SFMTA Pulls Another Lucy on Us – This time giving our curbs to Scoot

City-Owned car parked in the daylight, and and pedestrian zones one day after SFMTA Board passed the resolution removing curb rights from property owners.

Day One After the SFMTA Board passed the Scoot Resolution giving Scoot a license to park at will FOR FREE on our city streets, including in our RPP zones, and in the painted red zones “curb cuts” next to our driveways, that they like to ticket us for parking in, a homeowner snapped the above photos of a city-owned vehicle “Air quality control” vehicle in a driveway on the corner, overlapping both the pedestrian intersection and the “daylight” on the corner, making it difficult to see around the corner and drive in and out of the  driveway.

This was on Wednesday, one of the spare-the-air days, so SFMTA is breaking a lot of their rules here by allowing this car out on the street on a spare-the-air day, when their employees could easily take a ride on one of the many Muni lines in this transit rich area, and stand on the street corner to do their counts.

After shooting the photos, The homeowner approached the car, tapped on the closed window. to get it rolled down, and told the driver he couldn’t park in the driveway on the corner. He said, and I quote, “We have work to do and there is a parking problem here.”

After accusing the guy of being sent here to gather data to remove more parking on 17th Street, the resident pointed out a  parking space across the street and let him know that there was ample shade over there so he could park and stand in the shade and do his job without being a nuisance. He ignored the request to move.

What did we learn this week?

We learned that the SFMTA Board has quietly removed our rights to park across our driveways without any public comment or discourse, in spite of warnings by Supervisor Fewer, SFMTA Director Ed Reiskin, and Board members Heineki and Hsu, that it may backfire on the Scoot program to throw so many wrenches into the works at one time. RESIDENTS may respond negatively to the Scoot program.

How do you feel about removal of curb rights for property owners?

The reasons given and the conversation about turning day-light parking areas over to Scoot are pretty infuriating. Thornley and Brikman got into a conversation about “curb rights” for property owners that have fed the SFMTA ticket machine for decades as they handed out tickets when owners complained. Thornley said SFPark, his baby, has been thinking of using corner areas for Scoots and shared cars and Brinkman decided now is as good a time as ever to change the tradition of curb rights for property owners.

A lot more was said but, the bottom line is that SFMTA pulled a Lucy by removing public parking rights under the guise of safety and is now turning those rights over to the private share enterprises that we are being inundate with in the name of clean air, safety, and you name it.

Why did the media not report this?

To their credit, there was a lot to report from the SFMTA Board meeting of June 20, 2017. They caught the big stories that required some digging to do a proper job on. I’m sure there will be plenty of complaints and negative Scoot stories out in no time. The SFMTA is testing our tolerance levels, putting Scoot in the cross-hairs, making Scoot the canary in the coal mine.

It is time for property owners, residents and merchants to rise to the occasion and demand a reversal of this plan. Call your supervisor and request a public hearing on this issue.  If you object to corporate giveaways to the disruptive technologies that are killing the cultures of our city through gentrification and displacement, avoid Scoot and let the owners know why you are avoiding Scoot. Pedestrian groups that supported day-lighting may have something to say about this as well as property owners since their protections are on the line.

Get your concerns into the Board, Ed Reiskin and your supervisors when you see something wrong. Complaint programs are explained here: https://metermadness.wordpress.com/sfpark-compaints/

Many complaints about the way this meeting was conducted. People are looking into the manner in which the resolutions and amendments were passed. People who were there were not sure what happened and looking at the tape doesn’t make it any clearer.

 

Almost every speed limit is too low

By Alex Mayyasi : qz – excerpt

“We all speed, yet months and months usually pass between us seeing a crash,” lieutenant Megge tells us when we call to discuss speed limits. “That tells me that most of us are adequate, safe, reasonable drivers. Speeding and traffic safety have a small correlation.”…

This “nationally recognized method” of setting the speed limit as the 85th percentile speed is essentially traffic engineering 101…

Luckily, there is some logic to the speed people choose other than the need for speed. The speed drivers choose is not based on laws or street signs, but the weather, number of intersections, presence of pedestrians and curves, and all the other information that factors into the principle, as lieutenant Megge puts it, that “no one I know who gets into their car wants to crash.”.

So if drivers disregard speed limits, why bother trying to set the “right” speed limit at all?…
This is important because, as noted in a US Department of Transportation report, “the potential for being involved in an accident is highest when traveling at speed much lower or much higher than the majority of motorists.” If every car sets its cruise control at the same speed, the odds of a fender bender happening is low. But when some cars drive 55 mph and others drive 85 mph, the odds of cars colliding increases dramatically. This is why getting slow drivers to stick to the right lane is so important to roadway safety; we generally focus on joyriders’ ability to cause accidents—and rightly so—but a car driving under the speed limit in the left (passing) lane of a highway is almost as dangerous.

Traffic engineers believe that the 85th percentile speed is the ideal speed limit because it leads to the least variability between driving speeds and therefore safer roads. When the speed limit is correctly set at the 85th percentile speed, the minority of drivers that do conscientiously follow speed limits are no longer driving much slower than the speed of traffic. The choice of the 85th percentile speed is a data-driven conclusion—as noted lieutenant Megge and speed limit resources like the Michigan State Police’s guide—that has been established by the consistent findings of years of traffic studies…

If people and politicians do want to reduce road speeds to improve safety, or make cities more pedestrian friendly, Megge says “there are a lot of other things you can do from an engineering standpoint.” Cities can reduce the number of lanes, change the parking situation, create wider bike paths, and so on. It’s more expensive, but unlike changing the number on a sign, it’s effective…

In its 1992 report, the US Department of Transportation cautioned, “Arbitrary, unrealistic, and nonuniform speed limits have created a socially acceptable disregard for speed limits.” Lieutenant Megge has worked on roads with a compliance rate of nearly 0%, and a common complaint among those given traffic citations is that they were speeding no more than anyone else. With higher speed limits, Megge says, police officers could focus their resources on what really matters: drunk drivers, people who don’t wear seat belts, drivers who run red lights, and, most importantly, the smaller number of drivers who actually speed at an unreasonable rate.

It seems counterintuitive, but it’s a formula Americans should love: Raise speed limits, make roads safer…

Lose your car over a parking ticket? San Francisco scrutinizes harsh punishments

…Around 4,000 cars get sold off in San Francisco every year because their owners can’t pay. Rowe herself knows two other people who have lost their cars because of parking tickets. I spoke with one man who was living in his car while he worked a retail job. After his car got towed, he not only lost the place he slept every night, but he also lost his job. His car was eventually sold off by the towing company…

Financial Justice Project

To many in city government, these punishments are too severe–among them are San Francisco’s treasurer. So the city established a program called the Financial Justice Project to look for ways to make smaller fines more fair to poorer residents…

Ferguson is a city of 20,000 people; in 2013 there were 30,000 citations in a single year. After that report on Ferguson, San Francisco City Treasurer José Cisneros wanted to start tackling the problem locally. He started the Financial Justice Project in the fall of 2016…

Basing fines on a person’s income

Income-based fines are already common in parts of Europe, and was attempted in the U.S. thirty years ago. Judith Greene, who created those programs in New York City and Phoenix, AZ says they worked well. “More people paid in full and the court system actually ended up collecting more money.”…

San Francisco is in a good position to tackle this: it’s a well-off city with a lot of economic inequality. But Stuhldreher worries that other municipalities might not have the same momentum…

 

ACT NOW TO STOP SPEED TRAPS IN CALIFORNIA

ACT NOW TO STOP SPEED TRAPS IN CALIFORNIA
Sign the petition and contact your state representatives

Assembly Bill 342 which would allow speed cameras to be used in California for the first time. The bill makes the vehicle owner responsible for the ticket, not the driver and takes away your right to a trial.

Assembly Bill 342 would eliminate virtually all current protections afforded to motorists in speed related cases and allows jurisdictions to run speed traps in their cities, ensuring that the program will be used as a revenue generation scheme, not for public safety.

Assembly Bill 342 would add to the license-scanning cameras on our streets that is part of the growing surveillance system that may be used against the public. The ACLU is alarmed by this and has filed complaints about the SF Airport scanners, that were supposedly meant to track and charge taxis, but are now tracking all the vehicles entering and exiting the area.

THIS IS A PRIVACY AND DUE PROCESS ISSUE.
ACLU opposes the San Francisco Airport scanners, that will hold the data for four years. WHY?
We don’t need to add any more surveillance cameras to our streets. You can read here about all the terrible things that will happen if AB-342 becomes law.

WE NEED YOU TO TAKE ACTION TODAY! CALL THESE NUMBERS AND REQUEST A NO VOTE. More details here.

Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee Members:
Call and post on their  facebook pages.
Ed Chau (Chair) Dem – LA Area (916) 319-2049. Facebook
Kevin Kiley (Vice Chair) Rep – Rocklin/Auburn Area (916) 319-2006 Facebook
Catharine B. Baker Rep – San Ramon (916) 319-2016 Facebook
Marc Berman Dem – Mountain View (916) 319-2024 Facebook
Ian C. Calderon Dem – LA Area (916) 319-2057 Facebook
Matthew Dababneh Dem – LA (916) 319-2045 Facebook
Jacqui Irwin Dem – Oxnard (916) 319-2044 Facebook
Ash Kalra Dem – San Jose (916) 319-2027 Facebook
Jay Obernolte Rep – Hesperia (916) 319-2033 Facebook
Eloise Gómez Reyes Dem – San Bernardino (916) 319-2047 Facebook

Once you have completed those calls, call David Chiu’s Capitol office at (916) 319-2017 and tell him you don’t appreciate him introducing legislation that takes away your rights!

Update on CA AB342 (Speed Cams) and Please Support AB1094 Today!

Dear California NMA Members,

Thank you for all your emails and phone calls this past week to oppose AB 342 (speed cameras in CA).  Jay Beeber of Safe Streets L.A. told NMA yesterday that the bill has been tabled by the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee for now, but there is still a possibility that it can come back in April.  Keep the pressure on!  Beeber mentioned that phone calls and faxes get the most attention.  Call and write your elected Assembly representatives TODAY!
Here is a link to an L.A. Weekly article that appeared this morning featuring Beeber and AB 342.

Another bill that has the potential to be voted on a consent agenda this week in the Assembly is AB1094. Safer Streets L.A. (mentioned above), an organization dedicated to the adoption of scientifically sound and sensible transportation and traffic laws, strongly supports the passage of AB 1094. So does the National Motorists Association.

AB 1094 clarifies that violations of the traffic control signal at freeway on-ramp meters is properly cited under CVC 21455. By providing more specificity as to the requirement to heed the controls imposed at at freeway on-ramp meters and how this violation should be cited under the vehicle code, AB 1094 helps both law enforcement and the general public better understand their obligations and responsibilities with respect to this violation. This should help avoid unneeded confusion and provide savings in both time and resources. NMA and Safer Streets L.A. supports measures such as AB 1094 which provide greater clarity within the vehicle code.

You can send your letters to Nathan.Skadsen@asm.ca.gov who is the staff member for the bill’s author, Assemblymember Steven S. Choi. Or contact by mail or by phone: Capitol Office, Room 2016, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0068; (916) 319-2068
Copies should also be cc’d to the Transportation Committee analyst Victoria.Alvarez@asm.ca.gov.

If you would like to contact your own elected representatives, find he or she HERE.

Keep those phone calls, faxes, emails and letters going! Persistence makes a difference!

Thank you for your support!

RELATED:

Speed-Camera Tickets Could Be Legalized in California

By Dennis Romero : laweekly – excerpt

A new state legislative proposal would legalize cameras that issue speeding tickets, as part of a pilot program. Jay Beeber, an Angeleno who’s a longtime warrior against the perceived unfairness of the city’s parking tickets, has mounted a campaign against the speed-camera bill by Assemblyman David Chiu. Although the five-year pilot program would apply only to Chiu’s hometown of San Francisco and to San Jose, there’s fear that the bill, AB 342, eventually would open the floodgates to speed cameras statewide…

He argues it’s all about getting more money out of taxpayers without actually having to do the difficult and politically perilous job of raising taxes. Jay S. Carsman, a former Los Angeles Department of Transportation parking systems coordinator, who is credited with moving parking tickets from the courts to administrative hearings, has joined Beeber in the fight against the bill.

“Unfortunately, the unrelenting demands for substantial revenue growth, the blanket authority granted to each local agency to adjust their schedule of fines and late payment penalties, and the time limits and monetary demands placed upon motorists wishing to contest their [parking] citation(s) allied to a corrupted system of inflated fines and penalties and the routine denial of any meaningful justice to literally millions of California motorists,” he writes in a letter opposing the bill. ” … I urge you to not compound the mistakes we made with parking citations by adding any motor vehicle moving violations to a similar legal status.”… (more)

 

 

 

Stop the Speed Camera Pilot Program in San Francisco and San Jose

AB-342 is scheduled to be heard in the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. The link to the committee members is here: Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Please send your request to them directly online and call them if you can.

STOP THE SPEED CAMERA BILL AB-342, AUTHORED BY DAVID CHIU.
SIGN THE PETITION. CALL AND EMAIL YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES IF YOU OBJECT TO A FIVE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM IN SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN JOSE.

www.saferstreetsla.org has a full explanation of the bill, a petition to sign, and phone numbers of legislators to call. Call David Chiu at (916) 319-2017 and tell him you don’t appreciate him introducing legislation that takes away your rights!

Assemblymember David Chiu from San Francisco has introduced legislation to allow speed cameras to be used in California for the first time. The bill, AB-342 does not simply allow enforcement of speed laws using an automated enforcement system rather than a live police officer.

AB-342 drastically changes California speed laws and enforcement in very negative ways. While some might view the use of speed cameras as a tool in promoting roadway safety,

AB-342 is seriously flawed. It eliminates virtually all current protections afforded to motorists in speed related cases and allows jurisdictions to run speed traps in their cities, ensuring that the program will be used as a revenue generation scheme, not for public safety.

AB-342 makes the vehicle owner responsible for speeding tickets and takes away a defendant’s right to a trial. Instead, the ticket is treated as a civil violation which will be adjudicated in an administrative hearing without traditional due process rights.

Now sign the Petition to Protect Your Rights! Tell David Chiu you don’t appreciate his legislation that takes away your right to a trial, makes you responsible for the actions of others, and eliminates protections against cities running speed traps.

A BETTER CHEAPER SOLUTION TO SAFER DRIVING: EXTEND THE TIMING ON YELLOW LIGHTS TO GIVE PEOPLE MORE TIME TO STOP.

RELATED:
Violations Plummet with Longer Yellow Light Time

For San Franciscans With Suspended Licenses, Time For Traffic Ticket Amnesty Is Running Out

by Teresa Hammerl : hoodline – excerpt (video included)

Traffic Ticket Amnesty Program from SF OEWD on Vimeo.

Traffic Ticket Amnesty Program from SF OEWD on Vimeo.

Over 10,000 San Franciscans—many of whom live in the city’s lowest-income neighborhoods—have suspended driver’s licenses. Without the ability to drive, many have found it difficult to secure employment, take children to school, access social services, or even see family and friends.

Under an amnesty program signed into law by California Governor Jerry Brown, people with suspended licenses can get a second chance. Introduced in 2015, the program can reduce debt from unpaid traffic tickets incurred before 2013 by 50 or 80 percent, depending on a person’s income, and help offenders reinstate their driver’s licenses.

But on March 31st, the program will end—and local agencies are concerned that many who need it aren’t aware and have yet to take advantage.

Before the final deadline hits, the Office of Economic and Workforce Development (OEWD) and the Financial Justice Project (an initiative of the City Treasurer’s Office) have launched a multi-lingual outreach campaign to increase the number of residents who apply for the amnesty program.

“In San Francisco, we want to ensure that every resident affected has access to amnesty and equal access to job opportunities—leading to a pathway out of poverty,” said Todd Rufo, director of the OEWD, in a statement… (more)

 

North Dakota reconsiders 70-year ban on parking meters

By James Macpherson, AP : sfchronicle – excerpt

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — When an angry farmer was ticketed for not feeding a parking meter, he launched a one-man crusade that made North Dakota the nation’s only state that bans the meters on all public streets.

Now the governor is quietly trying to end the nearly 70-year ban in hopes of revitalizing downtowns, and the farmer’s granddaughter is fighting to uphold her family’s legacy… (more)

Uber Used ‘Greyball’ to Dodge Sting Operations

By Rob Quinn : newser – excerpt

Secret software identified possible law enforcement agents

(Newser) – Yet more bad press for Uber: For years, the company has been using a secret tool called Greyball to avoid law enforcement in cities where it was banned, the New York Times reports. Uber used information like geolocation data and credit card details to pinpoint users that might be involved in sting operations in cities like Portland, Ore. Those users were then “Greyballed” when they tried to get an Uber car, with the app either showing no cars available or displaying “ghost cars” in a fake version of the app, Uber sources tell the Times. The insiders say the program, used in US cities including Boston and Las Vegas and in countries including Australia and China, is still being used to dodge regulators today… (more)

Future Plans unveiled at SFMTA Board Special Meeting

Tuesday, February 7, 9 AM – agenda
Green Room War Memorial Building, 401 Van Ness Ave.
Labor negotiations and closed session followed by presentations of current projects.
Controller report: Financial Overview – presentation
SFMTA Board Workshoppresentation