7 ms·

45 SF traffic cops issue just 10 citations combined a day

42 points by mhb 4y ago

rm_-rf_slash 4y ago
https://archive.ph/s1xak https://archive.ph/s1xak
mc32 4y ago
If the cops don’t set a floor of acceptable behavior, the public will not decide, we’ve taken enough liberties, let’s enjoy this amount of laissez-faire and not overdue it. Nope, good drivers will drive well and the others will act like it’s Mad Max time to the detriment of public safety and good citizenship.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Where is the "laissez-faire" in negligent homicide? That's what this essentially boils down to. I'm on the other coast, but there's been a marked increase in aggressive and illegal driving here over the past two years, coinciding with a marked decrease in traffic law enforcement. "Good drivers will drive well" is not sufficient. Driving is not a right; it's a privilege that's meant to be afforded based on the driver's ability to drive safely.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Driving without harming others is a "right." An unlicensed unregistered driver who drives responsibly has done nothing wrong, and anyone stopping that person is a tyrant who has no place in our society.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      ...except made themselves unaccountable to our legal system. I'm hoping this is just some silly and normative libertarian take, because it's otherwise laughably wrong: driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right in the US. It's not a right anywhere in the world.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        I haven't presumed that they do. Governments can indeed infringe upon rights, and they can also infringe upon plenty of things that are not rights. Like driving.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Then you understand your argument that your opinion coincides with settled law lends no credence one way or another to your argument. We have a simple difference of opinion, and the fact that government infringes on the ability to drive is not evidence that driving isn't a right is fact.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Sure it does. The US government has correctly and as a matter of settled law determined that driving is not a right. Their decision to infringe on this non-right, if it can even be called infringement, is entirely a regulatory concern.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        There is some problems with the common statement that "driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right" First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled Secondly, the common justification that it is a privilege and not a right is the fact you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege", neither of which would be the case if were a "right" But it is now "settled law" as you call it that the 2nd amendment is an indivual right, but in order to bear arms in many many states you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege????"... so if logic on why driving is not a right holds then logically all licensing and regulation around gun ownership and carrying are de-facto unconstitutional However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered. Driving is a right because we have the right to travel, and government can only under very limited circumstances limit that right to travel.
    - spfzero 4y ago
      Except that you should demonstrate your responsibility in order to qualify to drive, first, before you start driving around. That's what the license and registration do, they constitute a couple of very easy "hoops" to jump through to show that you are at least responsible enough to write down your name and address and have it tied to your vehicle's license plate.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I don't include kowtowing to agents of the state as an indication of responsibility.
        throwoutway 4y ago
        Why is it kowtowing? Past taxpayers paid for the roads. The roads are a group thing and have group rules. To use the shared resource, you need to do so safely. The group decided to have agents verify you know how to do them safely. They use licenses and registration as the mechanisms. If you don't agree with the group rules, buy some land and an ATV and drive alone on your own resources without endangering others. I get libertarian values, but arguing against licenses and registration and calling it tyranny and kowtowing is strange.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Roads should all be privatized and paid for by tolls (or whatever private mechanism), not registration. Registration costs have little bearing on how much you actually use the road and are about the worst example of measuring how much is owed for wear etc; I'd argue your very argument is about why registration is the worst possible way to pay for roads and needs abolished. > To use the shared resource, you need to do so safely. You can do things safely without being licensed or registered. In fact I'd argue having a driver license is almost "proof" you'll be unsafe by your standards, since the majority of licensed drivers are batshit insane on the road (and you made the statement about "the group" aka majority being the decider of the state of something) >The group decided to have agents verify you know how to do them safely. I did not elect any of those "agents." And I'm pretty sure the "group" that voted for licensing of vehicles in my state is dead and in the ground, like the guys who voted to keep slaves. Also not a fan of the idea 4 guys of the 5 vote to break their own legs, so all 5 have to do it. I see public roads as breaking my own leg, by busting the free market for roads by creating a violence imposed subsidized government system. You create this subsidized system that destroys the market for private market roads where a license wouldn't be required, and then you say "well see, you don't need a license on private property but we destroyed through subsidies the market that would allow those roads to freely compete HA HA!"
    - throwoutway 4y ago
      > Driving without harming others is a "right." It is actually not. It is a privilege. You have to earn it and you can lose it. In some states (maybe all?) you agree to this FACT when you get your license. https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/ https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil... > An unlicensed unregistered driver who drives responsibly has done nothing wrong, and anyone stopping that person is a tyrant who has no place in our society. They're unlicensed because they either didn't take the required training, or lost their license, or perhaps lost significant vision. It is irresponsible for others (such as family) to let them drive. And regarding the tyrant thing. hyperbole? are you trolling?
      - notch656a 4y ago
        Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights. The fact that tyrants will try to stop you does not mean it isn't a right. >They're unlicensed because they either didn't take the required training, or lost their license, or perhaps lost significant vision. Or they're unlicensed because they meet the standards and more, perhaps even trained as professional drivers. They may be far more safe than others but merely believe driving is a right, and thus do not submit to infringements. If you've been on the road, you can see having a license has little bearing on whether you are a safe driver. >In some states (maybe all?) you agree to this FACT when you get your license Those who haven't gotten a license haven't agreed with that "fact." >https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil... I thought you would enjoy one quote from the website you cited: "No one has more right to the road than anyone else." That is, their statement necessarily agrees those with a license have no more right to use the road than anyone else such as those who don't.
kevingadd 4y ago
Really makes you wonder what they're actually doing. The claim that they're busy doing stuff like directing traffic for parades makes some amount of sense, but can that really account for the workload of 45 traffic cops? Averaged out this would mean each cop maybe writes one citation every five days. Are there that many parades in San Francisco? If they're "understaffed" how many traffic cops do we need? How many citations will they write at that number? Even the old citation number cited in the article sounds incredibly low given how many traffic cops there are.
- mjevans 4y ago
  If they have 45 cops helping with NON-ticket based traffic safety I'm happy with that. The citations really should be reserved for when harm has been proven to have taken place, not just speed or anything else similarly minor.
  - ryantgtg 4y ago
    So only give citations after something bad has happened? What are some examples of non-ticket based traffic safety, and how will they help reduce dangerous behavior?
    - mjevans 4y ago
      Station a police officer to direct traffic. To lead a procession. To hang out in a school zone. As a strong deterrence only. No intent to hand out tickets for minor infractions rather than literal crimes. Maybe also look for anyone on today's BOLO lists. Or just, instead of traffic specific police, put them back on beat patrols where they walk around and interact with the community in positive, peace and order, encouraging ways.
      - ryantgtg 4y ago
        Good ideas. Though I’d argue that some CVC violations can only be addressed through tickets. Window tint violations, for example, produce a dangerous situation the entire time that vehicle is in operation. No amount of traffic direction and whatnot can fix that - only a ticket to remove the illegal tint.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
On one hand, this seems quite pathetic. On the other hand, do you really want cops to have traffic ticket quotas? I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt it's "hire 500 more traffic cops."
- sofixa 4y ago
  > I don't know what the answer is Automated enforcement? Cameras checking for speeding, red light running, etc. are trivial and already existant. That makes enforcement better, with more coverage, faster, cheaper and removes any selection bias (that looks like my friend's car, I'll not stop them to write a ticket for speeding).
  - echelon 4y ago
    So we can be tracked more than we already are? A lot of people probably don't give a damn about surveillance, but think about all the future politicians who are having their entire lives recorded. "I know where you were on August 6th. You might want to vote X unless you want everyone else to know." The more we build, the easier it is to press further with it.
    - peter422 4y ago
      If your car is on public roads in a dense city like SF it is so easy to track already with existing infrastructure this is a moot point.
      - echelon 4y ago
        Put license plate scanners everywhere and it'll be game over. Deploy it in one city, and soon everywhere else will follow. I don't trust those in power not to abuse this.
        peter422 4y ago
        It already exists.
seibelj 4y ago
Why would anyone except those with some innate and exceptional passion for law enforcement ever choose to become a cop? The politicians, media, and a good chunk of society hates you. The hours are strange. You have to put yourself in dangerous situations often. Every action you take is judged, and severe mistakes go viral instantly and destroy your life. No one is ever happy.
- smsm42 4y ago
  One reason is devotion to the rule of law. Another is you get to boss people around. And given that "qualified immunity" is still a thing, most serious mistakes - or even outright criminal actions - go unpunished or punished by administrative means like demotions or firing - a luxury that a common citizen is never allowed. Hopefully, the majority is in the former category - but let's not close our eyes to the fact the latter category exists too.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
  It’s a union job with a pension, and the pay is decent. That kind of security appeals to a lot of people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rendall 4y ago
  That's reflected in the article's tone. I might characterize it as Although cops are terrible at their job, this time, they're terrible because they aren't doing their job and some experts say maybe that's because they're underfunded, but other experts say it's probably because they're just terrible.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I honestly dont know which one I prefer at this point: police who spend their time beating protestors, profiling black people and shooting family dogs, or police who simply don’t do anything. Seems like many are responding to recent widespread calls for accountability by just not doing their jobs.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
The one thing I’d like SF’s traffic cops to do more of: ticket drivers who block the box. This action needs to be seriously penalized so even the most selfish drivers won’t take the risk.
- Aachen 4y ago
  > When you block the box, you have entered an intersection when cars on the other side prevent you from making it all the way through. For anyone else who didn't know that term
iancmceachern 4y ago
More than saying anything about these particular officers, or the need or lack of need for quotas, we should be talking about people management. Clearly they should re-assign 40 of these officers elsewhere in the department where they could be utilized. This is a management failure.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > Clearly they should re-assign 40 of these officers elsewhere in the department where they could be utilized. This is a management failure. The error here is in assuming that SF's traffic enforcement is uniquely incompetent, rather than uniquely visible in its incompetence.
  - iancmceachern 4y ago
    Fair point, in that case it's even bigger of a management problem.
cheriot 4y ago
For those that are not reading the article, this is an important section. SFPD know what's needed, promise to do it, and then... just don't. > In 2014, the city adopted a Vision Zero pledge to eliminate traffic fatalities within a decade. The Police Department was a key part of that commitment, pledging that half its traffic citations would be for the five behaviors that are most likely to result in crashes: speeding, running red lights, blowing through stop signs, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and failing to yield while making a left turn or U-turn. > But just 35% of the paltry number of citations issued in San Francisco since 2018 were for those five violations, while the majority were for behaviors unlikely to injure anyone else — like expired tags, suspended licenses, tinted windows and broken tail lights, the analysis found. > In neighborhoods with lower incomes and more diversity — including the Tenderloin, Chinatown and Bayview-Hunters Point — an even higher share of citations were for these relatively minor infractions. It seems people of color always bear the brunt of enforcement, even the thin gruel served by San Francisco. > Meanwhile, just 32% of citations citywide are issued on the “high injury network” — the 13% of city streets where 75% of fatalities and major injuries take place. These include busy thoroughfares such as Geary Boulevard, Van Ness Avenue and 19th Avenue, as well as almost every street in the Tenderloin. > Braitsch and Bornheimer argue that the department’s 45 traffic officers would be far more effective if they aimed their citations at the five bad driving behaviors taking place on the high injury network. > But that’s not happening, and the outcome is predictable. Already this year, 19 people have died in traffic collisions on San Francisco streets, a figure that puts the city on target to match the 31 deaths in 2014 that prompted the Vision Zero commitment in the first place. Hundreds more people are severely injured on San Francisco streets each year but survive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- adolph 4y ago
  > speeding, running red lights, blowing through stop signs, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and failing to yield while making a left turn or U-turn > expired tags, suspended licenses, tinted windows and broken tail lights It is unsurprising that the majority of tickets are for objective facts that can be observed at any time rather than things which must be witnessed.
ajsnigrutin 4y ago
So, what did they do the rest of the day? Did they stop 500 drivers and just gave them verbal warnings? Or did they sleep in their police cars? Maybe just having them write a short report on their daily activities would change they way they do their jobs.
- irrational 4y ago
  The jokes about cops and donut shops have a basis in truth.
  - lumost 4y ago
    There are many professions where you don’t know that you have too many, but you know when you have too few. I suspect police are one of these.
  - mhb 4y ago
    Maybe they're creating stuff to sell on Etsy or writing FOSS like they would be in the UBI world?
- azinman2 4y ago
  It literally says in the article they balance it with all kinds of other duties than just traffic.
jadbox 4y ago
I lived in tenderloin about 6 years ago, and the police really don't care. For example, every Sunday at 11pm a rival gang would throw explosives from their cars at rival street dealers. We called the police many times, and we where told more than once that "these things usual sort themselves out between these gangs." Meanwhile we wanted as an ambulance took our corner dealer after having an explosive thrown in their face. We ultimately left that otherwise nice apartment, because of this situation combined with the landlord not caring about a new bedbug infestation. SF could be a wonderful place if they built more middle density housing and improved city institutions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chmod775 4y ago
45 traffic cops is a pathetic amount for a city that size. It gives you maybe 10 who are actually on the streets at any given time. I'll buy they're busy all day just responding to accidents.
Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago
Was in SF a week ago and my Uber driver took an illegal u-turn. He noticed me being quizzical and said that police don’t enforce anything anymore. He said a few years ago they had a big push to enforce traffic laws to the letter and everyone got a lot of tickets but it’s now totally different. Kind of weird to have big swings on enforcement of things like that. It’s like there is a broken control algorithm somewhere.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > It’s like there is a broken control algorithm somewhere. If SF is like NYC in this regard, it's because the police there have been on an unofficial and illegal work strike for years (long predating COVID). Municipalities have lost (or willfully ceded) their ability to oversee their police departments and, lacking any real consequences, the police are more than happy to sit on their thumbs.
- Teknoman117 4y ago
  Living in SF, I feel that some of the lack of enforcement has been that a bunch of our traffic flows have been completely broken. Feels that the powers that be are more happy to just leave things as they are with lax enforcement than fixing the routing. Some road signs have been changed (which turns are illegal, etc.) without considering how go some direction legally. Sunset neighborhood around 19th is mind numbing. Exceptionally few permitted left turns, random surface streets you'd otherwise use closed off except for residents of the street, etc. Not to mention that pulling over a car on an SF street will most likely start a traffic jam..
  - scoofy 4y ago
    San Francisco has been operating on a fairly ineffective honor system for a good long time at this point. We do okay, but it's certainly sub-optimal.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    > Not to mention that pulling over a car on an SF street will most likely start a traffic jam.. People should not just stop in the road. I've heard officers use the megaphone (or walk up to the driver) to tell the person to pull into a parking lot. Otherwise, officers can just follow the driver until they're in a position that they can pull over somewhere and park safely. It creates traffic jams and is dangerous for both driver and officer
tdumitrescu 4y ago
Think it's bad in SF? Go across the bay to Oakland. Red lights and stop signs mean nothing here.
- eloff 4y ago
  You say that exaggerating, but I was recently in Caracas in, and there they really mean nothing. At night or when the traffic is light, cars slow down but continue straight through red lights and stop streets. It freaked me out at first, but you get used to it. The reason is it go so dangerous at one point that it was to risky to stop the car at an intersection at night. It's not as bad now, but the habit remains.
testfoobar 4y ago
A high priority goal of many public sector employees is collecting the largest pension possible. See for yourself: https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/sfers-san-francisco-employees-retirement-system/ https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/sfers-san-francis...
phpisthebest 4y ago
Wasn't SF one of the "defund the police" city just 2 years ago? I find the mix messaging odd, It seems law enforcement is both a problem when they enforce the law, and a problem when they do not enforce the law. At the end of the day traffic enforcement via fine hardly ever does anything to improve actual safety, it is a revenue generator and a pretense for other police investigation but has never and can never be about safety If you want to improve road safety you must increase licensing requirements, require more testing, and have an actual mechanism to revoke licenses for people that cause accidents. Sadly many states (including CA) are "no fault" states where the police do not even try to figure out who caused the accident, and very rarely is there any consequences to actual unsafe driving so because of that I fail to see how forcing someone to pay some fines for speeding will improve safety. That is a joke.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > At the end of the day traffic enforcement via fine hardly ever does anything to improve actual safety, it is a revenue generator and a pretense for other police investigation but has never and can never be about safety NYC's red-light violation fining program (which was just expanded this year) is substantively responsible for a 70% decline in right-angle crashes, as well as a 40% decline in rear-end crashes[1]. Drivers who are fined for driving unsafely learn that there's a cost, and drive more safely as a result. I agree with the rest (including the concerning pretext aspect!). But fines do play a critical role in road safety. [1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-ca...
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Automated, i.e constant monitoring, is slightly different than ad-hoc police enforcement, as drivers learn which lights are continually monitored will change behavior, in those locations. Just like known "speed traps" cause people to slow down, or if you use Waze you will slow down if police are reported on the app. So I have no doubt that automated enforcement will change behavior, I still opposed automated enforcement on a number of grounds, privacy / constitutional / abuse concerns / etc. Further I would have to look deeper into the implantation, but I know more than a few studies on Red Light cams have shown that while they will reduce intersection crashed, often then INCREASE rear end crashes as people slam on the breaks when the yellow comes on making the intersection not really "safer" it just changes the location of the wreck. Now for a city like NYC rear end may be safer over all given the high levels of pedestrians I dont know...
zaptheimpaler 4y ago
This is one of those situations where the metric is very important. Vision Zero uses the number of traffic accidents or fatalities. There's a dashboard here: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/transportation/traffic-fatalities https://sfgov.org/scorecards/transportation/traffic-fataliti... I don't really see any significant changes there. Perhaps there should be other metrics, but number of citations would create perverse incentives.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
Smells like maybe retaliation for criticizing police abuses?

42 points by mhb 4y ago

https://archive.ph/s1xak https://archive.ph/s1xak

mc32 4y ago

If the cops don’t set a floor of acceptable behavior, the public will not decide, we’ve taken enough liberties, let’s enjoy this amount of laissez-faire and not overdue it. Nope, good drivers will drive well and the others will act like it’s Mad Max time to the detriment of public safety and good citizenship.

woodruffw 4y ago
Where is the "laissez-faire" in negligent homicide? That's what this essentially boils down to. I'm on the other coast, but there's been a marked increase in aggressive and illegal driving here over the past two years, coinciding with a marked decrease in traffic law enforcement. "Good drivers will drive well" is not sufficient. Driving is not a right; it's a privilege that's meant to be afforded based on the driver's ability to drive safely.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Driving without harming others is a "right." An unlicensed unregistered driver who drives responsibly has done nothing wrong, and anyone stopping that person is a tyrant who has no place in our society.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    ...except made themselves unaccountable to our legal system. I'm hoping this is just some silly and normative libertarian take, because it's otherwise laughably wrong: driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right in the US. It's not a right anywhere in the world.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I haven't presumed that they do. Governments can indeed infringe upon rights, and they can also infringe upon plenty of things that are not rights. Like driving.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Then you understand your argument that your opinion coincides with settled law lends no credence one way or another to your argument. We have a simple difference of opinion, and the fact that government infringes on the ability to drive is not evidence that driving isn't a right is fact.
        woodruffw 4y ago
        Sure it does. The US government has correctly and as a matter of settled law determined that driving is not a right. Their decision to infringe on this non-right, if it can even be called infringement, is entirely a regulatory concern.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      There is some problems with the common statement that "driving, as a matter of settled law, is not a right" First off, as we have seen "settled law" is never really settled Secondly, the common justification that it is a privilege and not a right is the fact you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege", neither of which would be the case if were a "right" But it is now "settled law" as you call it that the 2nd amendment is an indivual right, but in order to bear arms in many many states you must pass a skills challenge to be licensed, and then it could be revoked if you abuse the "privilege????"... so if logic on why driving is not a right holds then logically all licensing and regulation around gun ownership and carrying are de-facto unconstitutional However if instead the public can put reasonable limits for public safety on both gun ownership and driving, both driving and gun ownership would be rights... as they should be considered. Driving is a right because we have the right to travel, and government can only under very limited circumstances limit that right to travel.
  - spfzero 4y ago
    Except that you should demonstrate your responsibility in order to qualify to drive, first, before you start driving around. That's what the license and registration do, they constitute a couple of very easy "hoops" to jump through to show that you are at least responsible enough to write down your name and address and have it tied to your vehicle's license plate.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I don't include kowtowing to agents of the state as an indication of responsibility.
      - throwoutway 4y ago
        Why is it kowtowing? Past taxpayers paid for the roads. The roads are a group thing and have group rules. To use the shared resource, you need to do so safely. The group decided to have agents verify you know how to do them safely. They use licenses and registration as the mechanisms. If you don't agree with the group rules, buy some land and an ATV and drive alone on your own resources without endangering others. I get libertarian values, but arguing against licenses and registration and calling it tyranny and kowtowing is strange.
        notch656a 4y ago
        Roads should all be privatized and paid for by tolls (or whatever private mechanism), not registration. Registration costs have little bearing on how much you actually use the road and are about the worst example of measuring how much is owed for wear etc; I'd argue your very argument is about why registration is the worst possible way to pay for roads and needs abolished. > To use the shared resource, you need to do so safely. You can do things safely without being licensed or registered. In fact I'd argue having a driver license is almost "proof" you'll be unsafe by your standards, since the majority of licensed drivers are batshit insane on the road (and you made the statement about "the group" aka majority being the decider of the state of something) >The group decided to have agents verify you know how to do them safely. I did not elect any of those "agents." And I'm pretty sure the "group" that voted for licensing of vehicles in my state is dead and in the ground, like the guys who voted to keep slaves. Also not a fan of the idea 4 guys of the 5 vote to break their own legs, so all 5 have to do it. I see public roads as breaking my own leg, by busting the free market for roads by creating a violence imposed subsidized government system. You create this subsidized system that destroys the market for private market roads where a license wouldn't be required, and then you say "well see, you don't need a license on private property but we destroyed through subsidies the market that would allow those roads to freely compete HA HA!"
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    > Driving without harming others is a "right." It is actually not. It is a privilege. You have to earn it and you can lose it. In some states (maybe all?) you agree to this FACT when you get your license. https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privilege/driving-is-a-privilege-not-a-right/ https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil... > An unlicensed unregistered driver who drives responsibly has done nothing wrong, and anyone stopping that person is a tyrant who has no place in our society. They're unlicensed because they either didn't take the required training, or lost their license, or perhaps lost significant vision. It is irresponsible for others (such as family) to let them drive. And regarding the tyrant thing. hyperbole? are you trolling?
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Rights don't come from the government. The government can only infringe upon rights. The fact that tyrants will try to stop you does not mean it isn't a right. >They're unlicensed because they either didn't take the required training, or lost their license, or perhaps lost significant vision. Or they're unlicensed because they meet the standards and more, perhaps even trained as professional drivers. They may be far more safe than others but merely believe driving is a right, and thus do not submit to infringements. If you've been on the road, you can see having a license has little bearing on whether you are a safe driver. >In some states (maybe all?) you agree to this FACT when you get your license Those who haven't gotten a license haven't agreed with that "fact." >https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil https://driversed.com/driving-information/the-driving-privil... I thought you would enjoy one quote from the website you cited: "No one has more right to the road than anyone else." That is, their statement necessarily agrees those with a license have no more right to use the road than anyone else such as those who don't.

kevingadd 4y ago

Really makes you wonder what they're actually doing. The claim that they're busy doing stuff like directing traffic for parades makes some amount of sense, but can that really account for the workload of 45 traffic cops? Averaged out this would mean each cop maybe writes one citation every five days. Are there that many parades in San Francisco? If they're "understaffed" how many traffic cops do we need? How many citations will they write at that number? Even the old citation number cited in the article sounds incredibly low given how many traffic cops there are.

mjevans 4y ago
If they have 45 cops helping with NON-ticket based traffic safety I'm happy with that. The citations really should be reserved for when harm has been proven to have taken place, not just speed or anything else similarly minor.
- ryantgtg 4y ago
  So only give citations after something bad has happened? What are some examples of non-ticket based traffic safety, and how will they help reduce dangerous behavior?
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Station a police officer to direct traffic. To lead a procession. To hang out in a school zone. As a strong deterrence only. No intent to hand out tickets for minor infractions rather than literal crimes. Maybe also look for anyone on today's BOLO lists. Or just, instead of traffic specific police, put them back on beat patrols where they walk around and interact with the community in positive, peace and order, encouraging ways.
    - ryantgtg 4y ago
      Good ideas. Though I’d argue that some CVC violations can only be addressed through tickets. Window tint violations, for example, produce a dangerous situation the entire time that vehicle is in operation. No amount of traffic direction and whatnot can fix that - only a ticket to remove the illegal tint.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

On one hand, this seems quite pathetic. On the other hand, do you really want cops to have traffic ticket quotas? I don't know what the answer is, but I doubt it's "hire 500 more traffic cops."

sofixa 4y ago
> I don't know what the answer is Automated enforcement? Cameras checking for speeding, red light running, etc. are trivial and already existant. That makes enforcement better, with more coverage, faster, cheaper and removes any selection bias (that looks like my friend's car, I'll not stop them to write a ticket for speeding).
- echelon 4y ago
  So we can be tracked more than we already are? A lot of people probably don't give a damn about surveillance, but think about all the future politicians who are having their entire lives recorded. "I know where you were on August 6th. You might want to vote X unless you want everyone else to know." The more we build, the easier it is to press further with it.
  - peter422 4y ago
    If your car is on public roads in a dense city like SF it is so easy to track already with existing infrastructure this is a moot point.
    - echelon 4y ago
      Put license plate scanners everywhere and it'll be game over. Deploy it in one city, and soon everywhere else will follow. I don't trust those in power not to abuse this.
      - peter422 4y ago
        It already exists.

seibelj 4y ago

Why would anyone except those with some innate and exceptional passion for law enforcement ever choose to become a cop? The politicians, media, and a good chunk of society hates you. The hours are strange. You have to put yourself in dangerous situations often. Every action you take is judged, and severe mistakes go viral instantly and destroy your life. No one is ever happy.

smsm42 4y ago
One reason is devotion to the rule of law. Another is you get to boss people around. And given that "qualified immunity" is still a thing, most serious mistakes - or even outright criminal actions - go unpunished or punished by administrative means like demotions or firing - a luxury that a common citizen is never allowed. Hopefully, the majority is in the former category - but let's not close our eyes to the fact the latter category exists too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago
It’s a union job with a pension, and the pay is decent. That kind of security appeals to a lot of people.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rendall 4y ago
That's reflected in the article's tone. I might characterize it as Although cops are terrible at their job, this time, they're terrible because they aren't doing their job and some experts say maybe that's because they're underfunded, but other experts say it's probably because they're just terrible.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I honestly dont know which one I prefer at this point: police who spend their time beating protestors, profiling black people and shooting family dogs, or police who simply don’t do anything. Seems like many are responding to recent widespread calls for accountability by just not doing their jobs.

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

fshbbdssbbgdd 4y ago

The one thing I’d like SF’s traffic cops to do more of: ticket drivers who block the box. This action needs to be seriously penalized so even the most selfish drivers won’t take the risk.

Aachen 4y ago
> When you block the box, you have entered an intersection when cars on the other side prevent you from making it all the way through. For anyone else who didn't know that term

iancmceachern 4y ago

More than saying anything about these particular officers, or the need or lack of need for quotas, we should be talking about people management. Clearly they should re-assign 40 of these officers elsewhere in the department where they could be utilized. This is a management failure.

woodruffw 4y ago
> Clearly they should re-assign 40 of these officers elsewhere in the department where they could be utilized. This is a management failure. The error here is in assuming that SF's traffic enforcement is uniquely incompetent, rather than uniquely visible in its incompetence.
- iancmceachern 4y ago
  Fair point, in that case it's even bigger of a management problem.

cheriot 4y ago

For those that are not reading the article, this is an important section. SFPD know what's needed, promise to do it, and then... just don't. > In 2014, the city adopted a Vision Zero pledge to eliminate traffic fatalities within a decade. The Police Department was a key part of that commitment, pledging that half its traffic citations would be for the five behaviors that are most likely to result in crashes: speeding, running red lights, blowing through stop signs, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and failing to yield while making a left turn or U-turn. > But just 35% of the paltry number of citations issued in San Francisco since 2018 were for those five violations, while the majority were for behaviors unlikely to injure anyone else — like expired tags, suspended licenses, tinted windows and broken tail lights, the analysis found. > In neighborhoods with lower incomes and more diversity — including the Tenderloin, Chinatown and Bayview-Hunters Point — an even higher share of citations were for these relatively minor infractions. It seems people of color always bear the brunt of enforcement, even the thin gruel served by San Francisco. > Meanwhile, just 32% of citations citywide are issued on the “high injury network” — the 13% of city streets where 75% of fatalities and major injuries take place. These include busy thoroughfares such as Geary Boulevard, Van Ness Avenue and 19th Avenue, as well as almost every street in the Tenderloin. > Braitsch and Bornheimer argue that the department’s 45 traffic officers would be far more effective if they aimed their citations at the five bad driving behaviors taking place on the high injury network. > But that’s not happening, and the outcome is predictable. Already this year, 19 people have died in traffic collisions on San Francisco streets, a figure that puts the city on target to match the 31 deaths in 2014 that prompted the Vision Zero commitment in the first place. Hundreds more people are severely injured on San Francisco streets each year but survive.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adolph 4y ago
> speeding, running red lights, blowing through stop signs, failing to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, and failing to yield while making a left turn or U-turn > expired tags, suspended licenses, tinted windows and broken tail lights It is unsurprising that the majority of tickets are for objective facts that can be observed at any time rather than things which must be witnessed.

ajsnigrutin 4y ago

So, what did they do the rest of the day? Did they stop 500 drivers and just gave them verbal warnings? Or did they sleep in their police cars? Maybe just having them write a short report on their daily activities would change they way they do their jobs.

irrational 4y ago
The jokes about cops and donut shops have a basis in truth.
- lumost 4y ago
  There are many professions where you don’t know that you have too many, but you know when you have too few. I suspect police are one of these.
- mhb 4y ago
  Maybe they're creating stuff to sell on Etsy or writing FOSS like they would be in the UBI world?
azinman2 4y ago
It literally says in the article they balance it with all kinds of other duties than just traffic.

jadbox 4y ago

I lived in tenderloin about 6 years ago, and the police really don't care. For example, every Sunday at 11pm a rival gang would throw explosives from their cars at rival street dealers. We called the police many times, and we where told more than once that "these things usual sort themselves out between these gangs." Meanwhile we wanted as an ambulance took our corner dealer after having an explosive thrown in their face. We ultimately left that otherwise nice apartment, because of this situation combined with the landlord not caring about a new bedbug infestation. SF could be a wonderful place if they built more middle density housing and improved city institutions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chmod775 4y ago

45 traffic cops is a pathetic amount for a city that size. It gives you maybe 10 who are actually on the streets at any given time. I'll buy they're busy all day just responding to accidents.

Dave_Rosenthal 4y ago

Was in SF a week ago and my Uber driver took an illegal u-turn. He noticed me being quizzical and said that police don’t enforce anything anymore. He said a few years ago they had a big push to enforce traffic laws to the letter and everyone got a lot of tickets but it’s now totally different. Kind of weird to have big swings on enforcement of things like that. It’s like there is a broken control algorithm somewhere.

woodruffw 4y ago
> It’s like there is a broken control algorithm somewhere. If SF is like NYC in this regard, it's because the police there have been on an unofficial and illegal work strike for years (long predating COVID). Municipalities have lost (or willfully ceded) their ability to oversee their police departments and, lacking any real consequences, the police are more than happy to sit on their thumbs.
Teknoman117 4y ago
Living in SF, I feel that some of the lack of enforcement has been that a bunch of our traffic flows have been completely broken. Feels that the powers that be are more happy to just leave things as they are with lax enforcement than fixing the routing. Some road signs have been changed (which turns are illegal, etc.) without considering how go some direction legally. Sunset neighborhood around 19th is mind numbing. Exceptionally few permitted left turns, random surface streets you'd otherwise use closed off except for residents of the street, etc. Not to mention that pulling over a car on an SF street will most likely start a traffic jam..
- scoofy 4y ago
  San Francisco has been operating on a fairly ineffective honor system for a good long time at this point. We do okay, but it's certainly sub-optimal.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  > Not to mention that pulling over a car on an SF street will most likely start a traffic jam.. People should not just stop in the road. I've heard officers use the megaphone (or walk up to the driver) to tell the person to pull into a parking lot. Otherwise, officers can just follow the driver until they're in a position that they can pull over somewhere and park safely. It creates traffic jams and is dangerous for both driver and officer

tdumitrescu 4y ago

Think it's bad in SF? Go across the bay to Oakland. Red lights and stop signs mean nothing here.

eloff 4y ago
You say that exaggerating, but I was recently in Caracas in, and there they really mean nothing. At night or when the traffic is light, cars slow down but continue straight through red lights and stop streets. It freaked me out at first, but you get used to it. The reason is it go so dangerous at one point that it was to risky to stop the car at an intersection at night. It's not as bad now, but the habit remains.

testfoobar 4y ago

A high priority goal of many public sector employees is collecting the largest pension possible. See for yourself: https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/sfers-san-francisco-employees-retirement-system/ https://transparentcalifornia.com/pensions/sfers-san-francis...

phpisthebest 4y ago

Wasn't SF one of the "defund the police" city just 2 years ago? I find the mix messaging odd, It seems law enforcement is both a problem when they enforce the law, and a problem when they do not enforce the law. At the end of the day traffic enforcement via fine hardly ever does anything to improve actual safety, it is a revenue generator and a pretense for other police investigation but has never and can never be about safety If you want to improve road safety you must increase licensing requirements, require more testing, and have an actual mechanism to revoke licenses for people that cause accidents. Sadly many states (including CA) are "no fault" states where the police do not even try to figure out who caused the accident, and very rarely is there any consequences to actual unsafe driving so because of that I fail to see how forcing someone to pay some fines for speeding will improve safety. That is a joke.

woodruffw 4y ago
> At the end of the day traffic enforcement via fine hardly ever does anything to improve actual safety, it is a revenue generator and a pretense for other police investigation but has never and can never be about safety NYC's red-light violation fining program (which was just expanded this year) is substantively responsible for a 70% decline in right-angle crashes, as well as a 40% decline in rear-end crashes[1]. Drivers who are fined for driving unsafely learn that there's a cost, and drive more safely as a result. I agree with the rest (including the concerning pretext aspect!). But fines do play a critical role in road safety. [1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-ca...
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Automated, i.e constant monitoring, is slightly different than ad-hoc police enforcement, as drivers learn which lights are continually monitored will change behavior, in those locations. Just like known "speed traps" cause people to slow down, or if you use Waze you will slow down if police are reported on the app. So I have no doubt that automated enforcement will change behavior, I still opposed automated enforcement on a number of grounds, privacy / constitutional / abuse concerns / etc. Further I would have to look deeper into the implantation, but I know more than a few studies on Red Light cams have shown that while they will reduce intersection crashed, often then INCREASE rear end crashes as people slam on the breaks when the yellow comes on making the intersection not really "safer" it just changes the location of the wreck. Now for a city like NYC rear end may be safer over all given the high levels of pedestrians I dont know...

zaptheimpaler 4y ago

This is one of those situations where the metric is very important. Vision Zero uses the number of traffic accidents or fatalities. There's a dashboard here: https://sfgov.org/scorecards/transportation/traffic-fatalities https://sfgov.org/scorecards/transportation/traffic-fataliti... I don't really see any significant changes there. Perhaps there should be other metrics, but number of citations would create perverse incentives.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

Smells like maybe retaliation for criticizing police abuses?