John Diaz: The perilous streets of San Francisco safety

I was waiting to cross Market Street when the light flashed “walk.” A young man in front of me stepped into the crosswalk. Suddenly, he heard the blast of a Muni bus horn and, jarred by the sound, jumped back. The bus barreled through the intersection. It’s fair to assume that if he had been listening to music through earbuds — a not uncommon practice for city pedestrians — he might have been killed.

A half dozen or so fellow pedestrians at Fifth and Market streets gasped aloud at the near-miss. Then several sighed aloud in disgust as the bus passed and they caught a glimpse of the driver. “She’s on her phone.” Her cell phone was pressed against her right ear.

I wondered how that could happen. Starting on Jan. 1, state law prohibited any driver from holding a cell phone in his or her hand for any reason, let alone making a phone call: not for reading a text, not for checking a music playlist, not for shooting photos or videos, not even for looking at a map. The restriction on using a non-hands-free device for calls has been around a decade.

If the law applies to a driver at a stop sign on a deserted rural road, surely public safety demands that it apply to a bus operator at lunchtime on a weekday in downtown San Francisco.

Doesn’t Muni policy conform to state law?

I took down the license plate and emailed the details of the March 23 incident to the Muni public affairs office. As of Friday, the incident remained under investigation. I was told I would probably not learn the identity of the driver and the resolution of the complaint because it was a personnel matter.

I would like to have that information on record in the event — God forbid — of a recurrence that results in an accident.

Muni sent me its “zero tolerance policy for use of personal electronic devices” for employees operating vehicles, dispatching, flagging or otherwise “controlling the movement” of a rail vehicle.

Does this sound like zero tolerance to you?

First offense is a three-day suspension.

Second offense is a five-day suspension. Third offense is termination. We’re all left to pray that no one gets killed before that third strike. A true zero-tolerance policy would be one that forced Muni operators to ask themselves before ever putting a phone to their ear: Is this worth risking my livelihood, let alone the lives of others?

There should be a zero-tolerance policy for an operator even having a powered-up cell phone while on the bus or train. After all, even a vibrating cell phone can be a distraction if the operator looks to see who is calling or texting. Muni does have such a prohibition, but with penalties that are less than a deterrence. First offense is “counseling.” Second offense is a written warning. Third offense is a one-day suspension.

Fourth offense is “subject to further disciplinary action.”

I asked Muni spokesman Paul Rose if Muni has had any accidents in which an operator was using a cell phone.

“Collisions caused because of the use of a cell phone are rare and we could not recall such an accident,” Rose replied. “If you do notice an operator using a cell phone while in operation, please call 311 immediately and provide the vehicle number.”

Please email me as well, and I will follow up with Muni. The use of cell phones by its operators should be unthinkable. The same goes for San Francisco police officers, a number of whom I have spotted talking on a handheld device while navigating with one hand on the wheel.

Muni drivers and police officers with cell phones are hardly the only sources of pedestrian danger. At that same corner of Fifth and Market, last year, I was behind a pedestrian who took a step into that same intersection — with the “walk” sign on — and was struck by a cyclist shooting through the red light. She suffered a broken leg. I left her my business card as a friend attended to her, and offered to serve as a witness if she pursued charges. She never did.

A reminder to look for oncoming traffic — not just the “walk” sign — before crossing the street in downtown San Francisco: Don’t let your life depend on someone’s adherence to the rules of the road.

Mark Davis, owner of the Raiders, is either hopelessly tone deaf, shamefully cruel or has a strange sense of humor. On the day after National Football League owners voted 31-1 to allow the franchise to leave Oakland, the Raiders sent an email to season-ticket holders inviting them to “secure your place in Raiders history. Be the first to secure your $100 deposit for the Las Vegas stadium.”

I think it’s fair to conclude from the social-media reaction that the threshold question for Raiders fans is not whether they will make the road trip to Sin City — “If you build it we won’t come” was a popular sign at the Coliseum last season — but whether to continue to support the team while it still plays in Oakland.

Naturally, the first questions we asked Rep. Eric Swalwell were about the investigation into Russian interference into the 2016 election. Swalwell, a former Alameda County prosecutor who now serves on the House Intelligence Committee, has emerged as a go-to source for national media outlets who want a studied and articulate view of the unfolding scandal.

The Dublin Democrat had plenty to say about recently fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s request for immunity in exchange for testimony (“generally speaking, in my experience, innocent people do not seek immunity”), the ability of Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Tulare, to continue chairing the committee amid concerns about his credibility and allegiances to the Trump White House (“the window’s closing”) and the gravity of Russia’s attempt to influence a U.S. election (“an act of cyberwar.”)

Knowing the intensity and reach of interest in the investigation, we livestreamed the first 28 minutes of the meeting that dealt with national issues.

Once the video stopped, the conversation turned to some issues centered in his 15th Congressional District, which stretches from Hayward to eastern Alameda County and San Ramon. I asked Swalwell, who returns home every weekend, about the issues his constituents raise most often. Neither the Trump-Russia intrigue nor the Supreme Court were at the top of the list.

His answer? Transportation quagmires and housing affordability. He talked about his vision to extend BART to the edge of the Altamont Pass and, on housing, about his legislation to ease the student debt burden to give more Millennials a shot at home ownership. Swalwell allowed that he still owed about $100,000 in student loans.

As the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill liked to say, “All politics is local.”