Posts Tagged ‘ticket’

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?

You Can’t Outrun the Long Arm of the MUNI Police – Cold Busted – Somehow This Makes Sense

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

Somehow, this ticketing has something to do with the Department of Homeland Security

7J7C2760 copy

Somehow this makes sense…

The Time of the Week When the SFMTA Doesn’t Seem to Mind Cars Parked on the Sidewalk

Friday, January 30th, 2015

The white truck on the left is parked on the sidewalk. The SFMTA “knows” this because a dozen SFMTA-employed eyeballs have just passed by to see it. Yet, it didn’t get ticketed.

OTOH, the white car on the far right _did_ get a ticket, you can see it, for blocking a street sweeper on street sweeping day

20150116_102359 copy

These practices have developed over the years – they’re a culture.

If you ask somebody from the SFMTA about this sitch, they’d be all, well, call it in and we’ll come out and give it a ticket. (When SFGov doesn’t have the will to enforce its own rules, it says the whole process is “complaint driven.”)

Anyway, this is the culture, not that you’d find it officially documented anywhere…

How the SFMTA Got Me – I Mistakenly Blocked 30 Feet of the Western Addition from Street Sweeping – Street Trees

Tuesday, January 27th, 2015

Here’s what the signs look like around the corner:

7J7C2573 copy

Good, because it was a Friday.

Oh, here we go:

7J7C2570 copy

But then you get a ticket, anyway.

Whoops. Here’s what the signs actually say:

7J7C2572 copy

(At least this street tree didn’t topple over and kill me, as street trees have killed and injured so many others.)

I can tell you chapter and verse about this nabe, mostly about who got shot where, but I haven’t kept up with the street cleaning signs….

Hurray! The Workers from FIXED, the Parking Ticket Fixing Startup, are No Longer Stapling Ads to Windshield Parking Tickets

Friday, January 16th, 2015

Back last year, people’d be stapling the ads for Fixed onto official SFMTA parking tickets.

I don’t know if they’ve given up on stapling altogether, but this paper clip is an encouraging sign

IMG_0265 (1) copy

Actually, I’d recommend that the profit-driven Fixed people not even touch an official SFMTA notice, but baby steps, baby steps.