Posts Tagged ‘section’

What Those “BICYCLES ALLOWED USE OF FULL LANE CVC 21202″ Signs Mean – “The Exception Swallows the Rule?”

Monday, August 4th, 2014

Well, here’s the sign:

I’m reading that as “BICYCLES ALLOWED USE OF FULL LANE CVC 21202″

Now here’s what that section of the California Vehicle Code actually says:

“V C Section 21202 Operation on Roadway

21202. (a) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at that time shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under any of the following situations…”

That’s the rule.

There are exceptions of course – see them below.

But you don’t want the exception to swallow the rule, right?

Oh, what’s that, you do? Oh, OK. Well, that would explain all the T-shirts, but you’re celebrating the wrong CVC section. What you’re looking for is CVC 21200, actually.

And actually, what 21202 does is take away your right to use the whole lane.

Now of course, in the opinion of some, all lanes are “substandard width lanes,” so if that’s the case, one of the exceptions listed below will “swallow the rule” and, therefore, 21202 doesn’t mean anything.

But IRL, the rule means something, just saying. 

Oh what’s that, you’ve been told different? Well, people tell you different because of their ideology. Hey, would you prefer to hear from a bicycle advocate who’s not an ideologue? Well, here you go:

“Ride to the Right, But Within Limits - When riding slower than the normal speed of traffic, you are required to ride as far right as “practicable” (meaning safe). You are not required to ride as far right as possible, which may not be safe. You are allowed, but not required, to ride on the shoulder. CVC 21202CVC 21650CVC 21650.1 9″

Hey, how would that look as a T-shirt? Not so hot, really. It would sound like a lecture, you know, like we all need to keep to the right ‘n stuff.

But it’s the Truth, like it or lump it.

“(1) When overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.

(2) When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(3) When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions (including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes) that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge, subject to the provisions of Section 21656. For purposes of this section, a “substandard width lane” is a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

(4) When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle upon a roadway of a highway, which highway carries traffic in one direction only and has two or more marked traffic lanes, may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge of that roadway as practicable.

Amended Sec. 4, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

Cold Busted: Do SFMTA Parking Control Officers Even Try to Follow the Law? Take a Look

Thursday, January 9th, 2014

Leave us review California Vehicle Code Section 40202(a):

“The notice of parking violation shall also set forth … the last four digits of the vehicle identification number, if that number is readable through the windshield...”

Except some DPT meter maids are in the habit of not writing down the last four digits of the VIN. Check it:

Some SFMTA parking citation officers thought they found a loophole by simply entering “cannot read,” “covered,” or “unable to locate” in the VIN field space of a citation. 

03/07/12: Officer NW (Badge #206) wrote 66 citations of which he said he “cannot read” the VIN plate information on all 66 of them!  

02/01/12: Officer TA (Badge #12) wrote 27 citations of which he said he “cannot read” the VIN plate information on all 27 of them.”

So am I saying I believe the factual statements of some random Change.org petition over anything spun out by the SFMTA?

Yes, yes I am.

Now is this VIN requirement kind of a technicality, and is it kind of a pain to be looking for VINs when the PCOs need to make their quotas in order to pay for Ed Reiskin’s generous benefits package? Yes and yes.

But that’s the law. Perhaps the SFMTA should try to change the law if it’s so hard to obey.

Let’s hope that the SFMTA keeps a closer eye on its PCOs in the future…

Now let’s travel back to the past:

Via the excellent Uptown Almanac comes news of this anti-MUNI bumper sticker campaign:

Beej Weir with deets here and here.

“The bottom of the sticker reads: “ASSAULTING A PARKING CONTROL OFFICER IS A CRIME. SO DON’T GET CAUGHT.”- WACKO 1

As previously noted, harsh.

California Penal Code 241 — Assault, punishment. (“(b) When an assault is committed against the person of a parking control officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a parking control officer, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

So much for “Good People, Tough Jobs.”

BARTtv is Back on the Air: Explaining Why BART Detained Journalists Yesterday – No Linton Johnson, No Comments Allowed

Friday, September 9th, 2011

Well here’s BART’s version of the story of last night’s events at Powell Station.

IMO, the MSM on hand weren’t too satisfied with what they were hearing, but listen for yourself:

The nugget’s at 4:30 or so where some woman starts off with, “Actually…”

Normally, you can comment on YouTube videos, but not this particular one, for some reason.

All right, OpBART V – A New Beginning, is the next protest against BART’s shooting and 1st Amendment policies. It’s coming at 5:00 PM on Monday, September 12th, 2011

Uh Oh: Is Our Cafe Gratitude Running Afoul of CA’s “Tip Pooling” Law? – “Direct Table Service” and “Chain of Service”

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011

Comes now Cafe Gratitude server Sarah Stevens, who alleges that she is:

“…required to participate in an unreasonable and uncustomary tip pooling scheme that leaves her with a very small percentage of the tips she earns as a server. Specifically, Stevens alleges that after tipping out 20% of her daily tips to the “central kitchen” — an offsite kitchen on 14th street — Stevens then splits the remaining 80% of her tips equally with all of the Café Gratitude staff, including the “shift leaders” and retail employees.”

Improper involuntary tip pooling? No thank you!

Today’s special – Greens ‘n Gruel. All right, eat up, after you thank me!

Via Johann F

Per John Birdsall, CG is engaging in shady behavior:

“I Am Shady RT @EastBayExpress Cafe Gratitude sued for labor-code violations http://t.co/Dr9qHQd

Uh Oh. If Sarah can prove what she’s saying, she’ll have a nice case against CG, leaving aside other issues, like her not getting proper breaks ‘n stuff like that.

‘Cause our Department of Industrial Relations does not approve of servers splitting tips with anyone who doesn’t provide “direct table service.”

Check it:

“According to a California court, Labor Code Section 351 allows involuntary tip pooling. Therefore, your employer can require that you share your tips with other staff that provide service in the restaurant. In this regard, it’s DLSE’s position that when a tip pooling arrangement is in effect, the tips are to be distributed among the employees who provide “direct table service.” Such employees could conceivably include waiters and waitresses, busboys, bartenders, host/hostesses and maitre d’s. Employees who do not provide direct table service and who do not share in the tip pool include dishwashers, cooks, and chefs, except in restaurants where the chefs prepare the food at the patron’s table, in which case the chef may participate in the tip pool. Additionally, tip pooling cannot be used to compensate the owner(s), manager(s), or supervisor(s) of the business, even if these individuals should provide direct table service to a patron.”

(California’s laws are biased towards waitstaff at the expense of food preparers, IMO, for whatever reason.)

[UPDATE: Stop the presses! An employment lawyer in the Comments section has just pointed out the "chain of service" concept that some judges worked out a couple years ago. News to me. Anyway, the trend is that our courts are more accepting of mandatory tip pooling schemes than they were a few years back. But still, management has to keep its paws off of tip money in CA no matter what.]

Anyway, from where I’m sitting, this looks like game, set, and match for server Sarah. You hear that, restaurant owners? This is a dead bang, this is a lead pipe cinch. Just saying.

Thank you!

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Demands Response from 414 Mason, Site of Tourist Slaying

Friday, August 13th, 2010

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis J Herrera is going after the owner / operator of 414 Mason, the site of the recent Union Square shootout that resulted in the death of German tourist Mechthild Schröer. (The SFPD is still working on this case – they were down in Fremont yesterday.)

Mr. Herrera is alleging that the August 8th party was illegal and overcrowded. All the deets are below.

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior, DJH:

Herrera initiates legal action against teen party venue in Union Square tourist shooting. Demand letter to owner, operator of rental space alleges Fire Code violations, unlawful business practices in ‘horrific incident’ 

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 13, 2010) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera has taken a step toward suing the owner and operator of a Union Square venue where an illegal, overcrowded party for high school-aged youths last Sunday was marred by gunfire that injured two teens and took the life a German tourist. 

Herrera’spre-litigation demand letter to Joseph Ursino, owner of the building at 414 Mason Street, and Curtis Matthews, who rented out the party space, alleges that the two face, “at a minimum, civil liability for violating the California Fire Code and for unlawful business practices.”  Such violations can be punishable by fines and penalties as well as disgorgement of all profits related to the unlawful conduct.  The letter sent this morning acknowledges that the City Attorney’s Office is also evaluating the potential liability of Labriette Collins, the event’s promoter. 

“Because of the tragic circumstances and grave public safety concerns surrounding the event and how you and others managed it, I will seek full legal redress to affirm public confidence in laws intended to protect the safety of San Francisco’s residents and visitors,” Herrera’s letter states.  “Vigorous enforcement of these laws is additionally essential to guarantee fair treatment to the vast majority of responsible entertainment business operators, who invest the care and expense necessary to abide by the law, and who comprise one of our City’s most important economic sectors.” 

All the deets, and the demand letter itself, after the jump.

(more…)

Harsh: “Crappy People, Crappy Jobs” Campaign Mocks MUNI’s “Good People, Tough Jobs” PR

Monday, July 26th, 2010

Via the excellent Uptown Almanac comes news of this anti-MUNI bumper sticker campaign:

Beej Weir with deets here and here.

“The bottom of the sticker reads: “ASSAULTING A PARKING CONTROL OFFICER IS A CRIME. SO DON’T GET CAUGHT.”- WACKO 1

As previously noted, harsh.

California Penal Code 241 — Assault, punishment. (“(b) When an assault is committed against the person of a parking control officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties, and the person committing the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a parking control officer, the assault is punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars ($2,000), or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by both the fine and imprisonment.”

So much for “Good People, Tough Jobs.”

Resolved: Parking Your Car Half a Yard from the Curb Might be Legal, But it Isn’t Right

Friday, May 28th, 2010

As long as you follow all the other parking rules of California and San Francisco, you are fully empowered to park a foot and half away from a curb and still be legal.

But, c’mon dude, is this the best you can do?

Click to expand

How about a new law? How about six inches max for San Francisco?

I mean, sometimes there’s not enough room on the streets even if you have rubber touching the curb.

Thank you, drive through.

Now, Go Forth and Sin No More.

Just Try to Read This Official Car Towaway Notice From the City of San Francisco

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Come on, you can do it. Take a gander at the dollar amount of the fine for abandoning your car on the streets of San Francisco. Let’s agree that dollar amount has two digits, but it is $75? $85? $88? $98? $80? $90?

This is no mere triviality - if you don’t get the proper notice then you might not have to pay the fine. As to whether San Francisco can legally tow away your ride with the way the local laws are written these days, well, that’s up in the air.

Can I explain why the owner was given only three days to move in light of the last year’s policy change allowing seven days? No, no I cannot. Click to expand.

Are San Francisco drivers gonna get a massive refund the way it just went down South San Francisco Way with the red light cameras? [KRON's Eve Taft- why isn't she in every romcom Hollywood can produce?] No se.

I’m the first one to rain on the parade of plaintiff’s attorneys with ridiculous notions of what constitutes a decent lawsuit, but this one, this one looks good.

The mise-en-scene atop Buena Vista Heights at the end of Masonic, where it’s so hilly you might need an exemption to drive your SUV around.

This aging, now-woodless Willys Jeep Wagon ur-SUV needs no exemption for excessive weight as it’s not close to the weight limit. (I ought to call it in to Pimp My Ride or something.) Wonder where it is now, wonder if it got towed. [Dude, where's my car? What happened to my woody?]

Anyway, we’ll just have to bide our time to see what occurs with this not-yet-certified class action lawsuit. Writer Joe Eskenazi will keep us posted, I’m sure.

To Be Continued…

Jerry Brown Throws Down: Midas Auto Shop Franchisee Spanked Hard for Bait and Switch

Monday, January 25th, 2010

California Attorney General Jerry Brown can’t abide car repair shop owners who rip you off for unnecessary work. News comes this morning about a judge in Alameda County who signed off on a: 

$1.8 million settlement that prevents Maurice Irving Glad (aka Mike Glad), owner of 22 Midas auto shops throughout California, from owning or operating an auto repair shop in the state, after the franchisee “deceptively lured” customers with cheap brake specials and then charged hundreds of dollars for unnecessary repairs.”

Now what do you suppose Mike did with some of that ill-gotten booty? Well, he traveled the world, natch, but he also produced an Academy Award-nominated documentary (narrated by Edward James Olmos!) called Recycled Life. (So all those people in the East Bay and the South Bay who thought they were just fixing their cars actually were financing the Hollywood dream factory by paying an average of $268 more than they should have….)

Anyway, get the deets below to see how our California Bureau of Automotive Repair does sting operations. And get the other side of the story from Mike’s mouthpiece via Henry K. Lee right here.

El Protector De La Gente, Jerry Brown:

Read all about it, after the jump

(more…)

Revenge of the Subtenant – Rent Board Requires Master Tenant to Refund $10,800

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

Here’s the thing – if you’re renting a place in San Francisco and you’re paying your monthly rent to your roommate, chances are that you could be considered a subtenant and your roomy the “Master Tenant.”* Particularly when the rent for your unit is way undermarket, due to rent control let’s say, you might end up spending more for your space than the Master pays for the Master’s part of the apartment.

So if you’re paying $900 a month for your half of  a two-bedroom and your Master Tenant in the other room is only kicking in $100 (to pay $1000 total to the landlord for the whole place), then you can take steps to get some of that money back and lower your rent to boot.

“A subtenant who believes he or she is paying more than a proportional share of the total rent may file a Tenant Petition against the master tenant on that basis. If the subtenant prevails, the Administrative Law Judge will adjust the rent to the proportional share and order the master tenant to refund any rent overpayments.”

Is this a perfect system? No, but it’s what you end up with when your city has rent control.

Your San Francisco Rent Board just dealt with a subtenant/Master Tenant proportionality case. The names of the people involved aren’t important, but the situation is noteworthy, IMO. Let’s check it out.

Now, if you don’t like how the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dealt with your case with your roomie, you can appeal to the board. As here, from the meeting of August 4, 2009:

The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportional share of the rent pursuant to Rules ß6.15C(3) was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00. On appeal, the Master Tenant alleges that he was unaware of the requirement that the amount of rent paid must be proportional; that the decision will present him with a financial hardship; and that the subtenant is going to be evicted due to his uncooperative behavior. 

MSC: To deny the appeal on substantive grounds but remand the case for a hearing on the Master Tenant’s claim of financial hardship. (Gruber/Crow: 5-0)”

See? The sub won big-time, to the tune of five figures because the rent split determined by the Master Tenant wasn’t proportional according to a judge and the full board.

But the master came back to say the ruling would be a hardship for him. From the meeting of November 17, 2009:

The subtenant’s petition alleging that he paid a disproportionate share of the rent was granted and the Master Tenant was found liable to the subtenant in the amount of $10,800.00.  The Master Tenant’s hardship appeal was granted and remanded for hearing.  In the remand decision, the ALJ finds sufficient hardship to order a repayment plan in the amount of $150.00 per month.  The Master Tenant again appeals, claiming that even the reduced amount will cause him severe hardship and possibly result in both tenants’ eviction from the premises.

MSC: To deny the appeal.  (Mosbrucker/Gruber:  5-0)”

Is this what you might call a Phyric victory? Maybe. It’s probably too early to tell. Oh well.  

Check the San Francisco Rent Board website for deets on the rules, or see you after the jump.

*The County of Los Angeles doesn’t want to buy equipment that has the term “master” written anywhere on it, like on a hard drive, a DVD burner or a brake cylinder. But in San Francisco, we freely label people “Master Tenants.” It’s our thing. 

(more…)