tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 18, 2019 3:00am-4:01am PDT
it's a moving violation enforced by the police department and not by the m.t.a. i'm wondering how sfpd wants to enforce these moving violations and whether or not you need more resources. i'm concerned that you have all these scooters coming on. and if the police are tasked with yet another thing to do in this city like enforcing these scooters, people riding on the sidewalk even get injured. do you have the resources to do that and is that being factored in and did the m.t.a. consult with you? >> yes. one thing i can say about my approach, what do i bring to this position is the idea of collaboration. i learned that working with police officers as a lieutenant and working with the community in the mission which i love very dearly, and i learned a lot of messages from those folks and
also working with other members from the city family. everyone from sfpd have been nice bringing me up to the current level of information they all have. so we have -- those are discussions that we are having. i can tell you that the police department is concerned about everyone's safety, regardless of the mode in which they move about the city. certainly on the sidewalk people -- i can imagine i wouldn't expect that and i know a lot of people are surprised by that. what we have in that regard is a lot of foot beat officers deployed throughout all of the stations. so that's something that i can imagine or remind or discuss with the captains, who i'm sure are aware of that as well, about that being something that is addressed. the focus for our officers using police cars and motorcycles,
speed is a big issue along with the focus on the five factors. people who are walking and on bicycles, there's a long list of people who are very vulnerable in a collision, more so than vehicles. so a lot of our effort and focus on the five is directed at vehicles because of the dire consequences that can occur. the short answer is i think foot beat officers are a great solution to that and that is a reasonable expectation that we will need to address as well. >> okay. and with a -- writing a ticket or enforcing this vehicle code section is the same as any body camera report. a police officer would have to engage in a long reporting process to write a ticket for an
e-scooter violation on the sidewalk. >> yes, that's correct. >> it's my concern that we're trying to -- pedestrian safety is obviously something we're so focused on, with thousands more scooters coming onto our streets and sidewalks. i mean, i see violations all the time in district 2. it really concerns me, and i hear about it all the time from people that are nervous about it. i just feel like you're overtasked to -- focus on the five, obviously, speeding, the cars. that's where we're really getting it. but i have a worry around e-scooters and whether or not we're going to be effective and actually even enforce. that's just my statement. >> no, i agree with you. i had some questions around this also. i mean, i'm just wondering if there have been any tickets written to scooters that
violate. that's one thing. >> okay. >> you probably wouldn't have that answer, but my guess is there's probably no tickets been written. i'm wondering from m.t.a. who provides these permits to these companies, is there anything written in the contract when you get the permit -- i'm sorry. i want to hold on a second. let me -- >> i can -- whatever you like, supervisor. >> i just wanted to mention that i -- thank you for your report, but i know you're new -- you just got onto this job. in the future when you do the report, it would be really helpful if there's either a handout or something on the screen so we could -- i mean, i could follow some of the numbers, but you threw out a lot of the numbers. >> okay. i'm sorry about that. >> no, no, that's okay.
what we had in the past is we made some comparison to what was before vision zero. there was actually a big effort when we passed the policy in terms of ticketing. and then one of the reasons why you're even presenting on is there was a big dropoff after a while. you know, we want to make sure that we bring our efforts up to what we were when we first started vision zero. by having the data that will show it. >> i understand. thank you. >> appreciate it. good luck with this. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other questions? >> i was actually going to say the same thing, which is insofar as we all at a previous vision zero committee identified the short staffing in the solos and then worked in the budget to -- and thank you to our budget chair to ameliorate that, it would be good to be able to
track the number of solos and compare that to the issuance of citati citations, particularly those that we're seeking to get to 50% on. >> yes, sir. if i could add just one thing touching on what supervisor stephanie said, in the last couple of years our process of issuing citations has the changed. we went from the old tag book to the little cellphone. in addition to completing the e-citation and tohooking up to e printer, there is the requirement to upload the body cam video, to tag that, catalog it, and to complete a rather long document in terms of demographic information and what transpired during the stop. so it does -- the process has been elongated. and in addition to that over the last three years, there's been
the rollout and training of folks throughout the police department at all the stations throughout the solos. so that has stretched things t out. >> good point. >> thank you, sir. >> things get simpler. they become more complicated. >> do you want to come up. so the question i have is in regards to the permitting process, do we require the companies to at least tell its users that it's illegal -- what's legal and what's not legal in terms of using scooters. >> jimmy parks livable streets director with sfmta. safety and operator accountability has been at the forefront of everything we've done in developing this program.
so we'll highlight a few things we're doing on education, recognizing that we want to limit the burden on p.d. resources to the extent possible and put the burden of enforcement on operators themselves. on the education side we have requirements that the operators provide enough education that's mandatory to all first-time users that reoccurs occasionally when you use the app. so watching videos, getting information on not -- how to park correctly, not to ride on the sidewalk. also messages directly on the scooters themselfves about the core -- the core things we want them to do, which is please wear a helmet, it's illegal to park on the sidewalk, when you park don't block the sidewalk. those are the three core messages printed on all the scooters. on the enforcement side, we have required a detailed complaint database to be submitted to
m.t.a. by the operators, not only the complaints but how they've resolved through them and checked them. each scooter has a unique identification number that needs to be of a certain size. also the operators can identify a particular user based on the time and location they get a complaint. they've all agreed to a three-tier system for user accountability. the first violation for sidewalk riding is a warning. the second violation is a $25 fine. and the third violation is account suspension. so we will be monitoring the complaint database to ensure they're doing that as well. finally on sidewalk blocking, we do require that all scooters lock to a bike rack. that has helped quite a bit to the roll out of blocking the sidewalks. so i'll -- that's a quick summary. i'm happy to give more details. >> i don't understand a lot of technology, but it seems that
it's a possibility that the companies have a g.p.s. on their scooters or bikes. they could figure out whether somebody is actually riding on a sidewalk or not, can they do that? and if they can, why isn't -- why -- are we asking the companies to discipline those that are riding on the sidewalk by not allowing them to use it again? >> we have asked the companies that same question. what we've been told is the accuracy of g.p.s. equipment right now is plus or minus 6 to 10 feet and that's not accurate in most cases to pin down what is or is not sidewalk riding to do user enforcement or penalties. they've all promised to continue to develop that technology. i don't know when it would be available. so in the meantime we're doing the best we can with the tools we have. if there are more technology tools out there for --
automatically detecting sidewalk riding we would love to see. >> maybe what we need to do locally is to create legislation to say if they -- they need to create this technology, otherwise we won't give them a permit. commissioner stephanie. >> just on rider accountability, not the company, but rider accountability for the person who's violating and riding the scooter on the sidewalk or has two people on the scooter or is putting the scooter on its side on the sidewalk or parking it obstructing the sidewalk, what is the accountability for the rider and what are we doing to enforce it through our own means, not through the operator. >> on the parking side, it is a violation of the transportation code to park a scooter improperly. that is something that can be enforced by the sfmta and we do
issue citations for improperly parked scootered for a scooter program. those citations are investigate. they will go out and issue the citations. directly issuing a citation to someone on the sidewalk is a moving violation and would have to come through a p.d. that's why we have relied on the operator-based system of them finding users directly and suspending accounts. where p.d. has resources, issuing the citations is great. but we need additional means of enforcement to the users. >> if lyme suspends a rider, can bird allow the rider? how does that work? do you get to go through all the companies? just worst-case scenario, i don't know if they share information. >> that's actually a really good
question i don't know the answer to. i would want to check how we could do that without transferring personally identifying information, which is also prohibited. i think if there were a way -- if your user account is suspended, we don't need to have you go through that process four different times before you're banned from the city. i think that's something we could explore with the companies. >> commissioner peskin. >> thank you. and thank you for both of your lines of questioning around the self-scooter sidewalk issue. let me take this from the top. if an individual is riding the scooter on the sidewalk, the permits that you are proposing to issue that will become effective in 11 days would first give a warning. how is that warning issued?
so this assumes that somebody complai complains, and there is a positive identification of a person, a location. like, how does the warning -- help me track this. >> so if somebody sees a violation, they can call that in. the more information that they have, the better. particularly if it's at least the brand of the scooter, what company it's from. the operators are often able to identify a user because there is often one person in the vicinity. so there are representatives, they can't be everywhere, but they can provide user information and warnings. if the user is identified through that process, the warning goes out through the app and/or the contact information that the operator has about those users. that's something that we've
developed through the pilot as well. i think it's certainly not a perfect system in capturing violations, but scoot has gone through the process of suspending multiple user accounts through this process. so it is possible to catch repeat violators through it. >> i'm dubious, but let's just say you got your warning and then the next -- you do it again -- >> $25. >> $25 to who? who issues that fine and who collects that fine? >> it's issued by the operator. so right now the -- yeah, the parking citations are payable to sfmta. i don't believe we have a mechanism to collect the user fines, but that's maybe something to look into. right now the operator would issue the $25 to the user. >> and the operator will then collect the $25 presumably?
respectfully, this seems ass backwards. there's no reason that i as a company want to fine my consu r consumer. i don't think -- and last time i asked that the p.d. has the issued a single citation. i don't want to put the commander on the spot. but -- and, believe me, we all agree they have other things to do and that's a resource issue. it's hard enough to get to your first step, much less get to your second step. the company has no motivation whatsoever to issue that fine. we don't collect it. they don't remit it to us. so there's no financial incentive for the m.t.a. this should be from the get-go zero tolerance. you want -- as i love to say, micromobility technology in many instances may be a good first mile/last mile solution to reduce congestion and g.m.t.s
and vehicle miles traveled. i don't think that's a policy issue and me and my colleagues are having. the issue is about pedestrian safety and the issue is about rider safety. so i don't want them at san francisco general with traumatic brain injuries, and i don't want my disabled folks and my elderly folks and kids dodging them on the sidewalks or getting hurt. so it's just that simple. but this whole scheme does not seem to be front-end loaded with that concern expressed seriously. it should be -- if everybody knew that the first time you get popped for riding one of those things on the sidewalk, you're done, done. and all four platforms have to communicate with each other. so if one person, boom, all four of them, they're suspended now and for ever. then we won't have to play cat and mouse they move from one platform to another.
it's hard enough to bust somebody because these are moving things. what am i going to do, take this out and do my 311 app and say i was on the corner of battery and pine. the thing is around the corner in a second. you feel like your right to have unfetterred pedestrian access on the people's property, which is the sidewalks, has been violated. the scheme that you've come up with is, oh, well, you get three chances. no, it should just be one and done. >> i agree. this is why we need the office of emerging technology. thank you. any other questions? no. okay. any public comments on this item? come on up. >> good morning, chair, supervisors. good to see you. my name is jody maderes and i'm
the executive director of walk san francisco. thank you for this opportunity to comment on enforcement. i feel like this -- this is a really important topic that we brought to this committee, and i want to emphasize why we did. so the numbers of people dying this year from traffic violence have been too many, and we need to do everything possible to make it stop. we're already at 14 people, and one person on a bike, and that's the same at 2018 at the end of the year. we're hearing from our constituents that it's the wild west out there, but not necessarily about scooters. that has died down. it's really about the car traffic. i want to thing this back to what's important here. we have tens of thousands more vehicles and the enforcement is not being addressed. we heard this morning it's been 41%. thankfully mayor breed has doubled the number of traffic cops. we know that's still not enough. we know we will see the emphasis
focus back on the safety and the most dangerous driving behaviors. that's what we set out in vision zero. sfpd has to seriously boost traffic safety enforcement on the most dangerous streets. we asked for it from walk san francisco, and i encourage you to ask about the locations where they are doing these citations. are they on the high-injury corridor? are they in areas where we know the most dangerous behaviors are reaching? the sfpd mentioned locations today, and none of them mentioned the tenderloin. well, that's funny because we've seen four pedestrian fatalities and how many serious injuries in the tenderloin? is so we're asking you to help us ask the sfpd to strongly commit to make sure that our focus on the five behaviors in citations are laser focused on the high-injury corridor in known dangerous locations. we all deserve to be safe on our streets and if the city is truly
committed to this, we're asking for your help on this. >> thank you, jody. >> i do think scooters are important, and i would prefer to have a separate hearing and right now it's focus on the five. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> thank you, supervisors. i would like to pay you back on what supervisor yee said about the reports. i think those are necessary by sfpd and i would like that to include the demographics and go further to see if the same disparities exist if they are doing citations on the black community like they are the rest. i would like to see if that correlates. also i would like to comment on the scooters. me and my grandson have both almost been trampled on the sidewalk by scooters.
there really needs to be something done about it. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. informational items. we'll move on to the next item. mr. clerk, will you call the next item. >> item 5, vision zero legislative update. this is a information item. >> good morning, commissioners. i am from government affairs m.t.a. and i appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this update this morning. also following the remarks of the commander want to acknowledge the partnership with p.d. that we have been working with on an ongoing basis and really welcome the engagement of the commander who has come on as a traffic company lead. so the -- this is very short in
terms of what happened in the state legislature this year. i think both of these bills are bills that the t.a. took a support position on. i will acknowledge that we worked very closely with your staff throughout the legislative session to see which bills we can be in alignment on. i will say there are almost no bills we have been together on in support. these two are the two that really survived during this session. the government has until october 13 to act. ab 37 is a bill that would allow us to act on distracted driving. interestingly, it is prohibited as a violation that can be cited for a point. we will consider this progress. the second bill is a little more
global, if you will, in terms of vision zero, but it would require cal trans to consider improvements when it repairs or repaves state routes that serve as local streets. this bill has been quite controversial. the state -- cal trans has issued an estimate what it would cost if the state were to build bike and pedestrian facilities all into rehab projects. this bill at this point would require the state to reconsider those types of investments. it does not at this point require. san francisco has a strong support position on this bill. we've actually mobilized the seven cities around the state to weigh in and support this bill. it is on the governor's desk. we're at the end of year one of the current two-year session. we are allow beginning the process to develop priorities for year two. i will say to you as of today
vision zero transformative policy priorities are going to be at the top of our list. this leads to a transition we've been doing with the state vision zero task force. last year there was a bill ab 2363 that would have sought to allow cities to reduce speed limits another 5 km/h below the currently allowed using the 85 percentile which is the way speed limits are used in california. that bill faced significant opposition, given the percentile is deeply entrenched in the law and in the culture of california. there are staff here who heard me say it many times, and it's not my idea, using the 85 percentile which is 85% of cars
going a certain speed per hour, that must be reasonable. that is akin to saying my teenager came home at midnight, therefore that's the time i'm going to set his curfew. it doesn't make sense. i think the task force which is made up of -- if you see the logos, if you can go back to that, i would say the majority of like-minded allies in the room encourages me. we have cities throughout california and advocacy organizations, including calbike and cal walks. on the advisory group we have partners. we have an incredible group of allies and smart folks who've been working on this issue for years to inform the work on the task force. the focus of the task force is really on speed limit setting and having a conversation with the state. the state will be producing the report about how speed limits
are set and what we can do in the near term and the longer term, recognizing that the appetite to dump the 85th percentile may be too much to bite off right out of the gate. so we are focused on what can we do to seek changes in the law that will allow us to lower speed limits on high-injury networks, that will allow us to lower speed limits when an injury and traffic survey shows we need to go below 25 mph, but the state law will not allow us to do that. those are changes we can do if we can get the recommendations to advance even in this second year of the current legislative session. in the longer term, the current conversation is around a safe systems approach and how can we look to fundamental alternatives to how speed limits are set in california. one of the things that -- i was reflecting on this in our past
battles around automated speed enforcement. it's a really fundamental priority for the work of the task force. we are not there to have a conversation about whether we have a problem or not. when we were working on automated speed enforcement in 2017 with assembly member chew on av 342, we found ourselves deeply engaged in a conversation with opponents questioning the very fact that speed is a problem and is one of the top collision factors in severe and fatal crashes. that to me was a distraction, to have to spend our time making the case that the premise that we were asserting to advance the technology that we knew would work to save lives was really the forum where we were having the debate. so in the context of the task force, i think that really our effort is to have this report come out with not a question
about whether we have a problem, but establishing that as a foundation and allowing us to have a conversation around the remedies. i was thinking about that and i thought that was important. the report -- i have done two updates and shared those with your respective offices and will continue to provide those. i think that we are working on a daily basis with our colleagues and with our partners at d.p.h. to see how we can influence the work of the task force. the next work is on october 22. our understanding is in the afternoon we will begin the conversation around automated speed format. it is really -- it has been really helpful to hear even in drive time p.s.a.s that san francisco putting itself on record in support of automated speed enforcement. i thank supervisor peskin for making that call.
i think it had an impact. we'll see where that goes in terms of our ability to influence the process. >> and i do, if i may, interrupt, have a little bit of an update. obviously we were all very pleased about the statement of the president of the police officers' association, tony montoya, to the effect that the sfpoa may be willing to move to a supportive position. and assembly member chew and i are setting up a meeting that for all i know could already be on my calendar because i only get to look a few days ahead. i have had very positive meetings with representatives of the teamsters who have historically been antithetical to automated speed enforcement and they may be reconsidering or, as barack obama said about same-sex marriage, his position
evolved on that and the teamster's position may be involving. >> that is so encouraging. the teamsters have a seat on the task force and i really like hearing that. i want to set the temporal elements of this. two more meetings. the report will be created by calsta. they are the authors. it will include a review of safe trek ucit. that report will be issued in january. we hope it will have recommendations that the legislature can consider. i think it's hopeful that we had a change in administration and we have a governor who issued the executive directive to create the first safety master plan in san francisco. i'll just say we'll put our optimism there. the last thing i wanted to share with you is yesterday we learned that m.t.c. is moving forward to establish a zero vision task
force and the development of a regional high-injury network. that shows how influential the work of san francisco and other cities are having on this movement. i think having the region, the n.p.o., that distributes funds will be critical to our work going forward. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you for your time. >> thank you very much for all the work you're doing. i guess when you meet october 22 with this group, thank them for their work also. thank you, commissioner peskin, for pushing this forward. i've also had similar discussions with the teamsters, indicating what you just said. thank you. any public comments on this item? come on up, jody. >> i will say before a couple of
words. thank you for hearing this information. as kate mentioned, while san francisco is on the task force, it's great to be in there in that room. what i do want to emphasize is we do know we are slipping from our zero vision goals. so these tools that we have that we really need to get past at the state level. so what i do ask is that city leaders like you and this body, this zero vision coalition, really do keep your eye on this, you weigh in on this. we just need your leadership here because it's going to be so critical at the state. thank you for doing everything your doing, talking to the teamsters and the p.o.a. because that's the stuff that's going to matter. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed on in informational item. so, mr. clerk, can you call the
next item. >> item 6, 2018 severe injuries report. this is an information item. >> okay. >> you're up. >> thank you for being here to listen to this information today. i'm going to present to you about severe injury trends, which you've seen a little preview of. in 2017 and 2018 we were encouraged to have record low numbers of fatalities in san francisco, however, those fatalities continue in san francisco almost every month. so there's much work to change this reality, and to date we've seen 22 traffic fatalities to date. in addition to fatality tracking, we track them in san
francisco. this is in collaboration with zuckerburg hospital to track those who come in their care. the monitoring includes those most severely injured by traffic injury, unlike fatality reporting which excludes freeway deaths, not happening underground as well. these numbers exclude fatality numbers for clarity. so i'll show you after this, we have two main categories of injury that are severe and critical. severe injuries are injuries that require a trauma activation, either pre-hospital or at the hospital and also require hospital admission. so when you're thinking about the severity of these injuries, people are staying at the hospital for care. and then critical injuries are also severe, but they are the most severe injuries.
we make that distinction by an injury severity scale score which is a medical validated tool which highlights the most severe injuries. one advantage of having hospital data is that is a score that is calculated by a medical profession, so it's high-quality data. also as people here will know, san francisco general hospital is the only level one trauma center in our county. so anyone with most severe injuries is going there by clinical protocol. so you've seen this slide earlier today, but these are recent severe injury trends in san francisco. you can see over the last few years we've had relatively stable numbers, but about 600 people a year who are experiencing severe traffic injury outcomes. we also like to focus on that black line which is the critical injuries and most severe which are fluctuating but stable. i will say when we look at these
data, it's really important to know that many things can contribute to changes year to year. so we put the most stock behind mult multi-year trends and have caution how we interpret them. these highlight different modes. that's why i'll go through different travel modes with you next. overall for the last few years there's a trend that people walking are a third of the severe. people in motor vehicles are a major proportion of severe injuries at the hospital as well. and people biking and on motorcycles comprise the remainder of people. people walking. severe injury counts have been relatively steady since 2015, but something we want to look into in detail is that uptake of critical injury numbers in 2018.
those numbers are back to pre-2014 levels. 2014 is when we adopted vision zero, you will remember. that has halted a four-year trend of reduced or stable numbers. this is something i will talk about going further into our data systems later. an e-scooter injury. the hospital tracks those injuries through forward. looking methodology that we developed specifically for this. i will say that these are all included as pedestrians. so we pulled it out because we know that there is so much interest. these are people who stayed at the hospital for their injuries. many people may have been more injured and been to an e.d. and discharged home. i will say these are all injuries having to do with e-scooter associated injury. that doesn't necessarily mean you were riding an e-scooter. we know that one of those
injuries was to a pedestrian on the street hit by an e-scooter. those are things we want to keep top of mind. moving to people on bicycles. severe and critical injury counts have been relatively steady since 2014. and then we're seeing more fluctuation, as you can see for people in motor vehicles. severe injuries decreased in 2018, which partially countered a 2017 increase. last year we saw critical injuries decrease, but they are higher than recent lows. so we know that a major component of this is all of the freeway injuries are coming to zuckerburg hospital. we know that speed is a really big factor. so this is something we're going to look into more. >> not that freeways don't count, but is there a way to net out freeways in this dataset?
because we don't govern freeways. so when we're doing vision zero, it's really about our city street network. so it would be helpful to see that, if you can net out freeway injuries. >> that's well said. that's why for fatality monitoring we exclude the freeway deaths. we have the resources to do a linkage of police and hospital data which is really cutting edge. we have that data for 2013 to 2015. it's on my work plan to update that for the next four-year chunk of time. it takes a little bit because you have to match people across sources. some people are in police, hospital, and one or the other. we want to do that well. once that linkage is done, we have a high-quality dataset to look at location because the police collision reports give good information about where injuries are occurring and so do the balance transports. we will look at that and report
back when we have the data due to what we think is freeway and other factors. people on motorcycles, we saw an increase in severe injuries in 2018, and then also a more slight increase in critical injuries, but an increase back to 2016 levels. this is something that we also want to look at with that linked dataset. the way that motorcycles are defined in hospital data is a pretty wide category. it can include e-bikes which we know are growing in popularity. it includes those vespa style or electric scooters. this is something we want to look at in more detail in case there are micromode trends that are affecting the way the numbers are moving. so that police-hospital linkage will be complete in 2020. we'll have that location data, the intersection level data.
it will also give us really comprehensive data on crash characteristics and sociodemographic factors which we think are important to investigate to know where the burden of injury is falling on san franciscans. i've already mentioned that we want to look at the severe motorcycle injuries and increasing critical pedestrian injuries. so why aren't severe injuries declining, despite significant investment in vision zero? this is a really complex sphere and we want to draw attention to the fact that there are some dynamic things happening in our region, even as we're doing this work to reduce the burden of injury. there is more people living in this area over the last ten years. there is also more vehicle miles traveled by those same people, not only by those same people, but also we have the impact of t.n.c.s that has distributed to an increase of the impact of vehicles traveled in our city.
also we know our population is aging, and in the same collisions older adults are more vulnerable to more serious injury. there is also increasing homelessness in our city. we know that the amount of time you spend on the streets is your exposure to traffic. if you don't have shelter, you're on the street all the time increasing the odds of injury related to traffic. so given this information, we feel strongly we need some new tools to drive numbers down, as was presented already. we're putting our emphasis behind automated enforcement, urban speed limit setting that will bring down those speeds. local regulation of these vehicles as well.
that concludes my presentation. is there any questions? >> seeing no questions, your presentation was very thorough. thank you. any public comments? jody, i think you have a card. come on up. >> thank you for this opportunity and getting accurate numbers on this. what walk san francisco finds alarming is the numbers are on the rise and they are increasing and we're five years into vision zero. of the total number of people in severe injuries and crashes, we know that our most vulnerable which are the pedestrians are at the highest at 30%. one of the other things that we look at in this data is we believe this is really only telling a part of the story. because severe injury is where the trauma team is located,
there is a hospital and balance, but we know there are so many more crashes happening that don't require a ambulance and they're not being counted. we have to ask ourselves, what if they were being counted, where would we be? the other number that i want to point out is the critical injuries, up 60% from 2017. these are the injuries that have the greatest impact on people's lives. i believe you've all met jenny yu from our families for safe streets. jenny now cares for her mother who was hit in february of 2011. so we are talking about somebody with ptsd, cognitive impairment, headaches, confusion, emotional outbursts. this woman cannot work again. she does not have a fully functioning life because of a crash. her family is caring for her. this is what critical injury looks like. i really want to emphasize that we need to be doing everything we can using every tool in our
toolbox. we heard some things about enforcement being so important and speed management at the state level and we need to prioritize pedestrian safety to prevent these crashes. i want to invite you on sunday november 17 for world crash day. >> any other public comments on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. this is an informational item. >> clerk: introduction of new items is an information item. >> i just wanted to mention, i've been talking about this for a while, but next week i will be introducing legislation at the board of supervisors establishing the office of emerging technology. this office is built on the t.a.'s guiding principles, our expanding guiding principles,
and recommendations from the emerging technology work group, of which more than 200 people participated, including many city departments, small and well-established start-ups, advocacy groups such as walk s.f. and senior and disability action, merchants, neighborhood and labor groups, as well as academics. i look forward to the office of emerging technology, ensuring that safety and vision zero is a top priority and that the devices that are proposed to test or operate in our city are held to the highest safety standards. supervisor stephanie. >> thank you, chair yee. i wanted to follow up about the discussion we had around enforcement. obviously the focus on the five is something we all agree on. but for me, it's all important.
i am not going to, no pun intended, roll over on what's going on with scooters right now and what i see happening in my district. a senior citizen getting hit by someone on a scooter riding it outside of the provisions of the vehicle code needs to be dealt with. what that brings me to is when another city agency creates policies that places additional burdens on another city department like our police department without additional resources, i'm going to ask questions about it. i'm not going to not ask questions about it. and then the implication seems to be that somehow the san francisco police department is falling down on the job, yet no more additional resources for them for the enforcement we're asking. so -- and i don't think that's true or at least no evidence has been put in front of me to think that that's true that the san francisco police department is falling down on the job here. i do know that the police don't just write tickets anymore, that
it takes twice as long for them to issue any type of ticket. i do know that the reporting requirements on the police have doubled. so my question is this for future consideration for items for future consideration, is that have we determined that the police have the resources or enough resources to do what we're asking them to do around vision zero? yes, we've doubled the number of motorcycle police officers who are enforcing, but have we determined whether or not that's enough? because we can't just have this implication that they're not doing it right or correctly or not trying hard enough without evidence that that's the case. so it's my question for future consideration, do we have enough police resources to actually enforce the laws, now the scooter thing that's been rolled out. that's it. >> so, commissioner stefani, your question is very timely and
i think it's a really good question, because as maybe you weren't around, maybe you were. i created the police staffing task force to bring them through a process to look at what the staffing needs are. i'm pretty sure they looked at the traffic enforcement piece. but i don't know if in their study, and it's being finalized now, they had to consider these new things that we're asking law enforcement to do. i will ask staff to get to them and consider that. if they haven't, i probably would ask to postpone the final draft of it so they could actually look at that piece. thank you very much. commissioner peskin. >> thank you. i will take commissioner
stefani's remarks as a co-sponsorship, that you co-sponsored that is before the full board of supervisors on tuesday. i'm just teasing you, supervisor stefani. i'm sorry that mr. parks is no longer in the room to hear this from the m.t.a., but this is a classic left-hand/right-hand -- left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. so as we want the police to focus on the five, we are -- and you heard from mr. parks, who is the only person who can actually issue a citation to someone terrorizing our pedestrians on the sidewalks, the cops have enough to do. i don't want to say to the police, hey, you issued no violation for people on sidewalks because i want you to focus on the five. so on the one hand we're
exacerbating our staffing resources within law enforcement. when you asked mr. parks about what the enforcement regimen is, the answer is all of these financially motivated companies are going to self-regulate. well, that's not going to happen. there's no -- i mean, we're having a zero vision conversation. there's no zero tolerance conversation coming out of the m.t.a. which apparently is supposed to be invested in. we have wonderful staff who are doing incredible things, day lighting intersections, spending capital dollars on things, and again why am i widening sidewalks if they're going to be used to terrorize the pedestrians and disabled people and folks in strollers, you name it. it doesn't seem to make sense. if i seem to be exercised about this issue, it's because i'm exercised in this issue. >> let's increase legislation
around this. okay. >> happy friday. >> you are warned. do i need to take public comments on this? >> you do. >> any public comments on this. seeing none -- jody, are you sure? public comment is now closed. >> we have item 8, general public comment. >> okay. general public comment. anybody have anything to say generallily. come on up, you have two minutes. >> my name is steve perero, i'm a civil engineer. i've been participating with a very great vision zero task force. this is my first time in this chamber. i've been part of the bike coalition for 20 years coming here to speak about bike lanes. i wanted to make three points. first, my dear colleague is on
home rest after being nailed by a scooter on the sidewalk seventh and mission two months ago. he has a desk job. he's home. he can't get up. if you want to -- if the scooters are causing a nuisance, they are, tax them. same as uber. what's happened with technology of electric bikes and scooters is all the bike lanes are all cleared up and the sidewalks are cleared up and the pedestrians and the day lighting is awesome. but they've been invaded by uber and these high-speed bikes. now young children can't ride bikes on the pan handled bike path where i live because there's 25 mph electric bikes going on. so this is part of the same discussion. furthermore, after all these years of talking about bike lanes, i have kids in high school and middle school in the mission. we live in a panhandle. they could ride their bikes 10 miles, that's not a possible.
but they couldn't possibly ride to the mission district. it's too crazy. sunday morning maybe, but not monday morning. who's not being hit with the cars are the school kids who don't ride their bikes. they've essentially been banned from the roads. i could speak a lot more. >> thank you for your comments. >> mr. chair, while i can't respond to public comment, i will say there is a measure on the ballot proposition which would, indeed, tax uber and lyft, not that i have a position on it where i sit. finally -- and again, mr. parks is not here, but part of the m.t.a.'s scheme allegedly is to charge permit fees that are supposed to cover enforcement. i would love to ask mr. parks more about that, but he is not here. that concludes my non-response
to public comment. >> any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. anything else? >> clerk: item 9, adjournment. >> meeting adjourned. [♪] women's network for a sustainable future . >> san francisco streets and puffs make up 25 percent of cities e city's land area more than all the parks combined they're far two wide and have large flight area the pavement to parks is to test the variants
by ininexpensive changing did new open spaces the city made up of streets in you think about the potential of having this space for a purpose it is demands for the best for bikes and families to gather. >> through a collaborative effort with the department we the public works and the municipal transportation agency pavement to parks is bringing initiative ideas to our streets. >> so the face of the street is the core of our program we have in the public right-of-way meaning streets that can have areas perpetrated for something else. >> i'm here with john francis pavement to parks manager and this parklet on van ness street first of all, what is a parklet
and part of pavement to parks program basically an expense of the walk in a public realm for people to hang anti nor a urban acceptable space for people to use. >> parklets sponsors have to apply to be considered for the program but they come to us you know saying we want to do this and create a new space on our street it is a community driven program. >> the program goes beyond just parklets vacant lots and other spaces are converted we're here at playland on 43 this is place is cool with loots things to do and plenty of space to play so we came up with that idea to revitalizations this underutilized yard by going to
the community and what they said want to see here we saw that everybody wants to see everything to we want this to be a space for everyone. >> yeah. >> we partnered with the pavement to parks program and so we had the contract for building 236 blot community garden it start with a lot of jacuzzi hammers and bulldozer and now the point we're planting trees and flowers we have basketball courts there is so much to do here. >> there's a very full program that they simply joy that and meet the community and friends and about be about the lighter side of city people are more engaged not just the customers.
>> with the help of community pavement to parks is reimagining the potential of our student streets if you want more information visit them as the pavement to parks or contact pavement to parks at sfgovtv.org [gavel]. >> chair ronen: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the october 7, 2019 meeting of the rules committee. i am supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. seated to my left is supervi