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 speed limits are used in california. That bill faced significant opposition, given the percentile is deeply entrenched in the law and in the culture of california. There are staff here who heard me say it many times, and its not my idea, using the 85 percentile which is 85 of cars going a certain speed per hour, that must be reasonable. That is akin to saying my teenager came home at midnight, therefore thats the time im going to set his curfew. It doesnt make sense. I think the task force which is made up of if you see the logos, if you can go back to that, i would say the majority of likeminded allies in the room encourages me. We have cities throughout california and advocacy organizations, including calbike and cal walks. On the Advisory Group we have partners. We have an Incredible Group of allies and smart folks whove been working on this issue for years to inform the work on the task force. The focus of the task force is really on speed limit setting and having a conversation with the state. The state will be producing the report about how speed limits are set and what we can do in the near term and the longer term, recognizing that the appetite to dump the 85th percentile may be too much to bite off right out of the gate. So we are focused on what can we do to seek changes in the law that will allow us to lower speed limits on highinjury networks, that will allow us to lower speed limits when an injury and Traffic Survey shows we need to go below 25 mph, but the state law will not allow us to do that. Those are changes we can do if we can get the recommendations to advance even in this second year of the current legislative session. In the longer term, the current conversation is around a safe Systems Approach and how can we look to fundamental alternatives to how speed limits are set in california. One of the things that i was reflecting on this in our past battles around automated Speed Enforcement. Its a really fundamental priority for the work of the task force. We are not there to have a conversation about whether we have a problem or not. When we were working on automated Speed Enforcement in 2017 with Assembly Member chew on av 342, we found ourselves deeply engaged in a conversation with opponents questioning the very fact that speed is a problem and is one of the top collision factors in severe and fatal crashes. That to me was a distraction, to have to spend our time making the case that the premise that we were asserting to advance the technology that we knew would work to save lives was really the forum where we were having the debate. So in the context of the task force, i think that really our effort is to have this report come out with not a question about whether we have a problem, but establishing that as a foundation and allowing us to have a conversation around the remedies. I was thinking about that and i thought that was important. The report i have done two updates and shared those with your respective offices and will continue to provide those. I think that we are working on a daily basis with our colleagues and with our partners at d. P. H. To see how we can influence the work of the task force. The next work is on october 22. Our understanding is in the afternoon we will begin the conversation around automated speed format. It is really it has been really helpful to hear even in drive time p. S. A. S that San Francisco putting itself on record in support of automated Speed Enforcement. I thank supervisor peskin for making that call. I think it had an impact. Well see where that goes in terms of our ability to influence the process. And i do, if i may, interrupt, have a little bit of an update. Obviously we were all very pleased about the statement of the president of the Police Officers association, tony montoya, to the effect that the sfpoa may be willing to move to a supportive position. And Assembly Member chew and i are setting up a meeting that for all i know could already be on my calendar because i only get to look a few days ahead. I have had very positive meetings with representatives of the teamsters who have historically been antithetical to automated Speed Enforcement and they may be reconsidering or, as barack obama said about samesex marriage, his position evolved on that and the teamsters position may be involving. That is so encouraging. The teamsters have a seat on the task force and i really like hearing that. I want to set the temporal elements of this. Two more meetings. The report will be created by calsta. They are the authors. It will include a review of safe trek ucit. That report will be issued in january. We hope it will have recommendations that the legislature can consider. I think its hopeful that we had a change in administration and we have a governor who issued the executive directive to create the first safety master plan in San Francisco. Ill just say well put our optimism there. The last thing i wanted to share with you is yesterday we learned that m. T. C. Is moving forward to establish a zero Vision Task Force and the development of a regional highinjury network. That shows how influential the work of San Francisco and other cities are having on this movement. I think having the region, the n. P. O. , that distributes funds will be critical to our work going forward. Im happy to answer any questions. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for all the work youre doing. I guess when you meet october 22 with this group, thank them for their work also. Thank you, commissioner peskin, for pushing this forward. Ive also had similar discussions with the teamsters, indicating what you just said. Thank you. Any Public Comments on this item . Come on up, jody. I will say before a couple of words. Thank you for hearing this information. As kate mentioned, while San Francisco is on the task force, its great to be in there in that room. What i do want to emphasize is we do know we are slipping from our zero vision goals. So these tools that we have that we really need to get past at the state level. So what i do ask is that city leaders like you and this body, this zero vision coalition, really do keep your eye on this, you weigh in on this. We just need your leadership here because its going to be so critical at the state. Thank you for doing everything your doing, talking to the teamsters and the p. O. A. Because thats the stuff thats going to matter. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comments on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is now closed on in informational item. So, mr. Clerk, can you call the next item. Item 6, 2018 severe injuries report. This is an information item. Okay. Youre up. Thank you for being here to listen to this information today. Im going to present to you about severe injury trends, which youve seen a little preview of. In 2017 and 2018 we were encouraged to have record low numbers of fatalities in San Francisco, however, those fatalities cont