Posts Tagged ‘ticket’

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

If You Want to Park for Free on the Sidewalks of Market Street, Simply Put BART Posters in All Your Car Windows

Friday, March 20th, 2015

North, south, east, and west – the windows facing all directions had these big BART logos affixed:

20150319_094219 (1) copy

All the windows – so it’s like, oh, I’m going to park on the yellow brown brick road of Market, so time to start taping posters up?

7J7C3964 copy

So who’s this, BART or a BART contractor?

I Know the UCSF Police CAN Patrol Ashbury Street for Traffic Violations, But I Don’t Know WHY It Does So

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

There are some answers here, but this activity waaaaay off-campus still seems off-mission to me:

P1190501 copy

Dirt Bike vs. Dirtbags: The SFPD OTJ in the Golden Gate Park Panhandle

Tuesday, March 3rd, 2015

Well, actually, I don’t know what these people did to earn a citation from the SFPD and I don’t what else they’ve done lately, you know, that might have escaped notice of the popo:

7J7C3380 copy

So maybe they’re not* dirtbags IRL, IDK.

Perhaps I’ll get called for jury duty on one of these citations, and then I’ll let you know.

*The SFPD bait car program straight outta Hollywood was a bad idea, for example. I can’t imagine convicting anybody for moving an unlocked car left idling and double-parked on Divisadero, for example.

Uh Oh, the SFPD’s Vaunted “Focus on the Five” Enforcement Program Focuses on the Wrong Five

Tuesday, February 24th, 2015

Work with me here, people.

Here you go:

“Focus on the Five – Using multi-year collision data, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is focusing on enforcing the five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking. The goal is to have half their traffic citations be for these five violations.”

All right, well let’s look at the stats for last year, via Heather Knight / the District 5 Diary.

And then let’s extract all the five-digit CVC section numbers cited in the official SFPD report, plus let’s also throw in a CVC number for the pedestrian who died last year after getting hit by a MUNI bus on Geary around Baker.

(And let’s ignore all the the lower-case subsections like 21950(b) and the like, treating 21950(a) and 21950(b) as the same violation, for example.)

And then lets throw all the extracted numbers into Excel for a Sorting.

And then let’s eyeball the numbers to separate them out:

Capturefsfssfggg copy

So those are your top “five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking (and bicycle riding, but I don’t think that affects the numbers too much.)

Here they are, in order of frequency:

21950

22350

21456

21954

21955

So how does that compare with this list from politicians?

“Focus on the 23 Five” campaign to target the top five causal factors of pedestrian crashes – running red lights 24 (California Vehicle Code 21453(a)), running stop signs (California Vehicle Code 22450(a)), violating pedestrian right-of-way (California Vehicle Code 21950(a)), failing to yield while 2 turning (California Vehicle Code 21801 (a), and speeding (California Vehicle Code 22350)…

See how that works? 21950 and 22350 are in there, but CVC violations on the part of pedestrians, like 21456, 21954, and 21955 have been omitted from the list.

Is the official “Focus on the Five” about pedestrian safety or “pedestrian rights?”

I’m thinking it’s about pedestrian rights, like the right to jaywalk, that kind of thing.

Is SFGov serious about SF Vision Zero 2024, a “program” that has the goal of ending all transportation deaths in San Francisco long after all the pols who voted for it have termed out?

Well, how can it be if it’s afraid to enforce traffic laws for political reasons?

If you want safety for pedestrians, wouldn’t you want them to be afraid of getting cited for jaywalking?

No? All right, well then keep on doing what you’re doing, but you’ll never ever achieve Vision Zero 2024 the way you’re going about it, SFGov.

Heartless SFMTA Meter Maids Cite Poor Woman’s Car Day After Day for a Single Crosswalk Violation

Tuesday, February 24th, 2015

SFMTA PCO’s seem to like citing this car daily, to the tune of $103 a day for the crime of parking too near a crosswalk:

7J7C3276 copy

Presumably, the owner has left it there for a few days, not realizing her mistake.

So, what’s stopping the SFMTA from citing this car every hour for the same violation? There must be some internal policy, one that I’m not aware of.

Mmmm….

What if the rest of the SFMTA operated as effectively as the Parking Control Officer division?

I wonder what that would look like…

How the Magic Word “VisionZero” Has NOT Changed the SFMTA’s Half-Assed Approach to Transportation Safety: “Focus On The Five”

Tuesday, February 17th, 2015

Here’s the SFMTA’s official six-figure-a-year spokesperson on the topic of when pedestrians can cross a street, from just last year:

“They can start whenever they want,” Rose said.”

Of course this is wrong, as even Paul Rose himself would admit now, after being corrected.

So, why did he say that? Because he, like his employer, has a half-assed approach to safety, and, one supposes, he, like his employer, is mired in politics.

Now do you suppose that Paul Rose was at all interested in examining why he told the peds of San Francisco that it was A-OK for them to violate CA state law? Oh no, not at all. And do you think he checked with anyone before he spouted off? Prolly not.

Like I say, a half-assed approach.

Now we’re in 2015, the era of SF VisionZero 2024, which has the goal, one that nobody actually believes in, but they have to pretend that they do believe in it, of having no more transportation deaths in San Francisco County starting in 2024 and continuing in perpetuity.

It’ll look a little something like this, supposedly:

sdfhjjjjkj

Now do you see the beauty in this? By the time SFGov fails to achieve this impossible goal, all the people who glibly made the promise will be out of office, right? How convenient.

The big problem with the approach that SFGov is taking is assuming that traffic deaths are a street design issue, as opposed to a human behavior issue. So most of the emphasis appears to be upon SFGov spending more money, which of course SFGov loves to do anyway.

And the part of VisionZero SF that’s focuses on behavior seems misplaced, for political reasons.

For example, there’s this:

Focus on the Five – Using multi-year collision data, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is focusing on enforcing the five violations that are most frequently cited in collisions with people walking. The goal is to have half their traffic citations be for these five violations.”

So if the SFPD started handing out tickets for jaywalking, you know, in a big way, that would certainly help with traffic safety, over the long term, to at least a slight degree, but that would take the SFPD away from its “Focus On The Five” goal.

The problem with Focus On The Five is that it ignores Vehicle Code violations on behalf of pedestrians, one supposes for political reasons. In fact, the cause of most pedestrian and cyclist deaths last year in San Francisco was the behavior of the pedestrians and cyclists themselves.

And what’s this talk about “automated enforcement?” How about this, how about hooking up all of the SFMTA’s vehicles to an automated enforcement mechanism that would detect speed limit, stop sign and red light violations using on board sensors and GPS? Then, after Ed Reiskin parks his government-paid SFMTA car or an operator parks her bus, SFPD tickets would be issued, you know, daily. Whoo boy, what are the odds of something like that happening?

So that’s SF VisionZero 2024, a buzz-phrase that means absolutely nothing.

 

 

Gonna Go on an Escapade: JEFFERSON UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Car Far from Home, Illegally Parked in the 94104

Monday, February 16th, 2015

20150210_123555 copy

Escapade
We’ll have a good time
Escapade
Leave your worries behind
Escapade
Well you could be mine
Escapade
An escapade

(My roommates in colledge used to dance on the floor, while seated, with arms flailing, to this song, and it wasn’t all that old at the time, that’s how old I am.)

SFMTA Meter Maids Refuse to Ticket Car Parked Illegally on the Sidewalk of Hayes Street Because of an Unwritten Rule

Thursday, February 12th, 2015

And that rule is that Parking Control Officers won’t give you a ticket for parking on a sidewalk so long as its street sweeping time, so, you know, the SFMTA is “making money” well enough already, thank you very much.

7J7C3086 copy

That’s life in the big city…

How is This Official SFGov SFMTA Red-Painted Parking Space Labelled “CAR SHARE” If It’s Only for Avis RENTAL CAR?

Wednesday, February 4th, 2015

Help me out here, Gentle Reader. This formerly public parking space is now a private parking space, one that’s being rented out to Avis Rent a Car System, LLC, aka the Avis Budget Group.

But Avis isn’t actually “sharing” cars with you, it’s renting cars to you, right?

Is this what they call “framing?” Why is the SFMTA “framing” issues for Avis this way? Was Ron Conway involved with this? David Chiu?

7J7C2797 copy

I don’t get it.

So, just as soylent green is people, Zipcar is Avis, and CAR SHARE is CAR RENTAL, right?

What am I missing here?