you you >> the way you described the permit application process is a combination of some very precipitationive requirements and then some policy goals and we ask the applicants to tell us how they would or what their solutions are. so i'll give you an example. under our plan for safe scooter riding and parking in the complication, we ask the applicant describe all education and training that you commit to implementing and then it goes on from there or describe your plan to limit speeds.

so we're asking them, you know, we say we're concerned with safety, sidewalk riding. tell us how you would solve that so then we can look to see and we're learning as we go. we have a growth mind set here and so as we understand what best practices are in the next round, we might be more precipitationive and i talked about being more prescriptive with in-app marketing devices. please submit an escalating penalty structure you commit to implementing to hold riders accountable so that was the question asked. please describe your escalating penalty structure. so if that answer, i'm hoping

that answers your question and so then we -- when the permits are issued, the actual application becomes part of the permit so that there's not a standard everybody is doing the same thing, but this permittee promised this and this is what we will hold them accountable to. >> supervisor peskin: yeah. no. it answers any question. it raises concerns and so to the extent that you have a level playing field and everybody's playing by the same rules, there is no temptation for a consumer to shop their platform. so if they know that bad behavior is dealt with more severely by one platform than another and they, you know, the good platform i'll pick on spin because everybody in your shop based on my experience with them last week, my shop thinks

they are the most exemplary of the three they have a better enforcement call and they suspended rider and kick them off their platt foreman, but scoot which i'll pick on because of my aforementioned bird towards bird giving us the bird early on has a much lesser standard, the consumer will then just migrate to that. i mean i appreciate the process which is you go out and say here's the bare minimum and they go out and say we'll do more than the bare minimum, but at that point, it seems like you now, the regulator now knows what the industry is able and willing to do and then should apply that to all permittees so there's no incentive for less than responsible users to migrate to

other platforms. >> yeah. well, i think those are points well taken and that we are learning as we get more experience and so you can see kind of the development of the regulatory framework has become more mature and they have all the current permittees do have progressive discipline and i would say that the there is room for improvement as we know. i mean that's the premise of this meeting. and so i'm making notes as you're speaking and so i would just say point taken and this is part of our iterative process. so thank you for the comments. >> supervisor peskin: by the way, i just want to say to my colleagues, it really has been a pleasure working with you and you have been very receptive and you are right in your observation that this is a maturing dynamic both on the

city regulatory side and on the permittee side and on the user side. so and, i mean, look, obviously, i think i can speak for all of my colleagues and i usually hesitate to speak for them, but i think everybody here prefers education to enforcement and there are different users. users who actually are consistent users in san francisco whether it's a first mile, last mile solution or whatever and, remember, there are also people who don't use the permit companies, they have their own private ones will eventually hopefully be educatable. as compared to somebody who comes here for the weekend and wants to ride up the embarcadero promenade as people are diving in every direction as an irresponsible rider who's

never going to come back again or for months and years and so i do want to have a system where very quickly, the platform says, yeah, we just noticed because of geo location or because of a camera that's -- spin clearly had the best technology i think we all agreeded on last week identifies that a user is using it and i acknowledge that there are sometimes an on-street condition that forces somebody onto a sidewalk, you know, construction in the bike lane and even though it's illegal to be on that sidewalk, it is a momentary thing as compared to somebody who does and i see it all the time two miles of the embarcadero promenade. by the time you finish your first 200 yards, they should have technology that says you're shut down, you're done, you can't come back. >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: anyway. thank you for the therapy. >> no. thank you. again, i'm making notes.

so thank you. i want to introduce my colleague adrian neil who is the bike share manager and he's going to bring us to conclusion with a bike share piece of this. >> supervisor melgar: i had a few questions. would you prefer i ask them at the entire presentation? my questions are for you. >> yeah. sure. >> supervisor melgar: is that okay? i don't know how supervisor peskin wants to conduct the hearing. okay. thank you. i have lots of questions for you. so let me just start by saying that i am a firm supporter and believer in anything that's going to get us out of cars. and that being said, you know, you've said something in your comments that kind of pushed my buttons a little bit so i have to ask you about it and that is about how you are thinking that the next iter ration of, you

know, just enforcement and challenges and addressing the challenges is up to the companies and i'm wondering, where you think it's appropriate for the city to, you know, build infrastructure or, you know, support all of this stuff. so let me just add that, you know, like i'm a bike rider, so i'm interested in seeing what the next face of this presentation, but, you know, thinking about the signs that are around our city for cars, you know, no turn signs, you know, like just guidance for drivers versus guidance for bicyclists or diversity and i realize this is the thing. i'm wondering is if our goal, if it gets people out of cars and to, you know, make sure that that last mile is not done

in an uber or taxi, but rather something like this, wouldn't is behoove us to plan for that infrastructure so we can guide people in doing that. that's my first question. my second question is about siding. so, you know, a line has a bunch of scooters on ocean avenue in district 7. there's no rhyme or reason, so where they're parked. so i'm wondering just like what is sort of -- what are we thinking about that? i must say it does irk me a little bit that all of the public bike racks are taken up by these private scooters and it's been difficult for anyone riding a bike or a private, you know, mobility device to lock your bike because everything's

taken up by them. so at what point do we think we will add to our infrastructure so we can have both the corporate devices and, you know, citizen devices that are able to be parked in public bike racks. so that's my other question. and then just last, you know, i'm wondering because i didn't see it in your list of, you know, enforcement about speed. so i often see, like i said because i'm a bike rider, and i do have both an electric bike and a regular bike, often times folks go on these, you know, mobility devices really fast, much faster than bicycles do. and i am wondering if speed limits just sort of, you know, coordinate the flow in bike lanes is something that we have

considered as well? thank you. >> okay. thank you. those are a lot of great questions and i'll start with an apology. i did not mean to imply that the city had a role. i should have done a yes and. yes, m.t.a. has a very structured frame work and we have an enforcement on street colleague and we need to work with the permittees to work collaboratively on our safety goals and so i think you make a lot of good points about infrastructure and signage and orienting our built environment to mobility services that aren't necessarily the car. right, we've had the private vehicle, that's our mainframe work, that's how our cities are laid out. i think it's a big role for infrastructure, so thank you for making that point and

giving me an opportunity to kind of refine what i was intending my message to be. so thank you. and, adrienne, my colleague adrian can speak to the infrastructure and the bike racks. but point well taken, while we are increasing the number of bike racks, device racks that we are implementing and as part of our scooter share permits, we require a pike rack c so that these permittees do pay into the infrastructure and that their devices are using and are required to be locked too. so that's a piece of what m.t.a. is doing as well and we've increased the number of bike racks that we've implemented, but you'll see on adrienne's slides, bike racks are both one of the successes because we've put in so many

and still remain one of the challenges because we need more and speed limits. the speed limits for scooter share are set by the california vehicle code and the top speed is 15 miles an hour. i will say having tested the scooter in that controlled environment at the demonstration last week, it does feel very fast and kind of scary as a rider and i know as then a pedestrian experiencing that device and that level of speed and the bicyclists that could be jarring and but that's not -- so the speed again is regulated and so therefore required in our permits that they have to comply with california vehicle code and i think it points up why bike lanes are so important that there's this dedicated space

that's safe and that as our riders mature that they are more attuned to the safety of others around them. does that answer your questions? >> supervisor melgar: yes. i appreciate all those answers and i would just make the plug for signage particularly in the places where we know a lot of folks are using these devices for the first time for fun to look at our beautiful city mainly in supervisor peskin's district, but also in district 6 along the embarcadero, that's where i see by far the more. and your data underscores that well, so maybe we can just pilot a couple signs, you know, for another ferry building, pier 29, just where we know lots of folks are starting or ending the trip so people can have some guidance as to what's allowed and what the rules are.

>> okay. great. thank you. i made notes. so i'm not sure if there are other questions on scooter share or should we go to my colleague adrian on bike share now? >> supervisor peskin: before we go there, madam chair, just so that you know, colleagues, i didn't just call for this hearing. i've been talking as ms. torren said to the m.t.a. for quite some time and these initiatives that have been under consideration respectfully have been under consideration for quite some time. so what i'm most interested in is action items and which of these initiatives are going to be adopted, when they're going to be adopted. i mean, the thing about when we had the test last week about technology that by the way, some of these companies have

implemented in other cities, every device in seattle has them for on sidewalk or sidewalk technology has been implemented, my question to all three companies was how fast can you do this? and it's been said immediately if we come to agreement and scoot said first quarter next year and lime said we don't know, but maybe second quarter next year which wasn't very convincing and didn't really give me any confidence, but i want dates by which these things are going to happen because the sum and substance of this resolution and the amendment i'm going to offer is that we urge the m.t.a. not to issue any new permits until or

unless these things have been done and have been standardized across the board for all licensees or permittees. so i want dates. >> okay. >> through the chair, if we can have sarah take down the powerpoint if we're not referring to it anymore. >> supervisor peskin: we are. >> clerk: oh, okay. i see. >> supervisor peskin: this is the fourth bullets. the bullets i'm looking for is pass throughs to uniform pass throughs to customers, the bullets i'm looking for are uniformed provisions for suspension and taking somebody off a platform who is a offender or repeat offender depending on what those uniform -- i want to know what the best practices are and how those get codified across the board.

>> okay. >> supervisor peskin: i think there's more to the power point that adrian's about to do. >> supervisor melgar: i did have one more thing that i wanted to add to your strengthening enforcement tools as an idea. as i mentioned, i'm a bike rider and i've had my share of clashes in san francisco like all bike riders have and, you know, after one particularly bad one where i ended up, you know, at kaiser, i was a little bit reluctant to get back on my bike and by far, one of the most effective or great things that i did was take a training from the san francisco bicycle coalition which really helped my confidence and sort of like knowing what to do and, you know, i was able to get back on my bike without that fear and, you know, because these

micromobility devices are newer, i don't know if we've caught up in terms of the sort of support that there is for the riding community to do those kinds of trainings of users for how to get around the city safely and effectively. so i'm wondering if it's something that you would also consider adding to the strengthening tools, you know, from the -- from that perspective. it's not enforcement, but it's prevention to do that sort of public education at that level and i don't know if it would be the bicycle coalition or if they could, you know, also absorb these, but something like that. >> thank you. yes. thank you for that comment and it's -- sorry for the crashes you've experienced and the fear and it's helpful to hear the real world experience so that when we are developing these tools that we do it in a way

that actually works. we do have a quarterly safety training requirement for each permittee and so that is happening quarterly and we can take a look at that to see if that's the right cadence for that type of training. maybe it could happen more frequently or maybe upon request. so i've made a note of that. and the permittees are here as well and they can help if there are questions for the permittees. i know that they're prepared to be responsive. and for supervisor peskin to go back to your question as well, yes, we have been looking at these strengthening these opportunities to strengthen our existing enforcement tools or what else do we need to do and i think that the permit term provides a good framing for us

in that during this second half of the permit term that the permittees have an interest in achieving that additional option year and in order to do that, meeting all the permit terms and conditions and meeting what they promising in their applications will be part of that and so i think that gives us some time to work collaboratively with permittees on the implementation especially something like sidewalk riding technology which is very complex. that's the difference in adding some additional safety training requirements. so there's a range of treatments and probably a range of the time frame, but how i'm thinking about it big picture is as you have keyed it in the resolution to that permit extension, i mean, that doesn't mean these, you know, that we're not continuing to work on

all of these and we're planning on bringing the increased fine amount, for example, before the m.t.a. board and early 2022. so there may be different time frames for the various aspects here. should we proceed with adrian's portion of the presentation? >> thank you. thanks for having me today and to follow i'm just going to break down. i'm just going to go and review some of the excesses but also some of the existing challenges and that will kind of dove tail into use and behavior. so overview of successes, we have 252 stations in the city right now. we're looking at implementing 35 more in the next quarter.

it's useful to think about how stations impact usage unlike scooters, station based bike share has a dedicated place where these devices are supposed to end up. we also use a lot of racks because some of the bikes have a lot to the device just like the scooters and we've mostly maintained 100 racks per month although we did kind of slow down a little bit during parts of the pandemic, but i think we're back up to that number at this moment. and then in terms of summarizing the service, we have regular pedal bikes and we also have e bikes that are hybrid which can be parked at stations or bike racks. and supervisor melgar, you kind of mentioned wanting more, you know, worrying about the

scarcity of space of bike racks just to be clear, we have a limit that people are supposed to honor when they park at bike racks, but additionally, we have a bike rack fee that they contribute to the city so that we build more racks in general and those racks can be used by both the permittees or private citizens. so that's a way that we're trying to kind of keep a number of racks growing. next slide, please. >> supervisor peskin: if i may, do you have any data on utization of the bike racks? actually, i often see that the

utilization of that? >> that could be something we explore in the future. we're just kind of trying to focus on getting a lot more out there since we do know that without racks, people tend to parks where bikes traditionally park at posts and parking meters. when you're talking about a bike rack next to a parking meter and somebody's choosing the parking meter, that's something that does seem to warrant more investigation. i would be very curious as to why a bicyclist decided to do that i know from deployment from the vendors. >> supervisor peskin: i see it most with scooters than bikes.

>> yeah. thanks for that. next slide. you see that spike there. that's probably about january, february, in 2020. and it was interesting because this was pre-e bike fees, like extra fees or usage and we saw more and more people using and march 2020 happened and both the pandemic happened at the same time. and we see it kind of lower travel demand overall and just recently in october, we had 9,000 rides per day and i think that was kind of the combination of seasonal trades and combination of good

feelings. we stis pate that finally, all progress as we know is not without struggle with the larger system. we are experiencing theft and more vandalism. that has effects on the service overall. we still need more bike racks as i mentioned and so we're continuing to try to install those across the city. we're also in the middle of some expansion options. without that, we do have all city service area right now. for example, you can ride e bike into d4 and so you have to find a bike rack to park at.

so having stations more places will reduce the number of people in parking. >> supervisor peskin: you should show that picture of the one they torched the other day. did you see that one? >> yeah. that was a sandism one. there are people that, and you mentioned scooters are being thrown into the bay too, it's remarkable because when you step back and say why are these things happening and who's responsible? at some point, you have to question what is it that's driving people to do this? my last bulletin was about service modifications. we continue to make service modifications. so like i mentioned, we have all-city service center. we also had a recent e bike

pricing increase and we do think having more stations in the outer areas will shift some parking related fees to incentivize trips in stations. for example, when you're using an e bike and you end your trip at a station, that reduces any parking fees you might have just to help incentivize keeping the streets organized. as i mentioned at the beginning, the station based pedal bikes can't be parked at the stations, so those are actually the most affordable service. and without stations, people don't have access to that option. into the summary, in terms of parking behavior and riding on sidewalks for example rpgs i do think bikes benefit from the established culture. just because that man has been

around a lot longer and more than that when i was just learning to ride a bike, i was riding on the sidewalk and people were saying don't do that and that culture hasn't been established and some people don't know what the rules are bike share definitely has that established culture. >> supervisor melgar: so i have a couple questions. so i represent district 7 which is a little farther out. we share a very long border with district five of san mateo county, longer thn district five in san francisco county and we have a b.a.r.t. station in daily city which is in walking distance and i've been really struggling to try to guess a bike share dock at the daily city b.a.r.t. and

everybody that seems to support it, we can't quite get it done, you know. but that sort of leads me to the larger if you think about how many trips and folks come into our city to cork starting in alameda county or marin. so i'm wondering if you talk about to us a little bit about that sort of regional transportation planning and how we are thinking about it because you know i am empathetic to supervisor mar also about people need to begin and end somewhere and how we're thinking about those connections. >> absolutely. thanks for raising that issue,

supervisor melgar. one of the joys of my job is the bike share program is a regional program. it started with a different region and it started with the peninsula and san francisco and along the cal train corridor and it shifted around 2015 being east bay and south bay. so there's the bay, san francisco, berkeley and oakland. so we are in the system -- our sister cities across the bay also have bike share. not -- you know, san francisco ends up having 80% of all the trips, but this regional lens is really important and i appreciate that. and i think we've been in touch with megan imperial and you've also had discussions with our director on daily city bike share and it does make a lot of sense on basic transportation planning. >> supervisor melgar: it shouldn't be that hard. >> yeah. there's common sense to it. >> supervisor melgar: i'm just a supervisor, but from a user

perspective, it should be like, you know -- some day living in a world where you can, you know, ride your bike from your apartment to cal train, take cal train and on the other end, use the same card or the same app to get a bike or micromobility to ride to work. that's the world we want people to live in rather to just think i'll get in a car. >> absolutely. i think i've been as the daily city station has been around the office, i've been talking about southwest gateway project because it's not just bike share. it's about having better facilities for biking and it's about the whole package and i think both c.c.s.f. and s.f. state being near there are huge trip generators so i think you're on to something there. we'll look into it. it is really complicated. as i mentioned, there's the

m.t.c. account and then there's the city contract for the station list. i think you're right. we should be smart enough to be able to figure this out and i look forward to trying to pull that one out. >> supervisor melgar: yeah. i think we should maybe even provide incentives to think about it that way. you know, so maybe the way we contracted towards folks. yes to the performance measures anded quotas and maybe we can think about this too. anyway. thank you. >> supervisor melgar: colleagues, any other questions or comments? >> supervisor peskin: i do have questions for the

permittees who are present, but i'll defer to you and express supervisor preston before i ask them supervisor melgar supervisor preston, did you with any questions or comments here. >> supervisor melgar: no questions right now. thank you. supervisor peskin, the floor is yours. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so i think maybe if we can hear from all three permittees separately and they can answer the exact same questions which is on the enforcement side. first, how they track the number of parking violations separate and apart from one they received a free one get a citation from the sfmta as well as how they track sidewalk riding violations. i want to know if they keep

maps of violations that have occurred. i understand there are privaty issues here. i'm interested in whether they have aggregate data and then i would like each of the permittees to speak to how their sidewalk detection technology that they tested with m.t.a. and myself and my staff last week how it works and how effective they think it is and what happens when the device is detecteded on a sidewalk whether it does a speed reduction or makes an annoying and most importantly

how quickly. so if we can hear from the permittees in any order you desire, madam chair, there are three of them. >> supervisor melgar: yes. why don't we start with largest to smallest? you know. >> supervisor peskin: 2,000 to 1500. >> supervisor melgar: shall we start with lines? i believe yvette bracket is here from lime. are you still with us? >> yes. i'm just trying to get my -- unmute myself and get my video on and i just wanted to reiterate the questions again to make sure i'm comprehensive in covering the answers. i'm also here today with our director of the government

relations, she's also going to be here available to answer as many questions as possible. i just recently started with lime in late september, early october. so i'll be able to answer as many questions as i can and then i'll defer to her to things that may have been prior. i just want to go over quickly. >> supervisor peskin: i'll reiterate them and add one that i mentioned earlier that i neglected to mention before a couple of minutes ago. one is how you track parking violations, how you track sidewalk riding violations, whether it's double riding or just any riding on a sidewalk and what i did not mention a minute ago, but mentioned earlier is what the platform does. do you pass a citation through. if so when and why and do you do that uniform alley?

when do you temporarily suspend? when do you take somebody off of your platform permanently? and whether or not you keep that aggregate data and very violations have occurred and as to the sidewalk detection technology where i got to see you last week, how the technology works, how effective it is, you know, have you tested it, do you use it in other areas. what happens when the device is detected on a sidewalk? does it slow down? how quickly does it make a sound and how quickly you can implement that technology? >> okay. >> supervisor peskin: and i can slow down and ask them as you answer along the way. >> yeah. that was a mouthful but i think i can try to get through most of it as soon as possible. in respect to sidewalk riding

in terms of you were asking in terms of what do we do for enforcement? give me one second. sorry about that. >> supervisor peskin: how do you track them and enforce them? >> in term officer sidewalk riding, we probably should just preface first on how we're able to track sidewalk riding. so currently, we will get reports from sidewalk riding within 311 or someone may share a video with us. then we internally go through a process by which we try to identify the rider and then our policy is very strict in terms of sidewalk riding if we are able to identify the rider, that rider's actually kicked off of the app. if we're not able to identify the rider, what happens is then we send a message to all of the riders that were in or surrounding that location to remind them that of our safety tips that they're not allowed to ride on the sidewalk.

that there's no drunk driving, to wear a helmet and make sure you park at a bike rack. so we kind of do education there. i'm going to get to your second question in the sense of you were saying how else do we track it behind. so in 2020, and this was talked about during the sidewalk tech detection meeting. prior, we were collecting data so that we could be able to notify people when they actually ride on the sidewalk and i'll have carla speak a little bit more to that because i was present and so that has also had some impact on our sidewalk riding.

in order to ensure the accuracy of that in many of our regions where lime operates, we collect data about the varying sidewalk patterns and the materials for each city. as we mentioned to you and what came up in the slide with sfmta, there are three different forms of sidewalk detection and all of the different providers have been working with each other and to figure out the best model, there is accelerometer data as well as being able to also use kind of the grade of the

sidewalk. so as you know, most of the sidewalks typically have a little break in the pattern whereas on the streets it's more of a smooth surface. they have created an a.i. version of technology that basically will take both of the data from both of that as well as geo fencing to be able to try to figure out if someone's riding on the sidewalk or not. the third availability is around having a camera. as we know, the sensitivities in san francisco around having any kind of surveillance model on vehicles tends to be kind of rile everyone up in the public and so we've kind of tried to stay away from using those models in our previous research and in terms of trying to come up with a better detection mode l that doesn't use cameras and so that's what you actually visibly saw. you saw our enhanced version of

the sidewalk technology not in our current permit. you saw where we are continuing to improve on our sidewalk detection by offering the ability to make a sound when someone is riding on the sidewalk as well as to slow down the vehicle. as we stated before, that is still in testing model and -- it also requires us to be able to test that model on the sidewalk and i'll let carla step in now to kind of discuss that a little bit. >> sure thing. so as yvette mentioned, we previously talked about the traditional sidewalk riding which sends notifications so it's more of an educational tool. last week, that demo is our enhanced riding section. we recognize that the thing wants to work towards having real time notifications and so we continue to collect that

data on our new generation of scooters which we deployed this summer. we wanted to make sure we increased the accuracy of that report. we're building that out onto the vehicle it is and we want to make sure it complies with all san francisco emergency operation given how it pairs with pattern detection and visible detection and so the enhanced version we demoed last week, we are working towards a 2022 timeline to be able to implement that. that is the goal currently with the previous traditional sidewalk technology which we can work with the city to implement, that's actually something we brought up to sfmta before early on in our permit term in 2020. at the time in order to turn on

that type of technology, it did require that we mapped certain sf streets and unfortunately, m.t.a. felt strongly it couldn't sanction public sidewalk riding in any way, so it prevented us from testing to be able to fully roll that out. we are encouraged to be able to continue to work with m.t.a. to find a timeline when we can roll this out, but it will require ongoing testing to make sure that what we're rolling out is accurate and safe for our riders. >> and so to just kind of give an additional update in terms of sidewalk riding and what lime is also doing to ensure that we are educating our riders as well as making sure that we're putting additional efforts to keep our public safety, we currently take 10% of our parking photos are

reviewed and if we find out that riders have violated any of our parking policies, they will be notified and then eventually they'll be fined. we have fined over 97 people in the month of july for sidewalk riding that went out to all of our riders to remind them not to ride. also not to drink and drive. we've also started increasing our cadence of digital ride safety training and so that is available as you know due to covid. there has been some challenges in terms of people being there in person. so i definitely respect and honor what myrna, supervisor peskin was saying in terms of having additional safety in the

recent outdoor activations and community events provided free demo rides we also did that during electric vehicle weeks. we also shared with our riders scoot safe videos that went out to 17,000 of our riders and then in terms of 311 and sfmta complaints as as you saw from the slides, lime takes a large share of the ridership in san francisco, and so we had over 500,000 scoot rides since july and out of those, about 99% of those rides end in proper parking, not improper parking. so if you saw, we also had the

lowest in terms of percentage of tickets to rides. so i just wanted to also notice that as well. and then i just want to make sure that i'm capturing the last two questions that you asked around enforcement. supervisor peskin, was there anything else that you also wanted to know about? i just want to make sure. >> supervisor peskin: i know this has been going for a long time. i want to hear from the other two permittees and have them answer. i will say and i mean it respectfully that the answers are less than satisfactory. what i'm looking for isn't we find 97 people for sidewalk riding in july. what i'm looking for is what our policy is and we can prove

that after we this is how we this is our policy as to when we i think you said eventually find, when we find them. this is how much we find them this is when they cross the line and are suspended from the platform. and, frankly, more of this is on the mta for not having uniform standards that all of you have to as permittees adhere to. and, again, this is, you know, still relative infancy. >> i can go over that disciplinary policy. i thought you wanted to get the raw data of how many. >> i do. and, by the way, i suspect that in so far as this is an evolving field, we will continue to have these hearings overtime and the best thing to do would be just to share, the

one relatively bright light in this is there is a lot of data on the mta's website and i greatly see what you did in those instances and whether they comply with your policy. it's a little bit of a black box for me. >> knowing exactly what would happen if someone rode on the sidewalk and we would be able to detect that. the answer for that is automatic suspension and that's what we have committed to and this is what we do.

and we then follow that up by sending a notification and that in terms of the overview how we do which is basically the first step is and we do a monthly report on that as well. >> supervisor peskin: and how many customers have been

deactivated? >> in total, there have been 20 nobody knows that they were deactivated by you. >> so currently, we're not able to and come to us. what we have to do is manage the bad behavior from our app and so we're looking for that. >> supervisor peskin: i appreciate it and why don't we go on to which ever one the chair wants to go next and i'm sorry that this is taken all your afternoon. >> supervisor melgar: that's okay. let's go to spin.

>> good afternoon. i'm here with my colleague alex april who's head of government partnerships. >> supervisor melgar: i'm sorry, lauren. ms. bracket. if you can turn off your camera now. thank you. 0 e so, for spin, we're headquartered in san francisco. so we all work uniformly together to track the number of parking violations. we utilize the sales force platform that sfmta has put together to be able to have that background information and we track closely. actually, just looking over the

permit terms on september 2020 to august 2021. our total citation share based on the monthly reports is in totality of the program is 22% while our competitors make up the 70% or 60%. as far as tracking sidewalk violations, similarly, we utilize the sales force platform and, of course, track 311 complaints that are sent to us as well as the videos that have been sent to us by individual members within sfmta or the board of supervisors. i will say though, it is a little bit complicated because when we get sidewalk riding violations sent to us and if it's a video, if we don't have identifying information like the q.r. code or vehicle license number, it can be -- it's like trying to identify a car on a highway without a license plate.

so however i will say with sidewalk detection technology and through our ability to integrate within the m.d.s. platform, connect with a third party data aggregator like blue systems or ride reporter populus, we know instantaneously, we know when and where it happens and for how long and we can be proactive with users, but there are some limitations with the current tracking sidewalk riding and violations in real time. we do keep track as far as the back end goes, we do have a heat map as to where rides are happening. scooter trips start where they end, we see where the bulk of our rides are happening and we can definitely confirm there's a large amount of rides that are along the north and south embarcadero and generally, if those are where most of our

trips are, that's where we see undesirable behavior like sidewalk reading. we have a four-part escalating system. so the first part of our citation and signs system is our customer support team issues a warning notification with a reminder about the specific rule that's broken. generally, this is around improper parking because we require all of our customers to end their trip with a photo and our customer support will review and fine those users that have violated their parking agreement and they parked it in an improper location. so we provide the user with information within the app about how they violated parking. the second step is the rider in addition to this warning, the rider receives a $10 fine. the third step is the rider receives a $20 fine, account

suspension and then the third -- 24-hour account suspension and then a safety quiz and the fourth step is they're suspended indefinitely. and from october 2019, to october 2021, we've issued over $60010 fines. and over almost 170, $25 fines plus account suspensions. and we think it's really important to do the right thing, make good on our application promises with sfmta even though it does hurt our business and customers can jump from one service to the other. just reviewing the monthly report data that all the companies submit, we found that between september or october 2019 through june 2021, we found that the number of users who'd received a first safety offense, we'd make up

60% of the shares of those first safety offenses that have been issued. for second safety offenses, we've provided 90% of all second safety offenses issued and then for third safety offenses, as reported to sfmta, we make up 100% of those safety offenses that are issued. >> supervisor peskin: what do you mean you make up 100% of those -- i don't understand. >> we're the only company issuing a third safety offense according to the monthly report data submitted to sfmta. >> supervisor peskin: so, lauren, wait. so you have somebody who does -- has a i assume these are parking violations for a sidewalk riding, what do you do? >> if we are able to identify the user, we will suspend the user. >> supervisor peskin: and how many of those do you have?

>> i believe over 60 direct suspensions. >> supervisor peskin: so 60 direct guilty as charged, we're on sidewalks, suspended indefinitely. >> yes. >> supervisor peskin: and then as to your own internal escalating progressive discipline first offense which i assume is a parking offense, $10, second offense for the same customer, $25 and what happens on the third offense. >> it's a little tricky. first defense is a warning. >> supervisor peskin: she froze. >> i can speak in the interim. >> and then you need a safety quiz to unlock your account. and then your account is suspended indefinitely. this includes your e-mail,

phone number and payment method as well. >> supervisor peskin: it's really four steps. >> it's really four, yeah. >> supervisor peskin: 10, 25, with a 24-hour suspension and on your fourth parking violation, indefinite suspension. >> correct. >> supervisor peskin: and people need to have a driver's license to rent one of these, right? >> lauren, i'll let you take back over. >> correct. yes. it's sfmta requirements and california state law that you need to have a driver's license to be able to verify your driving education and to rent a scooter. >> supervisor peskin: and, as to your 60 permanent or indefinite suspensions for on sidewalk riding do you give that information data to the sfmta? >> yes. that is a required field in the

monthly reporting data. >> supervisor peskin: got it. so you have 2,000 scooters deployed or you have the right to 2,000? and the previous folks that spin have the right to 2,000 and they say that and we should probably do an apples to apples comparison but i will leave this to the m.t.a. which they don't have to do today, but i would like them to do an apples to apples comparison on an indefinite permanent suspension year by year and granted scoot is different because they've only got 1,500 so we can adjust accordingly by percentage. but it sounds like if your information is correct and verified by the m.t.a. that you have suspended 300% more than the last permittee. all right. as to your sidewalk detection

stuff, you want to touch on when you can implement that. >> sure. we can implement it as soon as february 2022. we'd be very interested in exploring a large scale pilot. our technology was trained in & developed in california and so it is really it's learned machine learning and a.i. algorithm has built it is on local bay area bike rack and so there's not a ton of training, actually minimal training to be done and it provides significant benefits in addition to detecting users on the sidewalk. it's able to inhibit the speed of the user and throttle the speed again. we agree with sfmta where we

see this nice sweet spot, but, of course, it's adjustable down further and it also functions. it does have a camera on the front of the scooter. we did check with our legal council and it is in compliance with the sf privacy law especially the one that you issued, supervisor peskin. and on board camera picks up images every two seconds and we think this is one of the best tools for rider education because they are able to get the automatic feedback. it's consistent, it will throttle the speed and it has a customizable audio file that you can say on exit sidewalk

really whatever you desire. so there's a lot of benefit there and it also has parking validation and could also allow the user to park if it's not in compliance parking space like a bike rack or parking corral. and i guess the last thing i just say is we think it's really important for the technology that provides sidewalk riding. it sounds like there's a lot of interest. so we think it's important for a trusted third party data aggregator to be able to adjust this from sidewalk riding and be able to share insights with the board of supervisors with the sfmta and so that's something that i think would also be critical and being able to not only require the technology but also educate. >> and i just want to follow up quickly with two things. number one, baseded off what laura had spoke to, i know we

did the demo in somo but if we did the demo in any of your districts, we would have the same results rather than just that one testing area. additionally with the february 2022 timeline, that is when we would have it fully scaled up. we could start the scaling now, but it also is really important to note that yes, spin has capacity to bring up the technology now, but we would just want to make sure that whatever direction the board of supervisors and sfmta wants to go is that, you know, all companies that are present would have this technology, otherwise, you know, a company could think, you know, if our scooter is going at a slower speed on a sidewalk versus another one or something like that, then from a user experience, they could think that ours is broken or just not working properly. so i do want to note that with the timeline. >> supervisor peskin: thank

you. i as i said last week after watching the getback movie, all seven or eight hours of it, i think spin passed the audition and while it doesn't necessarily have to do with sidewalk safety, i also note that you are the only permittee that has a contract with a bonafide and those are well-trained professional proud staff and i think that shows. so i just wanted to say that for the record it is noted and appreciated. shall we move on to the last.

>> supervisor melgar: yes, supervisor peskin. let's bring up scoot. >> hello. my name's bob walsh and i am with scoot. thank you chair melgar, vice peskin and supervisor preston for your time. so i'm actually going to -- we've got two other folks from scoot here. our operations manager and brian bucell our vice president of consumer products to jump into these questions pretty thoroughly. i was going to haveryia come in and how we track our violations separate from the 311s. how do we track sidewalk riding and then also brian will jump in and talk about the sidewalk technology that we demoed on wednesday and specifically supervisor peskin, to your question about alerts and how

the vehicle will behave on the sidewalk and that sort of thing. so without further adieu and we'll bring in real posada. >> good afternoon, supervisors. so i'll run through first-time parking violations and to where they have occurred in the past and then i'll pass it to brian. so looking at how we track parking violations, we review our ride end photos. we require our riders of how did they park and then we review them. on that screen where a rider takes a photo, it says if you do not park properly at a bike rack, we may pass on a fine to you. our approach is to start with a $5 fine that scales to $10 then $20 and then account suspension and we do include users on our

community pricing program from any kind of fines. instead, they get a warning instead and the language that we send when someone receives the fine or a warning explains what happened, why are they receiving that fine and what's the expect answer issue here. now, i will say, to date, since the new permit, we have issued over a 1,000 fines and over 200 warnings. this is a new process for us where we're using a smaller fine amount instead of a larger fine amount. what we're doing here is two things. one, when we pass on only fines that are citations that we receive, the $100 citations, we're looking at a narrow user group and we believe that rider accountability needs to be felt quite broadly. so as we review our ride and photos to see who is and who is not parking appropriately, this approach allows us to scale

rider fines and warnings appropriately to a broad group so that we can impact real change. and then the second thing, it's a little bit different about our approach is that we start at $5 and there's a reason for that. we previously would pass along $100 citations and what we regularly would find in that approach is that the citation would bounce. so a rider wouldn't actually feel the accountability of that $100 fine because their payment method wouldn't accept it and the smaller fine amounts are more likely to pass through so riders feel the accountability of having parked inappropriately and no one wants a fine in any amount. i'll say on behalf of scoot that we certainly support standardizing enforcement measures particularly in how broadly we are enforcing these fines. you know, it's certainly reassuring on our end to know that a user might not

necessarily leave our platform if we're all held to the same standard of making sure these enforcement mechanisms occur each and every time. >> supervisor peskin: not to interrupt you, a couple of questions. you say you may pass on the fine in many if not most instances, the city doesn't actually find you and they don't issue you a citation. are you saying whether it's this nominal $5 or not that you only assess them when the city has cited you or you do them when you get that data of the photograph and you say, hey, you just sent us a photograph, that photograph's going to cost you $5. >> yes. that's exactly what i'm saying. we want to enforce this quite broadly as opposed to narrowly. we want rider accountability.

>> supervisor peskin: yeah. i appreciate that. the thing that i think first pops into any person's head is $5 doesn't change consumer behavior, but let me ask you, do you have any data that shows that when you issue those $5 fines, you don't get repeat offenders and that was enough of a slap on the wrist that you find in your data that those people don't do it again? i'm less compelled about this notion. i actually find that -- i would imagine that you can hit somebody's credit card for their having thrown your scooter in the bay for a few hundred bucks. i'm not buying that one. that seems a little farfetched that the $100 fine that you pass through bounced and that's why you're only doing a $5 fine. that one did not pass the laugh

test, but i am interested in whether or not you have data and you believe and for that matter whether the sfmta believes that a nominal fine of $5 changes rider behavior. >> yeah. so that's exactly what we are seeking to find out right now. this is a large number of fines in just two months, so over a 1,000. you know, we're testing and we're analyzing users who receive the fine do they reoffend. so this is a new process on our end in order to determine, did it have an impact? we need to wait long enough for the riders to potentially return. i would expect in the next three months we can have data either way. the way my team is approaching this is scientific clooe so that we will be able to share that data with you all with the sfmta as to whether or not there's impacts or not.

>> supervisor peskin: and then as to the question i asked the other two permittees about sidewalk riding whashgs your protocols are and how many folks you've suspended in total? >> yes. so on the sidewalk riding, the way we are notified currently is the 311 or we receive a report from the city similar to what the operators shared where they might receive a video on our end. if we're given enough information time and place, we can generally figure out who the user was. we realize this happens more than is reported to us and that's why we have invested so much in sidewalk riding technology that you saw last week, supervisor peskin. and i'll turn to brian in a moment to talk about that. the idea here is don't just stop it when it's reported to us, stop it from happening in the first place. the accountability, the escalation we have outlined is

$5 and $10 when the account is terminated. i will say there are instances and we have this outlined in our escalation plan. if a user is particularly unsafe, we have a video of what they're doing and it's extremely unsafe. we go first to banning the user and they cannot come back to the platform. we have looked at that in the past. i will say generally it follows ridership patterns. the sfmta provides online are pretty representative of what we have seen in the past. brian, i'll turn it to you. >> supervisor peskin: i don't think you answered respectfully my question which is how many people have you banned for erratic riding or sidewalk riding in total?

>> i apologize. i omitted that. so historically looking back, it is three users. >> supervisor peskin: got it. >> and i would expect that number to increase with this new test that we are running now. so the fines that initial thousand is the first offense. so users will follow that flow and we should see a higher -- >> supervisor peskin: yeah. i will say and not to be mean spirited that this kind of comports with what the general sense by sfmta staff, this supervisor, and the word i hear on the streets from people who are concerned about scooters which is the numbers that we just heard, scoot's got the numbers, and bird's got the worst numbers. it's not surprising. go ahead, brian. >> thanks for your insights.

appreciate the time today. so the question is really how does the tech work and what is scoot doing in terms of its development for sidewalk detection? what we've done is we've partnered with a company you locks which is the number one gps chip manufacturer in the world. essentially what this technology is it makes really accurate gps within 10 centimeters. so with regards to implementation, we've been able to map and implement this tech and we're very interested in implementing it in san francisco. effectively, we can map sidewalks, we can map bike lanes. we can effectively map the areas that like to operate in and what the tech does when you enter a sidewalk, it can give an audible alert currently it beeps. it also on the scooter shows a different zone and you'll notice that a display screen

will show a sidewalk riding display. because of the beep in that, we give a push notification to the app so it does that. we also really just reduced the speed down to 4 miles per hour so the throttle and acceleration slows down quite a bit. so, again, with this gps, we can map within 10 centimeter distance where you set the zone on the map on the sidewalk. in terms of, you know, when we could deploy this, the one thing i really do like is our current fleet of bird three are operated by scoot, they have an mdm model built in and we call it a brain, so we can swap those brains out in scooters and bring them online. we've quoted during the demo we felt this in q1. we're a little ambiguous in terms of the timing, but effectively, it would be starting to pilot and roll out

in the end of february, early march and then we would scale up. the one thing that we commented is it's best to pick a zone and expand and test that to make sure we're getting the parameters right and desired outcomes in terms of the deployment. we've tested this and done some pilots down in san diego, milwaukee, and a few other cities that have positive outcomes. but i'll pause there. i just wanted to make sure i explained that. i'm sure you have some questions. >> supervisor peskin: that's good. all i have left is stuff for the m.t.a. i appreciate all three of your presentations and i'll turn it back to the chair before we go to m.t.a. and, bob, i still like you. >> i still like you too. you're on mute, chair. >> chairman: thank you very much, supervisor peskin. so i have no other questions or

comments. i don't know if supervisor preston does. sounds like he may not. >> supervisor peskin: madam chair, i would just like to as i said earlier, i do have some amendments to the resolution that is item number three on our calendar and i know we haven't had public comment yet. so maybe i will save my questions and comments for the sfmta until after public comment. >> chairman: okay. sounds good. madam clerk, let's go to public comment on this item. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. if you would like to be part of the queue, please press star three to be added to the speaker line. for those already on hold, thank you for holding and please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin

your comments. so it looks like we have 17 listeners with 12 in the queue. so if you can unmute the first caller, please. >> caller: good afternoon. absolutely nobody should be riding scooters on sidewalks and pedestrians and people with disabilities need safety. but the basic problem here is not permit conditions, but the city's lack of safe streets. i appreciate supervisor melgar's question about infrastructure. the best way to protect pedestrians is to provide safe infrastructure and address the reason people are riding on sidewalks in the first place. that's because the streets aren't safe. i just saw someone describe a scooter ride as i felt so naked riding among a sea of cars with no protective bike lane to protect me. people wouldn't be on the sidewalk in the first place if they weren't taking their life into their own hands scooting

on the streets, we should fix that. i don't regularly see people riding scooters on sidewalks. give us safe streets and we'll use them. for example, sfmta's low stress network map shows a giant gaping hole. i will be honest, i will never come to d3 because the streets are so inhospitable. furthermore, i just did a quick map on the presentation, the city's permit fees and parking fines are now over $2.50 for every trip taken. promoting new forms of transportation is essential for the ambitious climate goals that this board has set and the cost to ride these scooters is a barrier to that and a barrier to equity in the scooting

program. in the meantime, we need to continue to promote new forms of mobility. i ask that this resolution be amended to dress the root cause of the problem and ask sfmta to immediately install bike lanes and scooter parking. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon. i am walk san francisco's vision 0 organizer. walk sf is deeply concerned about riders continuing to ride on the sidewalk. people with disabilities

shouldn't have to walk in fear. the fact that over three years after schooler companies rolled out their fleets we're heard some many older adults as a result feel less safe and independent on the sidewalk. we have heard supervisors here and we need more of this, but we also really need safety on the sidewalk as well to hold these scooter companies accountable. or another method in hopes that

they work with supervisor peskin's office more on this. we really appreciate supervisor peskin's office taking attention to this issue. we really do need to ensure that sidewalks are a safe and protected space for everyone thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is felicia smith. i am a resident in district six and i'm calling in because i am 60 years old and in less than two years, i have been hit by two scooters. the scooter on the sidewalk came behind me and hit me from behind which pushed me out into the street and i fell and if it

hasn't been for a guy on the other corner jumping out and waving his arms to get the traffic to stop, i would have been run over. number one, scooters shouldn't have been on the sidewalk. number two, he shouldn't have been going as fast as he was to push me at that much force out into the middle of the street. i don't know what can be done about it but something's got to be done about it. a lot of people are getting so something's got to give i appreciate supervisor peskin's work on this and i hope we get this solveded quickly. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> caller: hi. i agree the sidewalks need to be a safe place to but to be frank, it sounds like the city is the now. when a scooter rider is faced with going into the street and

navigating cars and likely getting hit and dying or navigating the sidewalk, they're going to pick the safer action. it's not less responsible riders as supervisor peskin called them. it is riders who are worried the about their own life and safety the city can no longer allow cars to use bike lanes as free parking. as long as you do that, it is you to be clear, are not the scooter companies, it is the city who is encouraging scooter riders to ride on the sidewalk. it's no coincidence that the embarcadero is where you see most of the scooter violations. district 6 has more than a

third of the weekly and 0 cars have been toed. >> clerk: thank you. we have 19 in queue with 11 listening. next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. i'm calling to talk about three different incidents that i personally experienced very recently. that there would be scooters parked right in the center of yellow warning which is right in the middle for whom this is designed are able to navigate

that and a removal time of a two hour period is already insufficient, but more often than not, you see that kind of parking happening for days on e end before there's any removal: the other thing is i encountered someone on the sidewalk and quickly turned to my right to avoid being hit and, again, it was a crowded group of people on the sidewalk and certainly no room for a scooter and certainly and i actually because it was again very crowded walking carefully around a bike rack and suddenly saw that a scooter was sticking out and i hit that scooter and

fell to the ground and it didn't belong there it was sticking out. it was in the ped way and this happens all the time so i'm very concerned about the safety. as well as i'm concerned about the actual funding. obviously, sfmta is doing a lot of work on this. are the fines, are the permits. is that money actually paying for -- >> clerk: let's take the next speaker. then we have to move on to the next caller. >> caller: supervisors, first and foremost, i want to know if an environmental impact report has been done on this type of

mobility devices and how come the planning and new board of supervisors approved it so the way i look at it is is you supervisors have the responsibility if you want quality of life issues to be in place. this mickey mouse type of operation where each per mittee is trying to do the best, that doesn't work. how do you do a needs assessment in order to better quality of life issues if you have this type of loopholes. respect the seniors, those with disabilities and the pedestrians. they come first and if you

don't do that, then shame on you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker. >> caller: good afternoon supervisors. speaking on behalf of the executive staff of teamsters local 665. we want to send a special thank you to supervisor peskin for conducting this hearing and for your work on making scooter operators more compliant so safety can continue to be improved. across all industries it represents including our members. our partners at scooter

industry in partnering sidewalk detection technology. this is built on work and their efforts to ensure proper pedestrian safety and safety so that everyone has a safety environment. teamsters continues with the most important and new measures that come along so we can committed. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. we have eight in the queue. >> good afternoon, committee members. i'm calling in as resident of in the last month, i have attended not one, but two

individuals for pedestrians in san francisco killed by drivers. most recently on november 29th, an 80-year-old security guard who just finished working the night shift who was walking home in the bayview who walked in an unmarked neglected that could potentially. it's heart wrenching. so why isn't there this type of urgency to fix unmarked crosswalks, stop signs, along with other traffic measures. in my opinion, the focus on scooters is an incredibly misguided efforts. riding on the dangerous antiquated roads like those we have in district three. if you [inaudible]

protect the bike and scooter lanes. [inaudible] fewer scooters on the sidewalk without this technological band aid. this disproportionate attention, according to the city's transbay at just one intersection. over 40 people have been struck by cars since the start of 2017. there's little appetite to do anything about that. if there was this resolution it would be about urgently building safe protected mobility lanes, it's no wonder people feel safer on the sidewalk. thanks for hearing the comments. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. >> caller: good afternoon, folks. i'm dave alexander. organizer with the richmond stanley transportation network. thank you to supervisor peskin,

preston, and melgar for holding this hearing. there's a gaping hole in district 3. so supervisor preston, i appreciate your experience, but we need you to act in your district. this is also -- you're being termed out fairly soon and we would expect you to actually add some bike lanes and protected bike lane network so we can access the amazing restaurants and institutions in your district. so please, i'm asking you to look at infrastructure in san francisco versus putting the onus on scooter riders. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, mr. alexander. next speaker please.

>> caller: i live in district 5. i'd just like to echo the comments of the other callers. i'm thankful for this hearing, but have also out of the briefing wise, so many scooter riders resort to the sidewalks in the first place. the sidewalk is not the natural place for scooters in san francisco. people feel like they are taking their own life -- taking their life into their own hands when they ride a mobility device like a bicycle or a scooter in san francisco because streets aren't safe and because the bike lanes that we have are unprotected. so i think rather than focus on how we can enforce rules that punish people who are just trying to protect themselves, we should then try to create a golden path for people month just want to get around town

safely. the goal and path involves giving people, you know, an option that is appealing and safe and makes the consequences of leaving that path far to think about. so i think enforcement is one part of that, but really enforcement comes up after we give people the right to do things. so it should be in a protected bike lane and when we have the statistics that show that bicycle fatalities are down, then that's when we should really explore a portion. we should really focus on

protecting mobility device users other than trying to punish them. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, next speaker. we have six in queue. >> caller: good afternoon. my name is cathy deluca and i work with older adults and people with disabilities in community living campaigns. thank you for calling this hearing and for all the work you've done to make these technologies safe. i hate the director bond was seriously injured on our sidewalks by a scooter rider. i hate that i'm not here to demonize scooters or scooter riders, but i feel like it's a real red flag. when you have a transportation mode that's mostly used by folks who are not older and who don't have disabilities that

creates problems for those who can't or don't rely on that mode. yes, safe infrastructure is needed but that will take time, and this option we're talking about scooters serves very few people. transit serves a lot more. dreaded cars. i get tired of people who have many ways of getting around advocating for something that doesn't serve a lot of people. so, sorry, i needed to react to some stuff. we need better data. if these companies can detect sidewalk riding, give us that data. report on the prechls of data location. it misses all the folks who don't go to hospitals and are in these crashes and lots of people who have near misses. we know how to get this data. you supervisors know. you talk to your folks all the time. you talk to a group of seniors, you're going to hear 20 stories. they're out there. i love the idea of sidewalk detection technology, stopping

the scooters. they shouldn't work on sidewalks. i'm feeling excited. we can do this. we can make them safer. thank you, supervisors for searching for solutions. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi supervisors. this is bob walsh speaking on behalf of scoot, but also a life long native san franciscan and a 33-year resident of district five. we'd like to state our support for improving safety outcomes for all road users and peds with disabilities. shared micromobility operators are constantly innovating new ways. which is still under development. however, the first condition proposed in today's resolution prohibiting waiver and release provisions in our user agreements would likely make

shared biking mobility operators in san francisco uninsurable and therefore unable to operate in the city. waiver and release provisions for standard clauses are found for every agreement in california. example for bike rentals, car rentals. safety data on shared micromobility does not support treating the industry different from all other industries. our data shows medical impotence on shared scooters occur in once in 50,000 rides which is comparable to standard bicycle. removing these provisions would remove the rider responsibility and not protect pedestrians to mobility. treat the industry differently from all other industries and fail to meaningfully enhance

public safety. we ask you remove these conditions from consideration. thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. next speaker, please. call linda chapman. again, i have to second the motion on my former army colleague, mr. decosta and i am not shy about demonizing scooters. they are a hazard to life in the 1990s, sometime in the past, there were scooters and then there were no more because i think our city fathers and mothers obliterated them, put them into oblivian. i rarely see any in the streets except when you see the skateboard riders.

nobody reports them. what would be the point? you know, by the time you would get a traffic control people out there, they would be long gone. there's no way to identify them. you know, when i'm listening to the presentations of the scooter industry and m.t.a., it's like it was a script from george orwell. in one block on sutter street i mentioned to the police captain, one night in the dark, six of them came at me in one block and those aren't the ones that bother me. the ones i'm afraid of are the ones that come from behind me. you know, you don't hear them. same thing with bicycles. what you need to do is further one obliterate them, they should not be allowed. they're a hazard. in the meantime make it to where any time there's a scooter or a bike is on the sidewalk, you seize them. these things should be seized

and a fine, a big fine like $100 to get their vehicle back. you know, it is both at cal meeting and recently we've expressed that sfmta is so prejudice against old people and their surveys and everything else. they're so afraid. >> clerk: all right. so we have three left in queue, if you're one of the 15 that haven't spoken, you can just press star three to make your testimony otherwise we will take the last three home. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi supervisors. my name is martin munos. i'm a ped muni rider and tenant in district 5. i want to thank my supervisor, supervisor preston for continuously expanding bike and walking infrastructure in our community.

i'm disappointed however in the focus away from dangerous motor vehicles from a supervisor in another district with almost no protected bike infrastructure after four nonconsecutive terms. i'd like to see a provision added by the supervisors directing sfmta to aggressively expand protection in his district and frankly all across the city. we can keep peds like me safe or choose biking and scooting as a viable option in the city. to keep pedestrians, cyclists, and scooter riders safe and during hundreds without meaningful change and scrutiny like we're seeing for scooters. a hate to lock alongside scooters zipping by and any person hit by one is one person too many. when we're making the bike or scooter a choice to. we should be creating a safe

life. i live on the 22 corridor and the fact that many of the scooter riders i see are low-income service workers many of whom like me are latino commuting to and from work. i suspect this is a more affordability option when compared to cars. >> i n am lee. i would point out theri chair of the committee also was party to removal of the beach promenade. instead of scooters return the great walkway and expand biking infrastructure. when we complain about scooters and removing bike infrastructure. >> i want to remind callers to please address the committee as a whole not a particular supervisor. that is a board rule. thank you so much. next speaker.

>> thank you. i am cliff burger. my main way to get around san francisco is foot, bike, muni. as someone who has been in multiple collisions with under regulated mobility devices and has them blocking my path, the people who had near misses or collisions. there is no excuse for scooter riders to be hitting pedestrians or coming close to them. the reason the scooter riders are on the sidewalk is that san francisco streets are not a safe place for people outside of cars. i can appreciate this hearing and solution oriented. i am glad the supervisors are looking into a range of options. i hope there is a focus to make streets safer especially district 3.

i really think time and again when streets an a people are get off the sidewalks with the scooters and will ride in the bike lanes. if we move towards banning the devices it will increase by pushing people to uber and lyft instead of allowing them to take lower impact devices less likely to cause injury to other road users. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i am michaelnolety. senior and disability advocate. we need equitable service. yes, users need to obey traffic laws. yes, the users need to walk

their equipment when they are on the sidewalks, not ride. yes, we need to be seeking solutions. did you know the hilton hotel, largest hotel on the west coast does not have a bike rack nearby? we should be looking for solutions. we should be changing the name of bike lanes to noble lanes and encourage all mobile devices to use them. i have seen wheelchairs using the bike lanes. we should be adding bells or horns to these scooters or bicycles. they should be standard equipment. let people know they are coming down the street for those that can't see from behind. in other words there needs to be solutions and not just regulations. thank you. >> two left in the queue.

next speaker. >> district 3. i am probably the 90% of the scooters that get reported. the reason for that is it is difficult. people don't know how to do it. it took me a year to figure it out. proportionately there aren't enough reports because people don't know what to do. as far as infrastructure goes, i am 100% protected bike lanes. best thing to happen. however, because we don't have them doesn't excuse illegal riding from bikes that are motorized and electric scooters on sidewalk.

at no time should that be permitted. it is also against the law. sfpd should be enforcing that. why aren't they? the argument that it is about cars. it is not. it is the law. unless you change the law every person who rides a scooter or bike on the sidewalk is doing so illegally. i am on the embarcadero promenade every day there is not a day that goes by somebody is not passing me at 40 miles per hour. electric scooters are not allowed or bike on the promenade. there is a bike lane alongside of it. some protected. people don't ride in it. they ride on the promenade. the false argument that cars

needs to go. that is all i have got. >> one caller in the queue. if you would like to speak press star 3. notification that was the last caller. thank you. >> that was the last caller, clerk? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. supervisor peskin i understand you may have an amendment or two to your resolution? >> madam chair, in the interest of time i will not be labor any questions or comments and just hospital right to -- hop right to the amendment. i will offer them as follows in the short title.

delete the words with terms and conditions designed to. so it reads urging bicycle and power scooter share to protect seniors and people with disabilities. let me say this. it isn't about being anti-scooter. this is about being pro-public safety. i do appreciate that the m ta and scooter companies are working together to develop and implement sophisticated technology to prevent sidewalk lighting regardless of the reasons joyriding by tourists or lack of developed infrastructure in whatever part of the city. our job is to prevent severe pedestrian injuries and injuries from riders. the thrust of this hearing. thank you, colleagues, for your

active participation, is to implement those as quickly as possible. to that end, by the way the city attorney wants to be clear this is for future permits. that is clear. we are not telling the m ta what they have to do with existing permits if they want to impose new thinks on existing permits within the confines of their powers under the current structure they are free and encouraged to do so. i am not going to incorporate the city attorney's suggestions about future permits. on page 3 at the first resolved. have that read that the board of supervisors urges the s.f.m.t.a.

and board of directors to implement measures to significantly expand compliance. removing the words refrain from reissuing or expanding permits. that clause to make the city attorney happy. on the bottom of the page number two. because of the weather from the permittees with regard to their concerns about waiving or changing the waiver by riders i am going to remove the first

clause and urge the m ta, staff and commission to explore that further. i am doing that verbally. not in writing. the meats of the changes to further resolve on the last change. the board of supervisors urges permittees to promptly install and implement sidewalk detection technology designed to prevent illegal riding on sidewalks. further resolved the board of supervisors urges s.f.m.t.a. to condition issuance of future permittees installation and sidewalk of sidewalk detection to prevent illegal riding on sidewalks. that is the some and substance of amendments. thank you for your time and thank you to the members of the public clearly interested in this matter and came to testify this afternoon. >> okay. thank you, supervisor peskin.

i failed to close public comment. i am doing so now. public comment is now closed. supervisor peskin, i believe those amendments were read into the record as a motion. supervisor preston did uv anything? >> no. okay. madam clerk take roll on the amendments read in the record. >> on the motion to amend item 3. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you. i want to thank kate and her staff and i know this has been slow but it has also been fast in terms of the evolution of

this technology and permitting system and the education curve that we are on. i really want to thank her and anything she wants to add, i would give her the opportunity. >> thank you for devoting so much time today. in an ongoing fashion and i think it was helpful from us to hear from you and the public. i have a lot of notes we will follow up on. i wanted to thank you and thank my team for supporting this effort. >> thank you, supervisor peskin, for this hearing. i just want to say. she just left. it has been really fast. climate change is also a crisis. i am pro-mobility devices.

more than that i am pro-supporting and helping those who cannot move around like the rest of us. the fact we created this world where those folks with the most vulnerable to injury pains me. while we need to make room for this we need to move on the infrastructure. we should have done it 25 years ago every way. and to keep people safe. in my neighborhood we just put ada ramps on the curbs. this is a law for 30 years. it is fast. we also need to move faster. to protect people and to keep up with the crisis. that is my closing statement. thank you so much. thank you so much, supervisor

peskin for the attention. supervisor preston. >> thank you, chair melgar. i want to echo the comments you just made. thank you, supervisor peskin for calling this hearing and for your leadership. i agree with chair melgar. you were laying out the long-term infrastructure issues. a lot of issues raised in public comment are spot on in terms of long and medium term especially with the opportunities. it is certainly true that some of the sidewalk scooters are the result of folks not safe on the streets. no is not exclusively it. we have an immediate very dangerous situation, particularly for seniors and folks with disabilities and all pedestrians. we have all seen folk at a high

rate of speed on the sidewalks. we have to address that. this hearing digs into exactly what everyone is doing to address that situation. i don't think these are mutually exclusive. i don't agree with the suggestion that because the ultimate answer is a more robust infrastructure for folks to be in the street as and protected we should not do anything around what is really a dangerous situation on the sidewalks. i appreciate that we can pursue both at the same time and i think particularly with some of the technology discussed and available where the companies are able to in some ways self-regulate if pushed to do so. that is what we need to see. encouraged what i have heard and appreciate being on top of this and pushing to be sure the

sidewalks are safe. thank you. >> madam clerk if you could take roll on the motion to bring this to the full board. >> motion to amends item 3 as amended supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> motion passes. thank you. do we have any other items for consideration at the committee today? >> the motion for item 4. >> i can re-introduce it or continue it to the call of the chair and check in the new year

after we have more -- it sounds like some of this can be implemented in the first and second quarter. we can hear this later in 2022. i make a motion to continue to the call of the chair if that is okay with chair melgar. >> let's take roll on that. >> moved by peskin for item 4. supervisor peskin. >> aye. >> supervisor preston. >> aye. >> supervisor melgar. >> aye. >> you have three ayes. >> thank you. that motion passes. now, madam clerk any other items? >> that completes the business this evening. >> thank you. our meeting is adjourned. see you all. to order the decemb

meeting of the redistricting task force at 3:06 p.m. mr. clerk, are there any announcements? >> clerk: i'm muted? >> you were a minute ago. >> i just asked if there were any announcements?