Today’s Headlines

  • SF Examiner Opposes Prop. 33: Creates Car Insurance Penalties for the Temporarily Car-Free
  • SFMTA to Sponsor “Hackathon” Programming Challenge to Find Solutions for Muni (MuniDiaries)
  • WTF: Tech Will Solve “Biker Rage,” Muni Delays, Says Pro-Prop. E Video (Uptown Almanac, SFBG)
  • SM County Considers Tax Measure to Keep SamTrans Afloat (SM Daily)
  • Antioch Crossing Guard, Two Others Injured by SUV Driver Outside School (CoCo TimesCBS)
  • Elderly San Rafael Pedestrian Killed by Van Driver Saturday (MarinIJ)
  • Fremont Boy Struck by Hit-and-Run Driver in Crosswalk (Argus)
  • Driver Who Injured Two St. Helena Cyclists Collapses, Dies in Driveway (Press Dem)
  • 7×7 Previews Fairfax’s Biketoberfest This Weekend
  • KRON’s “People Behaving Badly” on Oakland’s Red Light Camera Controversy
  • Carpool Lanes Coming to I-580 in Eastern Alameda County (Mercury)
  • Gas Prices in Bay Area Remain at All-Time Highs (Mercury)
  • Investors Continue to Fund Ride-Sharing Services Despite State Crackdown (City Insider)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • I didn’t realize that the cyclists hit in St. Helena were two women, ages 67 and 72.  

  • mikesonn

    Biketoberfest is a great event. We’ve done it the last 2 years. It is a nice easy ride up to Fairfax from the city and you can take the Larkspur ferry back (Marin Brewing is also very close to the ferry landing).

  • Guest

    Obviously those crosswalks are working…

  • voltairesmistress

    Re Proposition 33: The vast majority of people with a personal histories of interrupted car insurance coverage have allowed their car insurance to lapse while continuing to drive their cars.  Many times they drop insurance to save money, or because their driving records are so lousy that insurance is costly for them.  Instead of looking to alternatives to driving, they want the rest of us to subsidize their own spotty insurance coverage records.  We should crack down on this practice, not encourage it by subsidizing the inconstantly insured as we currently do.  Prop. 33 will do away with this subsidy and reward drivers with continuous insurance coverage: we could then switch insurance companies and reap savings while retaining that continuous coverage discount now offered only if we stick with the same company year after year.

    The argument that one should vote against Prop 33, because some drivers will temporarily go carless, then own a car again, then go carless, etc. would help a tiny number of people who legitimately give up insurance coverage because they don’t own a car temporarily.  This is more a hypothetical group than an actual one, since exceptions for military personnel on duty, etc. are already on the books.  The real issue here is continuing to subsidize drivers who cannot or will not pay for the privilege of driving while endangering the health and safety of everyone else.

    Vote “yes” on Prop. 33.

  • mikesonn

    I’m hypothetical? Hm.

    Vote “no” on 33.

  • Ditto. Vote no.

  • jimmy

    “Citation needed”.  Voltaire, your arguments run into the same problem as the arguments of the proposition sponsers: If interrupted drivers are riskier to insure, the insurance companies should be able to convince the government of that risk.  But they can’t, thus the ballot measure.

  • voltairesmistress

    jimmy, I believe California legislators wish to help poor drivers who have trouble paying for insurance (a social justice issue).  They also cite their worry that on-again, off-again insured drivers, faced with high insurance costs, will simply go uninsured permanently (a public safety issue).  I believe proper enforcement would solve the public safety problem, and that the social justice angle is overblown.

    I understand driving can be important to many people trying to make a living.  However, my own view is that driving is a privilege, not a civil right, and not a social justice issue.  Having access to good transit, affordable health care, food and shelter, equitable public education are social justice issues.  I would prefer my taxes and car-related private outlays to finance those things.  Subsidizing the occasional insurance buyer whose accident rates/costs are higher — should not be my or other drivers’ responsibility.  If we want to do that as a society, then let’s set up a public fund for such, although I doubt there would be broad public support. Otherwise, we are burdening the constantly insured drivers with another set of drivers’ higher risks/costs.

    And to Mike and Sean, you are in a very small minority of episodic car owners who need insurance episodically.  Without meaning to cause offense to you, I believe your desire for cheaper insurance should not be a social priority.

  • jimmy

    Again, you need to cite your claims.  Legislators do not appear to be involved in either side of Prop 33.  The “no” side is not talking about public safety nor social justice.

    Please back up the claim that “The vast majority of people with a personal histories of interrupted car insurance coverage have allowed their car insurance to lapse while continuing to drive their cars.” 

  • mikesonn

    @732c4803eb2e277d0054b17154744686:disqus Read the LA times editorial.

  • jwb

    Death to the initiative system.  Vote no on every proposition.

  • voltairesmistress

     jwb, my brother’s sentiments exactly.  But this year, a “yes” on proposition 40 PRESERVES existing congressional district lines painstakingly derived by a mostly non-political, citizen-led effort of previous years.  A “no” would toss that and initiate another process as mandated by the voters.  So, when it comes to propositions, sometime “no” means “yes”. no” on every proposition would not accomplish what you want in 2012.

  • voltairesmistress

    jimmy, I will devote hours of scholarly research to supporting my each and every opinion when: 1) I finish my doctoral dissertation, and 2) you and everyone I’ve ever disagreed with on this blog does the same — citing facts, figures, and reputable source materials for every opinion you express and the life experience that reflects.

    We are all citizens/residents with personal experiences, observations, and perspectives.  We are not here on this forum as paid experts or paid reporters.  You want citations and footnotes?  Try an academic research library or series of databases.  For now, I’ll reserve that kind of effort for something that benefits me.

  • voltairesmistress

     mike, thank you for the latimes link.   I read the latimes editorial, and it is as illogical, incomplete, and unsubstantiated as any I’ve ever read.

    How can Prop 33 be just like a previous, voter-rejected initiative that allowed portability of loyalty discounts for continuous insurance, but at the same time not be?  That’s what the editorial says.  Further inconsistencies and lack of logical explanation follow.

    It does provide the helpful fact that California law requires each insurance discount to be linked to reduced risk.

    So here’s a bit of logic, without any data. . . Don’t you think the insurers want give a discount to continuous coverage users and penalize those without it, because they have discovered just such a link?  And don’t you think there’s a populist and political reason that Democratic legislators in California don’t want poorer drivers to be hit with another charge?

    To me, there are valid populist political reasons to be against Prop. 33.  But there are also very good public policy reasons and issues of fair play that would prompt a voter to be for Prop. 33.

    Lastly, let’s pass Prop 33.  A lawsuit will follow.  Insurers will have to prove the link between continuous coverage/discount and lower risk.  If they don’t prove it, the Proposition gets invalidated by existing law.  Or let’s defeat Prop 33 specifically because we fear it is indeed true that spotty coverage equals higher risk drivers, but we really want to protect that class of drivers, because they are disproportionately poor. And California is all about providing increasing services for the disadvantaged while not finding rational funding sources for that charity.

  • mikesonn

    Your comment is about as slanted as you claim the LA Time’s link to be.

    I still voting no against 33 because I shouldn’t be punished for being car-free.

  • voltaire – my wife and I share one car. I am an added driver. Under prop 33 do I get continuous coverage?

  • HoJo

    Mike, if you are permanently car-free, than 33 won’t affect you either way, surely?

    It’s only those who alternate between having a car and not having a car who may be adversely affected.

  • I’m agree with the caveat that I default to “no” but pay attention to each one and they really need to convince me that a “yes” is really reasonable.

    But that’s harder to fit on a bumpersticker.