THEN START CROSSING AN INTERSECTION TO SEE IF THE DRIVER WILL STOP. IF THIS LEG PASSES AND IF THE SFPD DECIDES TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY THEN THE SFPD WOULD NEED TO GET SOMEBODY TO START WALKING ACROSS, IDK, LET’S SAY WALLER AND STEINER, AND THEN IT WOULD BE FISH IN A BARREL TIME ONCE AGAIN.

The Bike Yield Law would be the first San Francisco law to codify that people walking always have the right of way

OH GEEZ, WE’VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE – PEDESTRIANS IN CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THERE’S NOTHING A BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS CAN DO ABOUT THAT. (SORRY, COLLEDGE, REMEMBER?)

This is about keeping our streets safe…

UH, NO IT’S NOT. IT’S ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO RIDE ON BIKES.

ensuring that SFPD officers are free to focus their attention on the traffic violations known to cause the majority of traffic deaths and severe injuries in our city.

ALL RIGHT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO “FOCUS ON THE FIVE” CVC VIOLATIONS THAT KILL PEOPLE IN SF, THREE OF THEM ONLY APPLY TO PEDESTRIANS. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT “FAILURE TO YIELD” APPLIES TO A LOT OF DRIVERS WHEN THEY HAVE ACCIDENTS WITH PEDS, SO THAT LEAVES A LOT OF ROOM ON THE TOP FIVE LIST FOR BAD PED BEHAVIOR LIKE JAYWALKING VIOLATIONS, SORRY. THE WAY FOR SIMPLE-MINDED PR TYPES TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS TO LIMIT DISCUSSION TO THE TOP FIVE “DRIVING” BEHAVIORS THAT KILL PEOPLE. SORRY.

[LET’S OMIT A FEW MORE GRAFS WORTH OF FOCUS ON THE FIVE MISSTATEMENTS TO SAVE TIME]

Even after the events along the Wiggle this summer, SFPD leadership continues…

I’LL TELL YOU, SOME MONTHS, LATELY, SFPD’S PARK STATION HANDS OUT A TOTAL OF ZERO (0) TICKETS TO PEDESTRIANS AND BIKE RIDERS FOR ENTIRE CALENDAR MONTH. THAT MEANS THAT YOU COULD HAVE DONE ANYTHING YOU WANTED WITH ZERO FEAR OF GETTING TICKETED. ONLY JUST SAYING. SO, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME, OUR SFPD HAS ALREADY LOWERED “ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY” ON BIKE RIDERS.

I’LL TELL YOU, FOR VARIOUS REASONS SFBC-ENDORSED MAYOR ED LEE (LIKE LITERALLY – BACK WHEN IT COUNTED, THIS ORG’S BOARD ACTUALLY ENDORSED HIS ELECTION) DOESN’T WANT TO VETO THIS IDAHO STOP* LEGISLATION AND FORCING HIM TO DO SO JUST MIGHT PISS HIM OFF. (HE’S ALREADY A LAME DUCK, WITH HIS SECOND TERM NOT HAVING EVEN STARTED YET?) ONE WONDERS WHY OUR SFGOV-FINANCED SFBC IS PUSHING SO HARD ON THIS NON-SAFETY NON-ISSUE AFTER GETTING A FAIRLY EXPLICIT PROMISE OF A VETO.

ONE WONDERS…

*I GUESS THE NUANCES OF IDEOLOGICAL “FRAMING” ARE LOST ON ME – WE DON’T CALL THIS CALIFORNIA STOP LEGISLATION IDAHO STOP LEGISLATION ANYMORE? OK FINE. 

Boy, Our DPW is Cooking Up a Deal for You: Pay a Small Parcel Tax of $15 or $39 to Avoid Unlimited Liability for Street Trees

Tuesday, November 10th, 2015

All the DPW wants is simply this:

All the money it can get its hands on.

To that end, it wants to tax you mo money. But this proposed schedule, as seen on the BOMA Blog, sounds like a very very good deal for you, J.Q. Public.

‘Cause the last thing you want is liability for trees you didn’t plant and also actually, trees you didn’t even want in the first place.

7J7C9040 copy

Say yes yes yes to this offer, homeowners, afore they change their minds!

Wow, Look at How Proud San Francisco Firefighters are About Supporting Our Annual Stripper Club Christmas Toy Drive – And Look, Airbnb!

Thursday, November 5th, 2015

Get up to speed here and then try to see who’s sponsoring this year’s shindig here. These days, our local SFFD union doesn’t seem all that proud of this Christmas tradition at all:

Capturesfsfsss

And check it, from our local Paper Of Record last year:

Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.