Also working with other members from the city family. Everyone from sfpd have been nice bringing me up to the current level of information they all have. So we have those are discussions that we are having. I can tell you that the Police Department is concerned about everyones safety, regardless of the mode in which they move about the city. Certainly on the sidewalk people i can imagine i wouldnt expect that and i know a lot of people are surprised by that. What we have in that regard is a lot of foot beat officers deployed throughout all of the stations. So thats something that i can imagine or remind or discuss with the captains, who im sure are aware of that as well, about that being something that is addressed. The focus for our officers using police cars and motorcycles, speed is a big issue along with the focus on the five factors. People who are walking and on bicycles, theres a long list of people who are very vulnerable in a collision, more so than vehicles. So a lot of our effort and focus on the five is directed at vehicles because of the dire consequences that can occur. The short answer is i think foot beat officers are a great solution to that and that is a reasonable expectation that we will need to address as well. Okay. And with a writing a ticket or enforcing this vehicle code section is the same as any body camera report. A Police Officer would have to engage in a long reporting process to write a ticket for an escooter violation on the sidewalk. Yes, thats correct. Its my concern that were trying to Pedestrian Safety is obviously something were so focused on, with thousands more scooters coming onto our streets and sidewalks. I mean, i see violations all the time in district 2. It really concerns me, and i hear about it all the time from people that are nervous about it. I just feel like youre overtasked to focus on the five, obviously, speeding, the cars. Thats where were really getting it. But i have a worry around escooters and whether or not were going to be effective and actually even enforce. Thats just my statement. No, i agree with you. I had some questions around this also. I mean, im just wondering if there have been any tickets written to scooters that violate. Thats one thing. Okay. You probably wouldnt have that answer, but my guess is theres probably no tickets been written. Im wondering from m. T. A. Who provides these permits to these companies, is there anything written in the contract when you get the permit im sorry. I want to hold on a second. Let me i can whatever you like, supervisor. I just wanted to mention that i thank you for your report, but i know youre new you just got onto this job. In the future when you do the report, it would be really helpful if theres either a handout or something on the screen so we could i mean, i could follow some of the numbers, but you threw out a lot of the numbers. Okay. Im sorry about that. No, no, thats okay. What we had in the past is we made some comparison to what was before vision zero. There was actually a big effort when we passed the policy in terms of ticketing. And then one of the reasons why youre even presenting on is there was a big dropoff after a while. You know, we want to make sure that we bring our efforts up to what we were when we first started vision zero. By having the data that will show it. I understand. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good luck with this. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions . I was actually going to say the same thing, which is insofar as we all at a previous Vision Zero Committee identified the short staffing in the solos and then worked in the budget to and thank you to our budget chair to ameliorate that, it would be good to be able to track the number of solos and compare that to the issuance of citati citations, particularly those that were seeking to get to 50 on. Yes, sir. If i could add just one thing touching on what supervisor stephanie said, in the last couple of years our process of issuing citations has the changed. We went from the old tag book to the little cellphone. In addition to completing the ecitation and tohooking up to e printer, there is the requirement to upload the body cam video, to tag that, catalog it, and to complete a rather long document in terms of demographic information and what transpired during the stop. So it does the process has been elongated. And in addition to that over the last three years, theres been the rollout and training of folks throughout the Police Department at all the stations throughout the solos. So that has stretched things t out. Good point. Thank you, sir. Things get simpler. They become more complicated. Do you want to come up. So the question i have is in regards to the permitting process, do we require the companies to at least tell its users that its illegal whats legal and whats not legal in terms of using scooters. Jimmy parks livable streets director with sfmta. Safety and operator accountability has been at the forefront of everything weve done in developing this program. So well highlight a few things were doing on education, recognizing that we want to limit the burden on p. D. Resources to the extent possible and put the burden of enforcement on operators themselves. On the education side we have requirements that the operators provide enough education thats mandatory to all firsttime users that reoccurs occasionally when you use the app. So watching videos, getting information on not how to park correctly, not to ride on the sidewalk. Also messages directly on the scooters themselfves about the core the core things we want them to do, which is please wear a helmet, its illegal to park on the sidewalk, when you park dont block the sidewalk. Those are the three core messages printed on all the scooters. On the enforcement side, we have required a detailed complaint database to be submitted to m. T. A. By the operators, not only the complaints but how theyve resolved through them and checked them. Each scooter has a unique Identification Number that needs to be of a certain size. Also the operators can identify a particular user based on the time and location they get a complaint. Theyve all agreed to a threetier system for user accountability. The first violation for sidewalk riding is a warning. The second violation is a 25 fine. And the third violation is account suspension. So we will be monitoring the complaint database to ensure theyre doing that as well. Finally on sidewalk blocking, we do require that all scooters lock to a bike rack. That has helped quite a bit to the roll out of blocking the sidewalks. So ill thats a quick summary. Im happy to give more details. I dont understand a lot of technology, but it seems that its a possibility that the companies have a g. P. S. On their scooters or bikes. They could figure out whether somebody is actually riding on a sidewalk or not, can they do that . And if they can, why isnt why are we asking the companies to discipline those that are riding on the sidewalk by not allowing them to use it again . We have asked the companies that same question. What weve been told is the accuracy of g. P. S. Equipment right now is plus or minus 6 to 10 feet and thats not accurate in most cases to pin down what is or is not sidewalk riding to do user enforcement or penalties. Theyve all promised to continue to develop that technology. I dont know when it would be available. So in the meantime were doing the best we can with the tools we have. If there are more Technology Tools out there for automatically detecting sidewalk riding we would love to see. Maybe what we need to do locally is to create legislation to say if they they need to create this technology, otherwise we wont give them a permit. Commissioner stephanie. Just on rider accountability, not the company, but rider accountability for the person whos violating and riding the scooter on the sidewalk or has two people on the scooter or is putting the scooter on its side on the sidewalk or parking it obstructing the sidewalk, what is the accountability for the rider and what are we doing to enforce it through our own means, not through the operator. On the parking side, it is a violation of the transportation code to park a scooter improperly. That is something that can be enforced by the sfmta and we do Issue Citations for improperly parked scootered for a scooter program. Those citations are investigate. They will go out and issue the citations. Directly issuing a citation to someone on the sidewalk is a moving violation and would have to come through a p. D. Thats why we have relied on the operatorbased system of them finding users directly and suspending accounts. Where p. D. Has resources, issuing the citations is great. But we need additional means of enforcement to the users. If lyme suspends a rider, can bird allow the rider . How does that work . Do you get to go through all the companies . Just worstcase scenario, i dont know if they share information. Thats actually a really good question i dont know the answer to. I would want to check how we could do that without transferring personally identifying information, which is also prohibited. I think if there were a way if your user account is suspended, we dont need to have you go through that process four different times before youre banned from the city. I think thats something we could explore with the companies. Commissioner peskin. Thank you. And thank you for both of your lines of questioning around the selfscooter sidewalk issue. Let me take this from the top. If an individual is riding the scooter on the sidewalk, the permits that you are proposing to issue that will become effective in 11 days would first give a warning. How is that warning issued . So this assumes that somebody complai complains, and there is a positive identification of a person, a location. Like, how does the warning help me track this. So if somebody sees a violation, they can call that in. The more information that they have, the better. Particularly if its at least the brand of the scooter, what company its from. The operators are often able to identify a user because there is often one person in the vicinity. So there are representatives, they cant be everywhere, but they can provide user information and warnings. If the user is identified through that process, the warning goes out through the app and or the Contact Information that the operator has about those users. Thats something that weve developed through the pilot as well. I think its certainly not a perfect system in capturing violations, but scoot has gone through the process of suspending multiple User Accounts through this process. So it is possible to catch repeat violators through it. Im dubious, but lets just say you got your warning and then the next you do it again 25. 25 to who . Who issues that fine and who collects that fine . Its issued by the operator. So right now the yeah, the parking citations are payable to sfmta. I dont believe we have a mechanism to collect the user fines, but thats maybe something to look into. Right now the operator would issue the 25 to the user. And the operator will then collect the 25 presumably . Respectfully, this seems ass backwards. Theres no reason that i as a company want to fine my consu r consumer. I dont think and last time i asked that the p. D. Has the issued a single citation. I dont want to put the commander on the spot. But and, believe me, we all agree they have other things to do and thats a resource issue. Its hard enough to get to your first step, much less get to your second step. The company has no motivation whatsoever to issue that fine. We dont collect it. They dont remit it to us. So theres no financial incentive for the m. T. A. This should be from the getgo zero tolerance. You want as i love to say, micromobility technology in many instances may be a good first mile last mile solution to reduce congestion and g. M. T. S and vehicle miles traveled. I dont think thats a policy issue and me and my colleagues are having. The issue is about Pedestrian Safety and the issue is about rider safety. So i dont want them at San Francisco general with traumatic brain injuries, and i dont want my disabled folks and my elderly folks and kids dodging them on the sidewalks or getting hurt. So its just that simple. But this whole scheme does not seem to be frontend loaded with that concern expressed seriously. It should be if everybody knew that the first time you get popped for riding one of those things on the sidewalk, youre done, done. And all four platforms have to communicate with each other. So if one person, boom, all four of them, theyre suspended now and for ever. Then we wont have to play cat and mouse they move from one platform to another. Its hard enough to bust somebody because these are moving things. What am i going to do, take this out and do my 311 app and say i was on the corner of battery and pine. The thing is around the corner in a second. You feel like your right to have unfetterred Pedestrian Access on the peoples property, which is the sidewalks, has been violated. The scheme that youve come up with is, oh, well, you get three chances. No, it should just be one and done. I agree. This is why we need the office of emerging technology. Thank you. Any other questions . No. Okay. Any Public Comments on this item . Come on up. Good morning, chair, supervisors. Good to see you. My name is jody maderes and im the executive director of walk San Francisco. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on enforcement. I feel like this this is a really important topic that we brought to this committee, and i want to emphasize why we did. So the numbers of people dying this year from traffic violence have been too many, and we need to do Everything Possible to make it stop. Were already at 14 people, and one person on a bike, and thats the same at 2018 at the end of the year. Were hearing from our constituents that its the wild west out there, but not necessarily about scooters. That has died down. Its really about the car traffic. I want to thing this back to whats important here. We have tens of thousands more vehicles and the enforcement is not being addressed. We heard this morning its been 41 . Thankfully mayor breed has doubled the number of traffic cops. We know thats still not enough. We know we will see the emphasis focus back on the safety and the most dangerous driving behaviors. Thats what we set out in vision zero. Sfpd has to seriously boost Traffic Safety enforcement on the most dangerous streets. We asked for it from walk San Francisco, and i encourage you to ask about the locations where they are doing these citations. Are they on the highinjury corridor . Are they in areas where we know the most dangerous behaviors are reaching . The sfpd mentioned locations today, and none of them mentioned the tenderloin. Well, thats funny because weve seen four pedestrian fatalities and how many serious injuries in the tenderloin . Is so were asking you to help us ask the sfpd to strongly commit to make sure that our focus on the five behaviors in citations are laser focused on the highinjury corridor in known dangerous locations. We all deserve to be safe on our streets and if the city is truly committed to this, were asking for your help on this. Thank you, jody. I do think scooters are important, and i would prefer to have a separate hearing and right now its focus on the five. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Thank you, supervisors. I would like to pay you back on what supervisor yee said about the reports. I think those are necessary by sfpd and i would like that to include the demographics and go further to see if the same disparities exist if they are doing citations on the black Community Like they are the rest. I would like to see if that correlates. Also i would like to comment on the scooters. Me and my grandson have both almost been trampled on the sidewalk by scooters. There really needs to be something done about it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed. Informational items. Well move on to the next item. Mr. Clerk, will you call the next item. Item 5, vision zero legislative update. This is a information item. Good morning, commissioners. I am from Government Affairs m. T. A. And i appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this update this morning. Also following the remarks of the commander want to acknowledge the partnership with p. D. That we have been working with on an ongoing basis and really welcome the engagement of the commander who has come on as a Traffic Company lead. So the this is very short in terms of what happened in the state legislature this year. I think both of these bills are bills that the t. A. Took a support position on. I will acknowledge that we worked very closely with your staff throughout the legislative session to see which bills we can be in alignment on. I will say there are almost no bills we have been together on in support. These two are the two that really survived during this session. The government has until october 13 to act. Ab 37 is a bill that would allow us to act on distracted driving. Interestingly, it is prohibited as a violation that can be cited for a point. We will consider this progress. The second bill is a little more global, if you will, in terms of vision zero, but it would require cal trans to consider improvements when it repairs or repaves state routes that serve as local streets. This bill has been quite controversial. The state cal trans has issued an estimate what it would cost if the state were to build bike and pedestrian facilities all into rehab projects. This bill at this point would require the state to reconsider those types of investments. It does not at this point require. San francisco has a strong support position on this bill. Weve actually mobilized the seven cities around the state to weigh in and support this bill. It is on the governors desk. Were at the end of year one of the current twoyear session. We are allow beginning the process to develop priorities for year two. I will say to you as of today vision zero transformative policy priorities are going to be at the top of our list. This leads to a transition weve been doing with the state Vision Zero Task force. Last year there was a bill ab 2363 that would have sought to allow cities to reduce speed limits another 5 km h below the currently allowed using the 85 percentile which is the way sp