Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

San Francisco Enlists Bus Cameras For Traffic Law Enforcement

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the move-along-citizen-and-watch-your-mail dept.

Crime 151

Lashat writes with news that San Francisco's Muni bus system has outfitted 30 buses so far with "cameras capable of snapping photos of vehicles illegally traveling or parking in The City's transit-only lanes," and that 15 months from now, all of Muni's 819 buses will be equipped with the cameras: drivers caught on tape violating the bus lanes will be subject to fines of up to $115. 'The cameras have been instrumental in changing driver behavior. When cars see a bus coming, they get the hell out of the way now,' said John Haley, transit director of the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which operates Muni. Now for the scary part: 'We're starting to get a lot of experience with cameras,' said Haley. 'With all the footage, I'm starting to feel a bit like Cecil B. Demille.'"

cancel ×

151 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

IMportant announcement: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004837)

After coming home from a hard-day's work on a Friday evening, I noticed something awful on Slashdot - Beside those already awful Facebook, Twitter, and G+ icons was a flag icon.

"Mother of God," I thought, and many of you thought the same when you first saw it, instantly knowing what it meant.

First, a little background - Slashdot(then known as Chips and Dips [slashdot.org] ) was initiated by pseudonym Commander Taco in 1997. It was later augmented by pseudonym Hemos and the whole thing became Slashdot. By the way, what was to become one of the foremost discussion sites for science and technology was started by a religious twig and a fat fuck*

* there's a joke there, we're gonna get to it...

Yes, not that joke, but another joke, was that the some of the perceived online proponents of science news were actually Hopeless [hope.edu] religious lunatics! And, like CommanderTaco and Hemos, I joined and spewed the filth internalized by priest rape without mentioning the dirty little secret. Not only were the two founders deeply religious, they had a preference for PERL(which, of course, is written and directed by an evangelical lunatic). Larry Wall had raped the two himself while on a religious mission to a Michigan dildo store, and they both gobbled his wholey language (among his other things) down and asked for seconds.

There's a joke here, too - Slashdot considers itself a bastion of free speech.
It prided itself for not deleting any comment, unless the circumstances were so dire that they threatened its own existence. They rightly publicised their first monumental loss, against the church of Scientology. Now it wants to "flag posts." For what? Reporting to homeland security? Flagging is not in the FAQ.

Historically, even though the moderators acted as the Basij,(to quote another Slashdot reader from years ago) charasmatic trolls could not be silenced. Now, with the flag icon, Slashdot has gone full censorship.

If their awful flagging cannot be destroyed by asking or pleading, it must be destroyed by trolling. Citizens - please flag every high-scoring comment you can, and offer a technical explanation why that comment should be flagged. When your comments disappear because of some jackass who doesn't agree with you, attack the advertisers next. Contact their advertising or PR department and say, " I was trying to say online how great your products were, but Slashdot's censorship system prevented others from seeing my comment. " Flood their advertisers with those comments until those awful flag icons disappear entirely and Slashdot releases a statement regretting the use of flags.

Oh, that joke you were wondering about. Hemos is now skinny and Commander Taco is now fat. And the Jew Timothy and his overlords at the JIDF are still in charge of Slashdot.

Re:IMportant announcement: (3)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004925)

Seriously, what the hell? What is that flag button?

Did Slashdot actually give up on its stance about censorship, and its moderation system?

Re:IMportant announcement: (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005015)

Apparently.

From the FAQ:

How do I report abuse?

Below and to the right of each comment is a small "Anti"[looks like a flag to me -AC] symbol; click on this, and (optionally) explain why you consider the comment abusive. (Slashdot discussions are and should be robust; only cry "Abuse!" for comments that are utterly without redeeming value -- spam, racist ranting, etc. For everything else, use the other moderation options.) Reported comments will be reviewed and moderated by the editors, if appropriate.

Re:Flag Button (5, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005047)

Wow, that's right.

We've had 10 years of crappy First Posts but it was in the name of freedom of speech, and NOW we get a "Flag" button? And that actually leads to potentially having the comment *totally disappear*?

When did THAT arrive?

Re:Flag Button (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005537)

Seems like it changed around Feb. 9th. Here's Google's cache of the old moderation page of the FAQ:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KMxelxNspVkJ:http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml+slashdot+institutes+new+flag+abuse+comment+system&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Mxw&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&gbv=1&prmd=imvns&strip=1

Here's Slashdot's previous policy on comments and moderation:

Will you delete my comment?

No. We believe that discussions in Slashdot are like discussions in real life- you can't change what you say, you only can attempt to clarify by saying more. In other words, you can't delete a comment that you've posted, you only can post a reply to yourself and attempt to clarify what you've said.

In short, you should think twice before you click that 'Submit' button because once you click it, we aren't going to let you Undo it.

Why did my comment get deleted?

The only time we ever delete comments is if the comment contains malformed HTML that is somehow causing Slashdot to fail to display properly. Comments are not deleted on the basis of content. At this point, however, it shouldn't be a big worry. The comment engine is reasonably bulletproof, and it's pretty tough to post a comment that breaks Netscape.

If you posted a comment and you don't see it now, it may have been moderated down below your threshold (see below). If you set your threshold to -1, you should be able to see it again.

This is a rather huge change in comment policy that wasn't preceded by any announcement on the site that I can find (honestly, I didn't look very hard, though). Were subscribed Slashdot users notified by this change?

Re:IMportant announcement: (2)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005125)

*shrug* In the approximations of many users, slashdot isn't even any longer "news for nerds" nor "stuff that matters". Would it be surprising if they are now so desperate for quality content that they've resorted to attempting to get rid of the "bad" in the hopes that what remains looks like the "good"?

Re:IMportant announcement: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005217)

Thankfully /. isn't French, otherwise that flag button would mean surrender. ;)

Re:IMportant announcement: (5, Informative)

Soulskill (1459) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006007)

There's no automation. Flagged comments will be sent to the editors to review. Our two options once we see them will be to ignore the report or to downmod the comment.

The comments will still be readable for anyone who wants to browse at -1. The purpose is simply to more quickly find and downmod spam and things like the racist copypastas.

If you're curious, there were about 60 reported comments when I pulled up the page this afternoon (including the one I'm responding to). I've gone through half so far, and haven't downmodding any yet today.

Re:IMportant announcement: (2)

Goaway (82658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006091)

Look, you really want to run these things by the community before implementing them. Just quietly sneaking that in there does not inspire much confidence. Slashdot has a pretty strong tradition against that sort of thing, and if you're going to change things, really, explain it clearly first.

Re:IMportant announcement: (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006665)

It's not even a change. You could already flag comments as "needing moderation" via email, this is just an easier and more public way.

So yeah it's been run by the community for....at least 3 years, if not more - just that now it's public.

Re:IMportant announcement: (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006879)

While the difference between email and a simple mouse click may just be a difference of degree and not kind, it is such a large difference in degree as to make the question of kind moot.

Re:IMportant announcement: (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006657)

I like this, a lot - as long as it isn't abused. I suppose that is the nature of moderation anyway though.

Much ado about nothing, nice feature change, etc.

Re:IMportant announcement: (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006843)

If you're curious, there were about 60 reported comments when I pulled up the page this afternoon (including the one I'm responding to). I've gone through half so far, and haven't downmodding any yet today.

That might work if the volume of flags never gets to the point where it gets outsourced to low-paid labor. I've seen other sites, IMDB comes to mind, where nearly any post will be deleted if someone complains about it no matter how inoccous and that's despite their own posted guidelines saying that making bogus reports may get your own account deleted.

Personally I'm fine with the crap posts taking a while to get down-modded. I normally browse at 3 and up and haven't seen a crap post at that level in probably over a decade. If anyone is so thin skinned that they can't deal with seeing the seemy underside of humanity once and a while then they should do the same.

Warm, salty, gritty, bitter... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005045)

Slashdot first post.

Re:IMportant announcement: (1)

GaryOlson (737642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005603)

Search for Timothy's postings on the Scottevest slashvertisement and other places report [slashdot.org] those [slashdot.org] comments [slashdot.org] .

Re:IMportant announcement: (1)

rotorbudd (1242864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005877)

Contact their advertising or PR department and say, " I was trying to say online how great your products were, but Slashdot's censorship system prevented others from seeing my comment. " Flood their advertisers with those comments until those awful flag icons disappear entirely and Slashdot releases a statement regretting the use of flags.

What ads?

N/A (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004867)

Who the f*** is "Cecil B. Demille"? Are we supposed to know that name, or what?

Re:N/A (3, Funny)

ZackSchil (560462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004889)

Someone isn't ready for their closeup!

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004913)

Cecil B. Demille

The power of Google/Wikipedia is not strong in this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_B._DeMille

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005279)

Do you have any idea how long it takes me to type on this dinky phone? I'm not gonna waste time googling Cecil B. Demille when I could waste thrice as much time complaining about the lack of a link in TFS (and about 10 times as much time complaining about your lack of a link)!

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005555)

Fiddling with your phone ... that's why you don't already know who he is. People today: if it didn't happen right in front of your face, it never happened.

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004929)

Damn youngsters. Don't know anything.

Now get off my lawn!

Re:Damn youngsters. (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005007)

It's worse than that Jim, not only do they not know anything, they get more fun out of posting "Who is X" rather than looking it up.

Re:Damn youngsters. (0)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005963)

slashdot=stagnated

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004973)

I think he meant he felt like "Cecil B. O'brien"

Re:N/A (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005211)

Who the f*** is "Cecil B. Demille"? Are we supposed to know that name, or what?

Yes, yes you are. This is Slashdot, intended for geeks.
That means it is expected you know "How to operate a computer", which includes both actions of "copy/paste" and "google"

You are expected to know how to look up ANY name.
If you are unable to, perhaps this is not the website for you (Nor any of the people who modded you up)
Then again if you can't operate Google, perhaps NO website will be the website for you.

Re:N/A (1)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005285)

Who the f*** is "Cecil B. Demille"? Are we supposed to know that name, or what?

You don't know the name of a celebrity? What's wrong with you?

After looking him up, it seems that the reference is nothing more than "I've got cameras and I feel like I'm a movie director," which seems so witless that it's probably right.

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006595)

'A celebrity'. Haha. The 'not knowing the name of a celebrity' snark about shallowness has backfired a little bit here, I think :)

The point about this is not knowing who Cecil B. DeMille was, but knowing that his name has become the best for use in setting up a joke about movie directors, largely due to the (enormously famous, regularly quoted even now) line in Sunset Boulevard: "All right, Mr DeMille, I'm ready for my closeup".

Re:N/A (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005415)

If you're at all educated about the evolution of western popular culture, you know who Cecil B. DeMille was. It's like never having heard of George Gershwin or Chuck Berry or Norman Rockwell.

Re:N/A (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006583)

Who the f*** is "Cecil B. Demille"? Are we supposed to know that name, or what?

www.cecilbdemille.com/

Muslims are bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004895)

Muslims are bad
Muslims areblack
If one came to my team I'd give him the sack.

Peterbilt parking (4, Interesting)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004905)

Drivers are parking in bus lanes? Man, but these people are desperate. I always thought a solution to the parking nightmare in SF and elsewhere would be to modify those car carrier semi trailers so they could be used as mobile mass parking in some fashion; build upwards, in other words. Might block the view from somebody's Queen Anne though, so scratch that.

Re:Peterbilt parking (5, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004975)

The solution to car problems in SF is to get rid of cars. That moves the problem domain but I can't think of how many times I've thought of how fucking great SF would be without all those damned cars everywhere. Maybe just push them out of the city center, don't allow people to drive in the marina either, et cetera. As it is, it's just another noisy collection of imbeciles that it takes ages to get across at traffic time.

Re:Peterbilt parking (4, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005301)

The solution to car problems in SF is to get rid of cars.

But that leads to the real problem, which as it turns out, is that people who own cars get to vote, too.

Yeah, even in San Francisco! They actually think they've got "rights" or something like that. Nuts, isn't it?

Re:Peterbilt parking (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006541)

But that leads to the real problem, which as it turns out, is that people who own cars get to vote, too.

Even further, people with cars often have jobs, significant income, pay taxes and have influence with elected officials.

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005383)

This is such a real problem that one person created http://www.iamabutthole.com/ [iamabutthole.com]

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

cis4 (2565359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005559)

That wouldn't be a problem if Muni worked well most of the time. It's possible that getting rid of cars may make Muni work a little better, but then the system would be flooded by users, and Muni most likely does not have the capacity.

Re:Peterbilt parking (4, Informative)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005577)

Not having a car in SF is great if you live near the Market St. tunnel and need to get somewhere on that stretch of the city. Otherwise it's pretty horrible. Sure there's buses and Muni Metro trains that will get you most places, but due to the layout of the city it will generally take you 3x longer to get somewhere via mass transit than driving. As long as this is the case people will keep their cars, even when there's horrible traffic.

That and in many cases Muni buses will be extremely late or bunched up. It's not rare to see Nextbus saying 30+ minutes and this during what are peak travel times. For me it's often faster to walk if the distance is less than 2 miles. This is not an option for a lot of people unfortunately.

Also, what do you do if you live in SF but regularly leave the city? Mass transit is OK for specific things, but Caltrain and BART can only get you so far. I work in Mountain View but will soon need to commute to Campbell a day or two a week. To take mass transit I'd have to take multiple Muni buses or trains or take one and walk a mile, take Caltrain, and then get on VTA somewhere in South Bay. At best my commute will be 2 hours one way and if there's any hiccup and I miss the 5 minute transfer window between Caltrain and VTA it's closer to 2 1/2 to 3 hours. When I can drive down 280 in an hour or so this becomes unacceptable as much as I would prefer to be on a train.

As long as the transit options in the Bay Area are as poor as they are cars will be a necessity for many people. SF would be awesome without them but I just don't see it as feasible. Makes me envy everyone I know who lives in London and NYC.

If we had transit like NYC or London then I'd be all about getting rid of cars.

Re:Peterbilt parking (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005745)

Kick out the cars and I bet the citizens will vote in proper transit funding right quick.

Re:Peterbilt parking (2)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005911)

With what funding though? They'd be more likely to vote cars back in than raise the necessary tax revenue fund the amount of change that would be necessary in San Francisco alone. That and if it was underground stuff being built it would take forever. They're building a two mile or so extension to the underground trains that will be done in like 2018 or something. And I still have no idea who's actually going to use it.

And look at the BART extension around the bay that was funded. I have no idea when that will be done. 2030?

You could add more surface transportation but you still need access for trucks and other commercial vehicles so it would still be horrible.

The Muni Metro trains that run underground are using control software from the early 1990s that only allows them to run two car trains when the system was designed for three car trains. This is all pathetic compared to NYC's subway. All of the transit agencies are strapped for cash. I don't see banning cars to make people want to fund it more a really viable solution.

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005847)

Also, what do you do if you live in SF but regularly leave the city? Mass transit is OK for specific things, but Caltrain and BART can only get you so far. I work in Mountain View but will soon need to commute to Campbell a day or two a week. To take mass transit I'd have to take multiple Muni buses or trains or take one and walk a mile, take Caltrain, and then get on VTA somewhere in South Bay. At best my commute will be 2 hours one way and if there's any hiccup and I miss the 5 minute transfer window between Caltrain and VTA it's closer to 2 1/2 to 3 hours. When I can drive down 280 in an hour or so this becomes unacceptable as much as I would prefer to be on a train.

Take transit 4 days a week and drive on the day you commute to Campbell?

Although maybe a better idea would be for the cities on the Peninsula to become livable enough so that people don't feel a need to live in SF and commute an hour to two hours a day.

FWIW, I lived in SF and commuted 3 days a week to San Jose for a couple years. Most of the time I drove, but I also was able to get there on Muni -> Caltrain -> Free employer shuttle. It's a pain in the ass, but it can be done. Which is remarkable when you consider what a sprawling mess most of the Peninsula is.

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005973)

Take transit 4 days a week and drive on the day you commute to Campbell?

It'll actually be work from home 3-4 days a week and drive to Campbell the other days. But yeah that's looking like the most viable option. To the point of the OP though, that would be difficult if I couldn't have my car in the city.

Although maybe a better idea would be for the cities on the Peninsula to become livable enough so that people don't feel a need to live in SF and commute an hour to two hours a day.

I lived in Cupertino for a long time, but my wife is a graduate student at Berkeley. When we decided to move in together after we got engaged Cupertino was right out. And Berkeley was a pretty bad solution for me. So our options were basically Fremont or San Francisco. We're both young and relatively social so the idea of living in Fremont was pretty repugnant to both of us.

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005993)

I forgot to close my HTML italic tag. Oh well.

Re:Peterbilt parking (2)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006405)

Although maybe a better idea would be for the cities on the Peninsula to become livable enough so that people don't feel a need to live in SF and commute an hour to two hours a day

Um.... typing this from Sunnyvale. Personally, for me living in SF would be Hell on Earth. Different people have different definitions of 'livable'. Not that Sunnyvale is Nirvana, I'd rather live some place like Mariposa. But at least in Sunnyvale I have easy access to places liked Halted and Weird Stuff Warehouse and life's other fundamental necessities.

Re:Peterbilt parking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005843)

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I don't really think SF is ready for it yet. The buses is SF are a disaster compared to what I'm now experiencing in a much smaller town. I only had to commute by bus for four months in SF, and I saw everything from people getting drunk at noon to unremarked on blood -- thank god I just happened to notice it before I sat down -- to once having the bus driver refuse to move the bus because a guy on it smelled so awful (the rest of us yelled at the bus driver enough that we eventually got him to realize the smelly guy wasn't leaving any time soon). And even with the buses, public transportation seemed pretty shitty once you go west past the eastern border of Golden Gate Park. And this isn't to mention the wonderful bus arrival times located at most stops, which screw you over because buses simply disappear one or two minutes before they're supposed to arrive and then you have another 15 or 20 minute wait.
 
The day I moved to SF was the last day I ever drove a car, but if I hadn't lived in exactly the right spot -- literally across the street from both the J and the 22 -- or my friends hadn't lived in exactly the right spot, or I hadn't been working at home (and taking classes at Cal) it would have been awful.

Like in London (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006027)

The solution to car problems in SF is to get rid of cars. That moves the problem domain but I can't think of how many times I've thought of how fucking great SF would be without all those damned cars everywhere. Maybe just push them out of the city center, don't allow people to drive in the marina either, et cetera. As it is, it's just another noisy collection of imbeciles that it takes ages to get across at traffic time.

Maybe it's possible to introduce a London-style congestion charge which makes you pay either a hefty monthly fee to be able to drive in the centre and have single day permits be worth $10 or so. You can imagine how quickly people will stop driving through the centre if it costs them more money than to take public transport, which would be improved by the sudden influx of money.

Re:Peterbilt parking (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006769)

And so speaks some utterly clueless twenty something hipster. A life style tourist who spends 5 or 10 years here going to college, partying, "working" at some non-profit non-job but who then discovers that when they actually want to grow up and get a real life that all the politically trendy bien pensant policies they have been pushing so hard while living in the City means that there are no real jobs, housing is ludicrously expensive due to no growth policies and the public schools and services are worthless due to massive one party institutional corruption. And so they clear out of SF back to whatever podunk town they came from leaving SF a complete shambles due to their self-indulgent hypocrisy.

There is no car problem in SF. The recent recession has cleared out enough of the waste of space hipster types (just like it did in the early 90's) so that parking is no longer a problem in most parts of SF. In fact I have not seen so much parking in almost 30 years. Of course if you have actually lived in SF for decades and had to make a living here you would know that. Because the real locals actually know where all the good parking spots are no matter where you are in the City. I've never had any problems getting around or finding parking.

The latest insanity in SF is that the 3% of the city population who cycle regularly (70% in SF drive) , who are overwhelming young, white and middle class short term residents, have forced through a huge bike lane program where around 90% of the lanes are in areas where the weekly usage would be in the single / low double digit range. They have removed full road lanes on busy arterial routes for these unused bike lanes causing peak hour back ups on routes where there had never been any previous hold ups. Typical of these arrogant people. Demanding huge public subsides so that they can indulge in their sanctimonious "lifestyle" posturing while other people who are just trying to make a living have even more of their time wasted by these follies.

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005095)

There are numerous problems with that idea. For instance, you can't just load and unload cars freely. The car hauler has to park the cars onto the carrier furthest-in first, and drive them off in reverse order. There's no way to get a car out from behind the other cars without moving them all. You end up with (albeit periodic and momentary) a need for enough space to accommodate almost all the cars, after all.

You could modify the car carrier, but how? You can't have some ramp poking out from the side, it would potentially obstruct traffic. I don't see how it would work.

Re:Peterbilt parking (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005607)

Maybe the cars could park on tables that would slide out to free up those that are in the middle. Somehow. Doesn't address the problem of freeing up those on a 2nd tier...maybe a forklift? We're getting really complex and hence expensive, but it seems people are ready to pay whatever it takes to get a spot. Whenever I've been in SF I've always been quite horrified at the lengths drivers have to go to get around or park.

I suppose they're maxed out on parking garages. In her novel the Lathe of Heaven Ursula LeGuin passingly remarked on how downtown Portland OR was chockablock with PGs, even in the alternate reality the book was set in. Seems businesses there accounted for a glut of traffic in the area, which is very compact; it's basically just a small region on the west bank of the Willamette river that can't expand in any direction. Perhaps SF missed out on maxing out on vertical parking structures, for whatever reason.

people park in bus stops valet as well (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005097)

people park in bus stops valet as well

Re:Peterbilt parking (2)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006553)

I have to say, for as much I have paid in parking violations, upping enforcement and charging higher rates has made parking better in my city. It used to be a nightmare- you couldn't find street parking anywhere, because people would monopolize spots all day. I'd have to park in a garage, with their ridiculous rate structures ($10 for the first 10 minutes, $26 for 10-60 minutes and $32 for all day) just to run a quick errand. Now I can plunk my $3.50 into a meter and go on with my life.

I remember when I was a kid, there was a parking garage in the city that did sort of what you talk about. You'd pull up, hand the keys to the valet and he'd drive it onto an elevator and store it somewhere. (They also had a terrifying man-lift, where there was a vertical ski-lift kind of thing, with foot and hand pegs on a cable that circulated constantly, and the valets would just jump on to go to the floors they wanted.)

And I think a Dutch company had a computerized version of that system, where you'd pull into a garage, park on a pallet thing, and the computers would store the car-pallet above and below grade. I think you could put in an expected ETA so the computer could store the car efficiently. It's a good solution for areas with high real estate costs, because you aren't wasting half your space on access ramps.

Temptation (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39004955)

One can certainly understand the need to enforce the policy - if they created dedicated transit lanes to make public transit more efficient and attractive, then the system collapses if those lanes aren't kept clear and the buses have to travel through the same traffic as everybody.

Taking a step back, though, one wonders if dedicated bus lanes are really the best use of the land. An entire extra 10' lane comes to about 1 acre per mile paved. If the buses are five minutes apart, that's a lot of potential street going almost entirely unused. Worse if they're longer apart. (60 -- 90 minutes in my community. We're "rural" though, so the busses are just there to tease us, not to actually provide a viable transportation option)

That mostly empty lane sure would be tempting to a lot of drivers stuck in traffic.

Perhaps a compromise would be to sell a limited number of license to use that lane. Just enough so that it's sparsely occupied, but not so much that it disrupts the flow of buses. Taxis would be obvious potential customers. Pricing could be auction-style and done periodically. And with bus cameras for enforcement, I see no reason why it couldn't work to everyone's benefit.

Re:Temptation (4, Interesting)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004983)

Some cultures are heading more towards a 1984 style of control and some go for the Brave New World approach. San Francisco seems to enjoy taking the worst elements from both books and just running with it.

so (1, Interesting)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004991)

best use of public land would be to stuff more people, each one of them occupying some 10 m2 area with their cars to transport their single person, instead of fitting bus lanes in there, which will provide transportation rate of 1 m2 space occupied per person ?

excuse me, but engineering-wise, that would fail you an exam.

Re:so (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005659)

I think you've failed the engineering exam MISERABLY.

When you take into account that the dedicated bus lane is COMPLETELY EMPTY the vast majority of the time, and always will be, the car taking up 10 m2 per person is a FAR more efficient use of space.

If you completely clear the lane, the bus takes up THOUSANDS of square meters of space per person transported, not 1.

Re:so (1)

Richy_T (111409) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005967)

Is it really 1m2 area though? If the bus lane is empty otherwise, you also have to add all the space between the bus and the bus in front of it.

The true measure is probably mean velocity per person (though parking may play into the equation too). That likely means not having the bus lanes be exclusively for buses. Maybe for taxis (though they are typically single passenger so not so useful), motorcycles and full occupancy vehicles or have a light system that helps ensure the bus lane is empty when a bus is going to use it but allow traffic to use it when not.

Re:Temptation (5, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005009)

There is a similar system in place in London. Taxi's and motorcycles are able to share bus lanes.

This report from 2007 show's the enforcement cameras are improving things in London

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/static/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/6042.html [tfl.gov.uk]

After that it get's more complicated because congestion charging at peak times has come into effect for traffic entering the centre of the city

Local county here uses them on school buses (2)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005539)

http://www.georgiainjurylawblog.com/archives/bus-accidents-cobb-county-uses-school-bus-cameras-to-catch-errant-drivers-prevent-accidents.html [georgiainjurylawblog.com]

Cobb County has the second largest fleet of school buses in Georgia. The mere thought that nearly a thousand people don't obey the lights on a school bus each day is hard to believe. Hopefully they will release statistics to show how many people they are photographing.

Second story, reported two violations per day under manual system
http://mdjonline.com/pages/full_story/push?article-School+officials+still+having+issues+with+bus+stop+cameras%20&id=15410211 [mdjonline.com]

Cobb County bus stats
Transportation Department
at a glance...

        913 Bus Drivers
        148 Bus Monitors
        845 Conventional Buses
        275 Special Needs Buses
        813 Routes per day
        41,978 Bus Stops per day
        72,181 Miles Traveled per day
        75,642 Students Transported each day

so you figure, if people won't respect school buses I betcha that San Fran certainly has problems with parking or violating bus lanes

Re:Temptation (1)

cis4 (2565359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005597)

Taxis are granted access to most, if not all, bus lanes in SF.

Re:Temptation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005117)

You are correct; special lanes for small demographics are stupid and a waste. Especially these silly "carpool" or "high occupancy" lanes. Any other infrastructure that basically removed resources during the time of peak need would be "fixed" right away (Enron did this with electricity causing rolling blackouts in California - see where they ended up). Could you imagine if the water district made it so only recycling companies could have water between certain high use hours? But yet this failed experiment in social engineering called the HOV lane still exists. Why I can drive in it when flow rate is minimal and then must sit in terrible traffic - polluting like crazy - while that lane sits empty during rush hour makes no sense. I'm pretty sure that driving my car for 1.5 hours slowly pollutes more than driving it for .75 of an hour quickly. This poor use of lanes for buses is just more of the same. People with a social agenda or just feeble minds...

Re:Temptation (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005461)

Durh! You realize that your suffering is part of the incentive for using the public transportation.

It's like you're ignoring the point of it.

I don't get it, do you think there's some pretension that there is no agenda involved? It's blatant on the surface of it, unlike the recent debacle with birth control mandates. That's disguising an attempt by a bunch of old men to tell women how to live.

Re:Temptation (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005471)

At least where I live, the public bus only runs between certain operating hours during the day. Normal traffic is allowed to drive in a bus lane outside of those hours, and those hours are posted on signs by that lane every 10ish miles or so.
The lanes are only "exclusive" for 1/3rd of the day, and so not as large of a waste as you imply.

If they wanted the lane to be 100% exclusive, they should have put in train tracks, and instead of normal road safe buses, just use trolleys.
Most people do not argue the right-of-way between cars and trains. Likewise, most people do not attempt to drive up on train tracks. (For the record however, I've seen both happen. The first more so than the second, as people feel being 5 feet closer to the red light will somehow aid their situation)

In fact it would be pretty hilarious if they installed cow-catchers on the front of the buses! Not too helpful against other vehicles, but none the less hilarious to see the attempt!

On my normal work-home commute, there is a particular intersection with traffic light, that has a rail road crossing across it. There is room for exactly three cars between the intersection line, and the rail road line.
If you are the 4th car waiting to go that way, you are supposed to stay behind the tracks.
Apparently tons of people seem to think "Well if a train comes before the light turns green, I'll have to wait even longer... I know, I'll stop on the tracks, that will greatly improve my situation!" and proceed to do just that.

I wish there was a way for these idiots to experience the end results of their logic, without risking other peoples lives in a train derailment.
I have however seen one pickup truck hit by a train stopped over the tracks, totally destroyed, and no derailment happened.
He did fuck up traffic there pretty bad for a few hours.
I have no doubt in my mind that he blamed/blames the train for that too.
Unfortunately he made it out of his vehicle before the train hit it too :/
If there was any sanity left in the system, not only should he have permanently lost his driving license, but should have been opened to lawsuits from all the rest of us around there who he put at risk. Had the train derailed, many more people would have been killed due to his stupidity.

Hell he should have been charged with attempted manslaughter once for each other car within 100 feet of that track, plus anyone on the train.
When I caught the story on the news, all they mentioned was suspended license (implying he can and will get it back eventually) and points on his insurance :/

Re:Temptation (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005873)

It would be interesting to know whether the insurance paid for a new truck, or not. They should not have, since he was violating several laws when hit.

Re:Temptation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006547)

If there was any sanity left in the system, not only should he have permanently lost his driving license, but should have been opened to lawsuits from all the rest of us around there who he put at risk. Had the train derailed, many more people would have been killed due to his stupidity.

The principle point of civil suits is to rectify the harm done to plaintiffs -- that paying damages hurts the defendant and thus deters future harm is secondary. If you didn't get hit by debris, there's no harm done -- how can you justify that you deserve a payout for being "lucky" enough to be near that moron and escaping unscathed, and still have your actual damages paid in full if there is harm done?

Hell he should have been charged with attempted manslaughter once for each other car within 100 feet of that track, plus anyone on the train.

I'm not sure attempted manslaughter is even a thing (presuming you're from the US -- it's certainly not under English law), perhaps you were looking for "reckless endangerment".
Anyway, this is more on the right track. Criminal law is about preventing, by some mixture of punishment/deterrent and reformation, behavior harmful to society at large and/or beyond the ability to make whole (e.g. taking life) -- which fits this situation perfectly.

Re:Temptation (2)

Y-Crate (540566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006303)

Your argument is flawed in that you're applying your own rural area's poor level of service to infrastructure that is not designed for the sticks.

The average car driver commutes alone. The average bus holds 50 to 100 commuters. Rush hour headways in many major American cities are 8 to 15 min, with buses running at full capacity.

This is why they deserve their own lanes, and signal priority. That bus waiting to cross an intersection is likely moving more people than all of the cars waiting at the light combined.

This post in picture form: http://consumerist.com/2010/06/how-much-street-space-car-vs-bus-vs-bicycle.html [consumerist.com]

Points on your license? (3, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 2 years ago | (#39004987)

without that it's just another regressive tax on the working poor. And before a bunch of /.er's chime in with 'How can you be poor & live in San Francisco', don't forget the rich hire maids, gardeners, bus boys and other low income workers that still have to get to work at their wealthy boss' house. I always found it odd there was always a ghetto nearby every rich community until I realized this.

Maybe it's different in San Francisco and they can get around on the bus system quickly and conveniently. Aw, who the heck am I kidding. Why spend good tax money on public transportation when you can just make the poor get up 2 hours early to ride the bus in.

Now, if they're putting points on your license then I like. Here in Arizona we learned from California's mistake and stopped putting red light cameras in rich neighborhoods where the stay-at-home moms could organize a vote to ban them. We keep 'em in the poor neighborhoods where everyone works two jobs. Unlike a cop a camera doesn't know not to ticket a late model BMW or Mercedes.

Re:Points on your license? (3, Interesting)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005021)

Lol what? I visited San Francisco over Christmas and rented a home inside the city center, the bus system was great! The waits at any station was never > 7 minutes, and usually 2-3 minutes. Almost everyone there used the bus systems, and you can also use BART to get outside of the Bay area if you need to. I wish the public transportation in my area (Grand Rapids Michigan) was half as good as San Francisco.

I think commentators should stick to topics they are familiar with instead of making wild, false claims.

Re:Points on your license? (2, Interesting)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005621)

I live in SF and this is true for a very small portion of the city. If you want to get many places be prepared for a 45 minute bus ride for something that would take half as long or better to drive. I'm sure it's better than Grand Rapids. But Grand Rapids is about the same land area as SF with about 1/8 the population. For things as spread out as that mass transit is difficult.

There are many times where Muni buses only show up every 30 minutes or so and many cases where you need to take two buses or a bus and a Muni Metro train where you're going to wait 15+ minutes at the transfer. I try and use mass transit as much as I can and I'm luck to live near the Castro so I have a lot of options. But in many cases I'll just say screw it and drive because it'll be so much faster.

Re:Points on your license? (2)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006123)

If you want to get many places be prepared for a 45 minute bus ride for something that would take half as long or better to drive.

I'd kill for that. When I lived in Dallas, I had the choice of a 15 minute drive or a 3+ hour bus trip. I could bike (and probably walk) the 10 miles faster than take a bus, if only most of the roads weren't car-only (the direct route was Interstate). Only twice as long for a bus trip? I was looking at 12 times or worse in Dallas. The one time in high school my car broke down and I took the bus, it took me about 3 hours from home to school to replace the 20 minute drive. Only twice as long? That's great. What, are you expecting buses to be faster than driving?

Re:Points on your license? (1, Insightful)

superdana (1211758) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006685)

I'd kill for that.

Try riding it every day and then come back and tell us what you'd kill for. :-\

Re:Points on your license? (0)

adenied (120700) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006787)

What, are you expecting buses to be faster than driving?

No, not at all. I hate buses. If I can take an underground train I will go for that every time. I think part of my problem is I come across a lot of people who live in SF who think that they're the greatest thing in the world. Go somewhere like NYC or London and you'll see that mass transit really can work, can be faster than driving, and is a lot nicer. It's an attitude issue here.

Also, I don't know the specifics of your Dallas issues, but dude, that city is huge. 340.5 sq. miles according to Wikipedia. SF is less than 50. It's literally a 7 mile by 7 mile square. And when I'm talking about a trip taking 45 minutes on buses, that's to go about 3.5 miles if I drove directly. That's horrible by any measure.

Re:Points on your license? (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005717)

I've lived in San Francisco and visited for more than just "over Christmas" when traffic is reduced and ridership is depressed. Muni actually kind of sucks. Worlds ahead of the rest of the US, mind you, but pretty bad. Its reliability is legendary... legendarily bad.

It's not like it couldn't be better, but the government agency and the union are both pretty dysfunctional. You'd think that a bunch of professional tree-huggers who hate cars, like they purport to elect in these parts, would actually care about pulling off a decent transit system, but at the end of the day it seems they care more about talking the talk and sending more money to the transit union (who are, of course, highly involved in politics as well). And don't even get me started on the pissing contest of San Jose vs San Francisco, Caltrain/VTA vs BART, that's apparently been going on for decades.

Re:Points on your license? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006067)

And of course we can rely on your expert opinion....more than likely you're an AGW reality deviant. I, for one, don't care about the opinions of such people.

Re:Points on your license? (3, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006159)

I've found that greens pushing public transport prefer to punish cars with parking fees and changing light timings to cause traffic problems to encourage bus riding, rather than admitting that public transport sucks and working to improve it.

Re:Points on your license? (1)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006133)

Rules of thumb:

The East-West bus routes are reliable, frequent, and overcrowded. At rush hour, you might not be able to get on and will have to wait for the next one, which hopefully will be there within 8 minutes. If there are too many people crammed in at the front, it is perfectly acceptable to board the 38 Geary from the rear door, no matter what any dumb newspaper columnist tells you. (This newspaper columnist lives in the suburbs and telecommutes. What does he know?)

The North-South bus routes are unreliable, infrequent, and uncrowded. Count your lucky stars if the 43 bus comes within 20 minutes. Maybe consider hailing a taxi?

There is probably more than one bus you can take. The 38 isn't here yet? The 1 and the 2 will probably get you there also, or within a couple blocks.

If you are in the small part of the city where you can take BART (E.g., from the Ferry Building to the Mission) for God's sake take it. Also, the subway Muni (light rail) cars around Market Street. You can actually get around Market Street pretty quickly this way. Unless you need to transport more stuff than you can carry, there is no reason to bring a car around this area.

Re:Points on your license? (4, Informative)

ciurana (2603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006145)

Howdy!

I split my time between my homes in San Francisco and Moscow, and more than 50% of my time I'm traveling around major cities in Europe and Asia. I seldom use cars in Moscow, London, Paris, Tokyo, or pretty much anywhere else where trains, metro, buses, trolley cars, etc. are available. I never owned a car or motorcycle anywhere in Europe or in Tokyo because I just don't need to. If necessary, I rent a car for a day or two, then it's back to the metro.

Public transportation in San Francisco just *sucks* in comparison to other cities, both in the US and worldwide. My beloved city (SF!) doesn't have the flexibility of underground trains like NYC or DC do. MUNI is a joke -- they have lots of buses that have the most inefficient passenger pickup areas in the world -- never have I seen a bus line with bus stops at almost every flipping corner along the route, like in San Francisco. Taxis? More suckiness. Trains? Forget it. San Francisco without your own wheels becomes a pain in the ass very fast.

"The bus system was great!" - try planning your trip by bus, and being on time without having to leave too early, from any point in San Francisco to your destination within the city. You often have to wait for 20-30 minutes without a bus in sight, then four or five come together, in a bunch, because the MUNI drivers decided to take a smoke or lunch break and end it at the same time. This is a far cry from a place like say, Zurich or Oslo, cities of the same approximate area and with a high automobile density, where the bus schedule is met at exact times (e.g."next bus will be a 10:43" and it shows up at exactly that time).

I love San Francisco more than any place in the world. Hearing someone praise its public transportation, though, is like hearing someone praise my mentally handicapped kid brother's arithmetic ability as if he were solving differential equations.

Cheers!

Re:Points on your license? (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005897)

The bus has a picture of a vehicle violating the law, not of the driver. To put points on a license you would need to prove who was driving.

Re:Points on your license? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006017)

Not if it is treated like a parking ticket. The Registered owner of the vehicle gets sent a ticket.

Re:Points on your license? (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006363)

Which is precisely my point. A parking ticket does not add points to your license.

Re:Points on your license? (1)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006005)

There are plenty of poor and middle class people who commute into San Francisco every day on BART, AC Transit, or Caltrain. A car is absolutely not necessary. And you'd be crazy to drive into work in the Financial District every day. It costs like $20 to park.

And as much as people like to gripe about Muni, it is one of the most comprehensive public transportation systems in the country. Nowhere in the city is more than two blocks from a bus stop, and some of the lines run 24/7. Is it slow and overcrowded? Yeah. Can you manage to get around on it if you can't afford a car? Sure.

Re:Points on your license? (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006649)

Don't forget the price of taking public transit. That still leaves you paying more to drive, but the other costs like increased commute times and having to carry your stuff everywhere and lacking the flexibility to stop somewhere on the way home starts to make it closer to break-even.

dangerous idea (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005061)

unlike an automated and autonomous traffic camera, a camera fixed to a bus with a human driver behind the wheel can be seen as an extension of the driver the same way the bus can. the camera hanging from the power lines over the intersection doesn't invite reprisal, but knowing what bus number was on that route at the time the picture was taken and therefore knowing what driver was present when you got busted does invite reprisal. i think it's a bad idea.

Re:dangerous idea (3, Insightful)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005295)

Revenge? For what, a parking ticket?

If nothing else, I'm more OK with these cameras because there is a human behind them. This isn't an automated system, just an easier way for the bus driver to report offenders (much like that new flag button...)

The driver could always snap a picture with his phone if the bus didn't have a camera.

government = leech (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39005063)

Now that our government has been socialistic for decades, you will see it finding new and interesting ways to sting your wallet.

The government is a blood sucking leech.

Re:government = leech (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006661)

How is enforcing the law socialist?

"feel a bit like Cecil B. Demille.' (2)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005121)

said the Ram pickup, rustily, "I'm ready for my close-up."

Tape? (5, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005137)

15 months from now, all of Muni's 819 buses will be equipped with the cameras: drivers caught on tape violating the bus lanes will be subject to fines of up to $115.

Tape? How quaint.

Or let the bus drivers handle it. (3, Informative)

ArcCoyote (634356) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005247)

I might be mistaken, but I do believe in Baltimore, bus drivers have the authority to issue citations. I once parked in a bus stop and didn't realize it, I'm pretty sure the ticket was written by the driver.

On another note... (2)

WSOGMM (1460481) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005451)

Improving San Francisco's MUNI system is pretty important to me. It's been considerably annoying to see cars parked in the bus lane, and it's almost annoying as seeing cars park in the middle of the right lane with their emergency lights on because there's no parking, which more buses would help with! ... As a side note, it's almost impossible to live in San Francisco for an extended period of time with a vehicle and not get a parking ticket. They're ruthless!!

It's funny though, I've lived in Germany for the last half year, and I've found that their transportation system is ten times better than San Francisco's. Don't get me wrong, BART is amazing, but I live in a small town at the moment and its transportation system runs more often than San Francisco's. Paris and Berlin have both train systems that run late, and night trains, while San Francisco's train system stops around 11 pm (then buses run sparsely after that).

Go even futher (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005567)

Every vehicle must be retrofitted with a beacon that relays an UID, speed, status of registration, cellphone usage, and any other important information for the vehicle to cell towers, and set up receivers in rural areas where cell reception is poor, if you speed it's transmitted instantly and you get a ticket, if you aren't registered you get a ticket, if you're on your phone while moving you get a ticket, just make it too expensive for idiots to drive.
It's not a right it's a privilege and it's been abused for too long.

You may now mod this out of existence.

Re:Go even futher (1)

kobaz (107760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005713)

And what about passengers on the phone?

Re:Go even futher (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005771)

This is America. One person per SUV please.

Re:Go even futher (1)

kobaz (107760) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005903)

Ah yes, of course.

Speaking of SUVs... my business partner has a nice new land rover with built in gps-nav. It creates insanity to no end that I, as a passenger, cannot operate the gps while the car is in motion. The insanity!

Very often when driving I'll get a tech support call and I'll stop, have my brother take over the driving (we do lots of stuff together) and I'll work on my tethered laptop to work. I have a feeling that very many people across the country, from techies to kids of soccor moms would go batshit insane and probably become violent if all cell use while in a car-in-motion was automatically fined. Either that or it would become basically a tax and cost-of-doing-business. I wonder if it would be tax-deductible.

Re:Go even futher (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006463)

And all that stupidity in the last 15 years, you being the stupid one.

Re:Go even futher (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006495)

First off, why is it not a right? Because you say so? Talk about the 'repeat a lie often enough and people will believe it' theory. This one's been around so long it'll take generations to get rid of.

Everybody pay attention: children get 'priveleges'. Adults HAVE RIGHTS, and one of them is to go from place to place when one damn well feels like it. Believing in this kind of illogic gets us things like the TSA, where the argument is that flying isn't a right therefore they can do whatever they want.

Reasonable regulation is of course necessary, after all my rights do end where they infringe on yours, but enough of believing this bullshit. "But...but...there's no right to drive or fly in the Constitution". You mean the same document that explicitly SAYS RIGHT IN IT that just because a specific right isn't listed there it still exists? Some of the founders were opposed to the Bill of Rights for just this reason--they correctly feared that idiots would take it as the be all and end all list of rights.

Something else: remember everything starts innocently. In this case, license plates, which came into being as proof one paid one's vehicle taxes. Now look what's happened. If people fought the notion of publicly visible identity tags for cars way back, crap like automated ticketing machines (like red light cameras) would be a lot harder to shove down our throats. Small freedom grabs need to be fought early and hard.

BTW, I'm not saying parking in bus lanes should go unpunished. It is a selfish intrusion into others' lives and an uncivil act. I'm just tired of automated money grabs.

 

Re:Go even futher (1)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39006695)

That would be preferable to the current system where the laws don't apply if there aren't any cops around, and where if you DO get pulled over, your chances of getting a big ticket or a warning depend on how much the cop likes you (or your kind) that day. Added bonus: when the privileged classes start getting their automatic tickets the same way us proles do, maybe some of the more ridiculous laws might get changed?

Long Time in the Making (1)

cis4 (2565359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39005635)

This has been in the works for a while [thenewspaper.com] . And people have been improperly ticketed [sfgate.com] .

Easy to abuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39006525)

Cars are permitted to enter the bus lane if they intend to turn right at the next corner. Granted, a lot of drivers greedily interpret this as license to immediately enter the bus lane as soon as possible for a quick trip down the block to the corner, but it's easy to imagine bus drivers just snapping away at anybody who happens to be in their way--even legitimately--out of annoyance. In fact, I imagine that bus drivers will be encouraged to do so, as this just reeks of yet another city fund-raising scheme. I bike to work in San Francisco every day, and while you do sometimes see drivers trying to jockey for position in the bus lanes, these are usually either a) tourists who don't know better, or b) seasoned veterans who know to watch for buses.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>