SFist: Smile For the Camera, Double Parkers

Mike

Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:21:01 -0800

This is the best idea I've heard in a long time. The benefits would be many: (1) Speed buses. (2) Increase ridership (as a result of 1). (3) Reduce traffic congestion (as a result of 2). (4) Reduce operating costs (as a result of 1). (5) Reduce budget deficits (increased ticket revenue). It's a win-win-win-win-win situation! @Kay: Survivor is the only one who uses SF streets?!? You're joking, right? Not only is every MUNI rider slowed down by these violators, but all the drivers are too every time a MUNI bus has to pull out of the dedicated bus lane and block the next lane. The only people not affected by this are people who never use any of the streets with bus lanes. Why are those people, who have no investment in this matter at all, so eager to try to screw things up for the people who actually use these streets?

Sam

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:04:52 -0800

amen, kay. to wit: 32 people murdered on a college campus. but wait--MY commute time is in jeopardy. good stuff, guys.

Kay

Fri, 20 Apr 2007 09:02:49 -0800

it's all good, survivor. you said it all. your commute. not anyone else's.

Rachel

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 21:36:38 -0800

OT @ That Chick Re: Well[es] Orson Welles' first name is George, so their names are right next to each other in my brain. I like to think that they're secretly blood brothers or something.

survivor

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:48:26 -0800

Well with the last debate (aggresive bikers) I was in the other corner as Jeff Baker, but this time, I think he is *right on*. This seems like a very common sense measure that can help speed up MUNI. I have NOOOOOOO sympathy for those that double park or who drive in the bus lane and slow down my commute. Sorry Kay. Actaully, $100 seems a bit low.

andrew

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 19:09:25 -0800

> When you are driving a vehicle, being unaware is the same as being stupid. Or when walking or bicycling. Be careful out there!! > ticketing based on what is seen on camera takes about as much work as deploying a real DPT officer to watch bus stops. Incorrect. Ticketing can be done 100% automatically with automatic license plate recognition, as is used in London for bus lane and congestion charging enforcement. Of course some staff will need to be available to double check questionable cases, but many cases are just OBVIOUS. With a few $100 tickets, most drivers will quit the double parking. Of course red pavement will help too (as is used in London and on Third Street here) to make it REALLY OBVIOUS for those who don't like, ya know, reading the street signs. But the cameras shouldn't wait for this.

Jerry Jarvis

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:44:28 -0800

I don't see it happening any time soon. Double parked cars is only a small fraction of the problem with MUNI.It's the throwing of money to consultants that can only tell you something that you already know,management is over paid to tell you that they need money to hire more consultants. And as Far as 1984,it is already here.Read the patriot act.

Mark Ballew

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:53:56 -0800

I'm not opposed to cameras that aim out from the bus, but their use needs to be tightly controlled. First, ticketing based on what is seen on camera takes about as much work as deploying a real DPT officer to watch bus stops. Second, cameras should just be used as proof that a violation was committed if the ticket is contested in court or what ever crazy system the DPT uses for ticket disputes. Finally, we could just hire more DPT officers, perhaps some that specifically deal with bus zone offenses, and save ourselves from installing cameras and paying people to review them. I imagine most of the cameras will get caked with graf, urine, and dirt that seems to get in, on, and all over the buses here, rendering them useless.

Jeffrey W. Baker

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:38:52 -0800

proclaim that all people who are just unaware are naturally stupid When you are driving a vehicle, being unaware is the same as being stupid. The state gives people that little card that is supposed to signify that they are familiar with the rules and customs of the road in California. That's why we don't need signs on every block saying "Do not crash into the other cars." We don't need signs saying you shouldn't double park, because double parking is always illegal everywhere. And gigantic reflective signs which are visible from space constitute fair warning of a bus lane ahead.

Kay

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 16:08:47 -0800

you know what's wrong with trying to sort through facts with people like you, jeffrey? you're going to don your high-and-mighty cap and proclaim that all people who are just unaware are naturally stupid. which makes the presentation of your material a personal attack, and makes people stamp a big "fuck you" across it and move on. me, i'm just trying to see the issue from all sides, because i don't usually take the bus OR drive, so i'm neutral. by the way, please note how the above map link has a total 14 cars on it on the entire span of geary where the bus lane is. now think about this: how is one supposed to see a sign ON THE GROUND where there is bumper-to-bumper traff, ON THE GROUND? and by the way (two), neither does it say "bus lane ahead - $100 fine" - which makes it seem like a purely precautionary measure for the sake of the driver, so that they don't get stuck behind a bus.

Jeffrey W. Baker

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:32:18 -0800

Oh _come on_ kay. There are 9-foot-high "BUS LANE AHEAD" markers on Geary on a long block from Laguna to Gough. If you are too stupid to get out of the bus land with that kind of warning, they should pass a law forbidding you from driving within the city limits. http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=37.784965,-122.426778&spn=0.001609,0.002779&t=k&om=1

Kay

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:59:34 -0800

large-scale CCTV tends to transmit picture very slowly. because of this fact i think it'll be very difficult to distinguish between a double parked car and a car in motion, especially from the vantage point of a moving bus. also bus lanes in SF merge in and out of the general street kind of suddenly. like geary before it becomes one-way. one minute you're in a proper lane, you cross the street, and you're suddenly in a bus zone and need to merge left. but if there's a bus right behind you, bam, $100 ticket. what if you don't drive there often and can't anticipate every change the street is going to make? i think the problem is that drivers in SF think that there are only a handful of good streets to use for getting across town/to a freeway, and those happen to be the big ones that buses employ. when i go from the western addition to the financial district in the morning, everyone and their mama is piled up on geary st: buses, cars, cabs. it's a mess. takes forever. but just three streets over on ellis or golden gate, the street is empty. takes no time at all to get downtown, cut over on leavenworth or taylor, and you're way ahead of the folks who struggle to move on geary. so maybe it wouldn't be a totally bad idea to have certain main streets that are bus only - and cars can use the other, equally large, streets.

MattyMatt

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:58:40 -0800

Thatchick has a point: just like wire fraud or public intoxication, double-parking is not a crime. Also, "what version of reality have we created" is an excellent question. The correct answer is "this one." That cameras do not deter crime or facilitate apprehension of criminals may be the only slightly dubious claim in the comment.

That Chick

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:50:33 -0800

Mea Culpa...I never said I was the brightest bulb in the box just the snarkiest... Okay, 1984 was written by George Orwell..I get it.. Sheesh, I would never had a chance with my "is and are" grammar problem... Watch out the Police on the web not only are watching you but they correct you too. And they say video killed the radio star...pure rubbish.

Winston Smith

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:27:47 -0800

@That Chick: George Orwell wrote "1984," not Orson Wells. Orson Wells directed "Citizen Kane" and starred in all those wine commercials in the '70s.

andrew

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:25:59 -0800

Nineteen Eighty-Four was written by George Orwell, not Orson Welles, who was an actor, nor HG Wells, who was a sci-fi writer. Outer Party bureaucrats like Winston Smith would have welcomed the cameras, to get the damn traffic out of the way. The proles too.

That Chick

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:15:23 -0800

Actaully, my computer came with one and my laptop has a built-in camera and my phone and my new car came with a camera (OnStar anti theft device) and when I go to the bank there's a camera, when I go thru the grocery stores there's a camera. There is a camera at the conceige's desk, there is a camera in the Board of Supervisors chambers, there is a camera on the police cars, there is a camera... do I need to go further... My 1984 fear isn't that Orson Wells book became a reality but what version of reality we have created in the name of efforts to stop crime and does it really work I notice there is still unsolved crimes when a camera was running... Also, is double parking a real crime?

KWillets

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:14:30 -0800

Uh oh. Did I invent this, or is it parallel discovery? I hope I'm not telepathic, if Muni thoughts are the only thing I can tune in. It's a relatively simple thing to add ANPR (Automated Number Plate Recognition). They could almost completely automate the process and save some money.

bluecanary

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:13:40 -0800

There is no freedom to break the law in public. And there is no privacy on a public street corner. Quite frankly, I'm ready for them to install these cameras in my neighborhood and arrest the stupid douchebags who block the crosswalks because they are just SO much more important than the people trying to walk across the street.

Adam

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:13:02 -0800

I can't wait for the blooper reel.

MattyMatt

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:51:27 -0800

I don't do anything stupid.

abw

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:49:16 -0800

If it makes the buses go faster, I'm all for it. And if it's all some sinister government plot to watch my every move, I've got some bad news for them - my life is not very interesting. They'd be better off watching American Idol to try and decipher Sanjaya's subversive messages encoded in his hair styles.

murphstahoe

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:27:34 -0800

How can Garcia and Newsom be "stunned" about the amount of double parking that goes on. Where do they live - Disneyland?

rroseselavy

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 13:22:47 -0800

That Chick, You have cameras watching you at home? That were installed without your choice? I'd like to hear about that one. Please do elaborate.

yogo

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:50:46 -0800

Yes. if this happens it will certainly lead to 1984. Just like it. Wow you caught us. Whine whine whine wring hands complain race-bait woe-is-us I hate America oh-look-how-ironic-I-can-be... And when one little solution for one little problem is announced (frekkin camera on a bus) ITS 1984 WERE ALL GOING TO JAIL OH NO DUDE WHERES MY FREEDOM GO MATT GO FREE JOSH WOLF CLICHE CLICHE CLICHE... The insults I just deleted showed how polite I'm being.

andrew

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:20:54 -0800

No reason to exclude non-bus-lane areas where double parking is banned.

Adam

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:17:57 -0800

Would this be for all busses and all double parkers or just those that travel/park in "bus lanes?"

That Chick

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:00:45 -0800

EERRR, so this is how it all starts ..ala' 1984. Next we'll have cameras on street corners ...oh wait we got that..well we'll have cameras in cars and taxi cabs...oh wait we got that...so next is cameras watching us at home...oh wait we got that... So what is our freedom again? That poster looks awfully familiar like...its from the movie 1984...go figure.

andrew

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:58:47 -0800

Hell yes. This works exceedingly well in London, where they use CCTV for vast arrays of things, some creepy and some benign, but this is one of the best. Also, video footage will help with accident claims. What happens when some moron slams into the bus? Or if the operator runs a light and hits someone? Now there is a vid of it to be used as evidence.