Today’s Headlines

  • SF Disability Access Committee: Free Parking for Placard Holders Should End (SFGate, SF Examiner)
  • Is the Conversation About Congestion Pricing Resurfacing? (SF Examiner)
  • SFPD Will Save Lives and Cell Phones by Handing Out Cards About “Distracted Walking” (SF Examiner)
  • More on the SFMTA’s Plans to Expand On-Street Car-Share Parking Spaces (SFBay)
  • How Removal of BART’s Rush-Hour Bike Bans Would Help Shorten One Woman’s Trips (SFBC)
  • New Documentary Spotlights the Busy Wiggle Intersection of Oak and Scott Streets (Haighteration)
  • SamTrans to End Obsolete Luggage Ban on Airport-Bound Line (SF Examiner)
  • San Mateo Driver Who Killed Man on Sidewalk to Stand Trial in July (SM Daily)
  • DUI Daly City Driver Who Crashed Car, Tried to Frame Friend to Stand Trial May 31 (SM Daily)
  • Marin Transit Proposes Service Expansions in New Budget (Marin IJ)
  • San Rafael Man, 71, Arrested for DUI Twice in Same Day (CBS)
  • Sunday Streets-Style Ciclovia Event Coming to Salinas (Cyclelicious)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Anonymous

    I’m so tired of “distracted walking” being an issue that’s even talked about. Of course we all have anecdotes about some asshole on a phone who wasn’t look where they were going, but making it an issue is such a distraction (pun intended) from the actual problem: car drivers that are distracted, aggressive, failing to yield, etc. SFPD will save even more lives if they targeted drivers breaking laws.

    Last time I checked, it was still legal to walk and use a phone. Historically I also believe car crashes killed pedestrians in large numbers before the use of cell phones was wide spread, suggesting the problem may be larger than people being “distracted.”

    Car drivers (and bike riders for that matter) are operating machinery and have many more responsibilities than pedestrians and therefore should not be using phones. By making the issue about distracted walking instead of driving, the SFPD is setting up an environment in which pedestrians are automatically perceived to be at fault in crashes involving pedestrians, even though historically in SF that has not been the case.

  • 94103er

    “On June 1, seven years after the disappearance of direct private competition, SamTrans will lift the long-standing baggage ban [on the KX]….[T]he agency finally sought to lift the ban after receiving an inquiry from a passenger.”

    ‘Oh, uh…wait, this incredibly unfair, revenue killing legal action has been obsolete for seven years? Guess we’d better do something about it!’ You get the golden Facepalm award, SamTrans.

  • This summarizes the frustration we have with public transit. Every improvement, no matter how simple, seems to start with something obvious to the riders that we complain about to each other, over and over and over.

    If Samtrans were a well run operation, they would have seen this when it happened and been jumping at the bit to deliver the improvement (which costs *nothing*)

  • When I was on the SamTrans CAC I asked the same question about KX back in January 2008 (, but the answer I got was no ( I guess that the new staff they brought on for the SSP saw the issue differently hence a different outcome. Back in 2008, KX was running every 30 minutes daily. Now it runs hourly and probably as early as later this summer KX will be running to SF during weekday peak hours only. KX would be far more useful if it was open to people with luggage at that time.

  • mikesonn

    If s/samTrans/Caltrain were a well run operation…

    Now Caltrain is saying it will try to squeeze funding out of the JPB members for wifi at a time they are going to barely be able to get money from them for running trains. I guess “why doesn’t Caltrain have wifi?” is the most common complaint they hear. After they waste money to get it, I predict the most common complaint will be “why is Caltrain wifi soooooo slow?!”

  • JB

    The bigger issue is that the distraction from the phone makes people unaware of their surroundings and makes them easier targets for crimes such as theft.

  • Anonymous

    I get that, but as the commenters of the article pointed out, driving while distracted is much more dangerous for everyone than walking while using a phone and the two are being conflated by the SFPD.

    Both pedestrian deaths and the high theft rate are symptoms of bigger problems that are not being dealt with on any substantial level. I’m not saying people walking shouldn’t be aware of their surroundings but there’s a level of victim blaming insinuated into the way SFPD is presenting this “education” campaign.