(Photo: textually.org)

The
story suggests that senior U.S. DOT officials may have played politics
with safety data, although no hard evidence of influence by the cell
phone or auto industries was uncovered.

Perhaps the most newsworthy element of the story, then, is its minor mention of NHTSA’s "current policy … that people should not use cell phones while driving."

This is true, albeit buried in an obscure section of the agency’s website:

Q. Is it safe to use hands-free (headset, speakerphone, or other device) cell phones while driving?

A. The available research indicates that whether it is a hands-free or
hand-held cell phone, the cognitive distraction is significant enough
to degrade a driver’s performance.  This can cause a driver to miss key
visual and audio cues needed to avoid a crash.

It
appears that while NHTSA declines to release the findings on distracted
driving that it first got in 2003, the agency is officially (and
quietly) warning that cell phone use of any kind increases the risk of
a crash.

This fact was also acknowledged by NHTSA in response to a 2006 study that echoed the agency’s internal conclusions on the comparable dangers of driving while phoning and drunk driving.

So
why is NHTSA not taking stronger action to curb cell phone use of any
kind by drivers? One answer may lie in the current vacancy at the
agency’s helm.

NHTSA is being run by an acting administrator, Ron Medford, after Charles Hurley withdrew his presidential nomination in May. By contrast, National Transportation Safety Board chief-in-waiting Deborah Hersman responded to the recent Boston trolley crash with a strong warning that "you should not be talking on your cell phone, texting, or operating a wireless device while you are operating a vehicle."

The
White House has yet to announce a new nominee to lead NHTSA, but
whomever is chosen will have a chance to broadcast its hush-hush
position on cell phone use more loudly.

The Center for Auto Safety, which joined Public Citizen in securing the release of the six-year-old agency data, is petitioning the agency for a new crackdown on the use of communication devices by drivers.

A Muni driver on the 24 spotted yapping on a cell phone just this week. Flickr photo: peephole

1. Transit operators are not permitted to display or use a cellular phone, PDA, hand-held or hands-free devices, while operating a transit vehicle.
2. Transit operators are not permitted to read, write or send emails or text messages while operating a transit vehicle.
3.  Cell phones, PDA’s or any personal electronic vehicle must be turned off while operating a transit vehicle.
4. If an employee must make an emergency call (911), the transit vehicle must be stopped in a safe location and you must exit the compartment before making the call.

The notice goes on to warn drivers that they face disciplinary action, including termination, if caught using a cell phone.

"The reissued bulletin reflects the importance that we place on our operators and all of our employees to follow the safest procedures possible," said MTA spokesperson Judson True. "We simply cannot tolerate cell phone use by our operators."

True said anyone who spots an operator using a cell phone should call 311 immediately, and their operators will call central control and "get an inspector to the scene as quickly as possible and deal with it." He said seven operators who work on the rail side -- cable cars, streetcars and LRVs -- have been suspended in the past six months for using cell phones. And he was waiting to get numbers on bus drivers, who carry the majority of Muni passengers.

Considering how many times riders have spotted Muni drivers on their cell phones, let's hope this reminder reflects a reinvigorated effort to enforce the policy. We already know California drivers are flouting the state's hand held cell phone law, and while the CHP is issuing some citations, it's generally not being enforced.

Muni operators carry a much greater responsibility, shuttling hundreds of thousands of passengers daily across the city on streets already filled with myriad distractions.

The biggest menace to motoring since pedestrians. Photo: Matthew Roth

Your story today on SFPark is a new low, infantilizing a parking management pilot that is the envy of municipalities across the country and has the attention of cities as far-flung as Tokyo, Japan. For an agency that is getting more than enough bad publicity on things that it does poorly--and we're the first in line to harp on the negative--the MTA deserves credit for coordinating with the Port to develop the largest and most sophisticated parking management system in the world, which will allow city managers to finally measure with precision the driving and parking patterns in San Francisco so that the streets can become more efficient and less congested.

How do you cover this giant leap for parking-kind? You exaggerate a simple learning curve for a new multi-space meter as though it were a technological Berlin Wall.

"These newfangled meters take much more skill to operate than simply dropping coins into a slot," writes Rachel Gordon, who I'm hard pressed to believe took this editorial tack on her own, given that she rides transit regularly, has been covering transportation issues for awhile and isn't as bound to the windshield perspective as her editors seem to be.

Just how much more skill do these "newfangled meters" take?

Drivers have to remember the number assigned to their space and then log in the information on a keypad. Then they have to decide whether to pay with a credit card, debit card or coins, and finally they have to figure out how to select how much time they want.

To steal from SNL's Weekend Update: Really? Really?!?

However will the piteous parkers decide what form of payment to use and how much time they're planning to park? I guess they should just give up before they begin, not come into San Francisco at all, and spend their dollars at the mall in Walnut Creek, where parking is so much more civilized and free (what's more ridiculous is that some of the comments on the story essentially say as much).

MTA spokesperson Judson True, ever more diplomatic than me, acknowledged that this kind of coverage is unfortunate.

It's a little frustrating to have the focus be on the challenges that are natural with any new program, but we are working hard to improve the signage and fundamentally we know that these new meters and all new SFPark meters are going to bring better parking management to San Francisco.  That's going to be more convenient for people and better for the city as a whole.

The story comes around at the end with a compensatory nod to one of the primary benefits of SFPark, namely that it provides more payment options for motorists. Not to mention the radical departure it will mark from the catch-as-catch-can parking management, enforcement, and meter maintenance that passes for street management currently. With future iterations of SFPark likely to include real-time parking information beamed to cell phones, static directional signs, and on-board navigation systems, San Francisco will see a great reduction in cruising for parking and the attendant environmental and congestion impacts of what, in some cities, is as much as 45 percent of all traffic.

Last September, San Francisco's city attorney asked Judge Peter Busch to allow an exemption to the long-standing bicycle injunction so the MTA could improve the city’s second most dangerous intersection for cyclists, where Fell Street meets Masonic Street.  Even after the MTA adjusted signalization and gave cyclists a separate green light, cars are running the red light and hitting cyclists.

The latest collision happened Saturday, around 4pm, to Cindy Asrir, as she was riding bicycles with her 10-year-old daughter on the Panhandle Greenway after spending the afternoon in Golden Gate Park.  At Fell and Masonic, they waited for the bicycle light to turn green and then started across the street.  

In an interview, Asrir described what happened as she and her daughter entered the crosswalk. She said there were also several pedestrians crossing when a white SUV pulled through the red light, but stopped short of them.  A second car ignored the red signal and darted around the SUV, slamming into Asrir, knocking her up on the hood of the vehicle, and launching her to the pavement.  Asrir hit her head hard, though she credits her helmet with preventing further injury.  

According to witnesses, the driver had been talking on her cell phone. Later, she was not allowed to leave in her car.

A police report has yet to be filed in the case and Park Station police would not release any details about the crash, including possible citations and charges.

Though obviously shaken from the event and upset that the new light hasn’t improved things, Asrir was grateful that her daughter, who trailed behind her by a foot, had not been the one struck, nor a mother with a child in a stroller who was just behind them.

“I used to always be scared of that intersection,” said Asrir. “But I was so happy when they put in the light.  Now I’m scared of the intersection again.”

The Fix Masonic neighborhood coalition has long sought improvements to the intersection and better enforcement of traffic laws to change driver behavior.  According to members of the coalition, at their last meeting, a representative of the MTA who has been observing Fell and Masonic since the bike light went in reported seeing numerous instances of cars deliberately ignoring their red left-turn arrow and turning against the cyclists' green.   

“You don’t need to spend more than twenty minutes standing at the intersection to see the violations, especially at 5 pm on a weekday,” said Fix Masonic Founder Mark Christiansen

MTA spokesman Judson True assented that the intersection needs more enforcement and added, “It’s important for all users to obey traffic signals.  The whole point of the new signal is to separate vehicle movements from bicycles and pedestrians.”

True said there had been one previous crash between a cyclist and vehicle since the light was added.  In an interview a couple weeks ago, senior MTA traffic engineer Jack Fleck told Streetsblog that one or two crashes a year at an intersection could be coincidence, but that three or more was unacceptable and that the MTA would try to change such an intersection (as they have proposed doing with the eastbound bicycle lane at Market St. and Octavia Blvd.)

The SFBC has made numerous requests to the SFPD to increase enforcement at Fell and Masonic, as well as other dangerous intersections.  In a letter sent to Chief Heather Fong last June (PDF) they demanded a “well-publicized campaign focusing on motorists’ violations of vulnerable users’ right-of-way” similar to a recent initiative in Chicago.

“This intersection needs focused enforcement attention, right now and until motorists understand that the red signal arrow means STOP,” said SFBC Program Director Andy Thornley.  “Citywide, we need a renewed commitment to enforcement of basic traffic violations to address those behaviors that most often result in injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists.”

Cindy Asrir, meantime, is vowing to become active in the Fix Masonic coalition once her wounds heal. She also plans to lobby the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor to remedy the problem at Fell and Masonic.  

“That should be a safe zone; that’s how people get to the park,” said Asrir.  “If you can’t bike to the park safely, we have a big problem.”

Flickr photos: Alex Choi and Shmooth

You see them everywhere. Drivers yakking on their handheld cell phones despite a California law that's been on the books for more than six months now that makes it illegal.  So, is anyone getting ticketed? Yes, but unfortunately it's a toothless law.

Drivers who use handheld phones can be pulled over for violating the law. No other reason is needed. The California Highway Patrol has issued over 47,000 tickets since it went effect last July. The Golden Gate Division, which oversees the nine county Bay Area, has written 8,300 of those tickets. It's hard to tell how the law is being enforced in San Francisco because SFPD does not track the number of citations its officers have issued.

As much as I would like to think a cell phoning driver involved in a crash will face consequences, or at the very least be forced to pay a hefty settlement, liability and damages are two different things, according to Greg Brod of the Brod Law Firm.  There would still need to be proof the driver was negligent but a jury could weigh in the fact that a driver was using a handheld in liability cases. Greg blogs about these issues and recently wrote about the new texting ban that took effect this month.

The National Safety Council just called for a nationwide ban on using a cell phone while driving, either handheld or hands-free, and a law that follows their recommendation could have real safety impacts. Brod said there are school districts all around the country that still don't have a policy preventing school bus drivers from talking on a cell phone or texting while driving.

What makes the California law toothless is that a ticket given for violating the law is not a moving violation, and doesn't go on your driving record as a point.  DUI is a two-point violation, speeding a one-point violation. If it doesn't go on your record your insurance company doesn't know about it, and it doesn't raise insurance rates, according to the Insurance Information Network of California.   It is possible that drivers will pass off the $50 ticket as the cost of doing business.

Flickr photos:  Andrew Ciscel and Jonny Garlic