"Has a gas station near you closed? This California law may be why" (SF Chronicle) reported by Rachel Swan

Early in January I got a call on my cell as I walked home. The San Francisco Chronicle's transportation reporter had been assigned to cover the closure of Bay Farm's 76 gas station, was making use of a recent blog post I wrote, and had a few more questions.

Our call of ~20 minutes was reduced to a single two-sentence-long quote from me. (Appropriately enough the quote includes an em-dash, which apparently is both my writing and speaking style.)

Besides the em-dash, what was most interesting is how my blogger-style research helped to inform Swan's shoe-leather-style reporting. Here's one example: I had spent enough time with local permits to offer another relevant example of the Chevron gas station currently under construction for the same type of last-minute tank replacement over on Webster Street. After I mentioned those permits and the contact information listed on them, Swan called Chevron's contractor and got another perspective.

To complete the package, Swan and a photographer also visited Bay Farm the day after we spoke. The article and photographs are a useful comparison with my blog post on the same topic. The reporter interviewed many people directly (also Jerry Hill, the former state senator who wrote the relevant legislation), while I dug through documents and maps. In an ideal Alameda and an ideal Bay Area, we'd have both more bloggers writing publicly and pedantically as well as more reporters who are professionally trained and paid to interview widely. (We'd also have more editors to review for length, clarity, and so on and so forth, as well as to catch tipos.)

"Daysog Referral Fails; Mecartney Upgrades Will Proceed" blog post by Bike Walk Alameda

Speakers in support for the referral were few. One Harbor Bay Isle HOA representative acknowledged that outreach had in fact been adequate, but nonetheless argued the project should receive Council review and questioned staff’s legal authority. Another speaker objected primarily on aesthetic grounds.

City Engineer Scott Wickstrom fielded questions and clearly explained both the rationale for the project and why stopping it midstream would be ill-advised.

"She’s the Face of Trump’s Aviation Safety Board, and She’s a Democrat" (The New York Times) reported by Karoun Demirjian

A year ago, The Bun wrote that:

Jennifer Homendy may not be a household name. She deserves to be.

The New York Times (for all its flaws I was just ranting about) agrees.

Homendy (a member of the Democratic Party, a long-time supporter of labor unions, and a woman) is holding her own and working diligently to give NTSB's staff the budget and space they need to carry out their work.

Just as Trump "TACOs out" when public trading markets break into his small world of FOX News broadcasts, Trump apparently realizes that another in-flight disaster is a serious risk to his administration in the eyes of otherwise disengaged but persuadable voters.

(It should also be pointed out — which the NYT does not do — that within the last year Trump has illegally fired the single Black member of the NTSB board.)

A small but additional reason to appreciate Homendy: Trump's second administration involves a certain strange aesthetic. The men must be chiseled (the Secretary of Transportation is a former TV star; the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is a former NFL player; the newly nominated Chair of the Federal Reserve Board is "out of central casting") while the women must apparently demonstrate blatantly obvious cosmetic surgery. The couriers of Mar a Lago put significantly more time into their outward appearance than their internal judgements. While in a more normal world I would not comment on anyone's appearance, I appreciate that Homendy appears in photographs and videos as a normal-looking middle-aged professional who is smart, strategic, and takes her responsibilities seriously.

Even though it's too hard to find role models in positions of power in the U.S. these days, Homendy demonstrates that it's still possible.

"Is a Robotaxi Crash Really "Unavoidable"?" blog post by Phil Koopman

Google's "self driving car" business is proudly announcing to national regulators and the general public that one of its vehicles struck a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica during drop-off time!

As this blog mentioned a couple months ago, state regulators have also opened Alameda to Waymo's "uncrewed" vehicle operations — so perhaps this "good news" will also arrive here.

Wait. Hitting a kid with your empty car is good news?

Yes, Waymo has decided this is good news. They're celebrating because their in-house analysis has concluded that their automated systems engaged the vehicle's brakes, lowering the vehicle's speed, with more rapidity than a mortal human. In other words, a human driving a vehicle at the same initial speed, when seeing the student at the same moment as Waymo's cameras and laser beams, would not have been able to as quickly and effectively brake their vehicle to reduce its speed before coming into contact with the kid. Huzzah!

Like all self-reports from the self-driving car industry, this analysis is extremely strategic in its scope. Phil Koopman, a recently retired Carnegie Mellon professor writes that:

But here’s the thing: there is more to avoiding crashes than reacting quickly. The context of the crash matters. The comparison should be to a careful and competent human driver who is adjusting their driving behavior according to the risks apparent in a situation, not a robot driver that obliviously drives at the posted speed limit and jams on the brakes only when an imminent collision is directly observable.

[...]

Because there was an injury for Waymo, we know via a required report to NHTSA that the injury happened in what was likely a chaotic school dropoff scenario. A reasonable driver should be exercising extra care in such a situation. (Waymo should have been even more careful and arguably should have avoided school scenarios entirely given the heat they are taking for school bus violations.) A young kid appearing from in front of one of several double-parked vehicles at school dropoff is not an exotic, unexpected event — it’s called a Friday at school dropoff.

Aside from the poor decision by Waymo of running a "deadheading" vehicle near an elementary school at drop-off time (meaning the vehicle was probably repositioning to reach a paying driver elsewhere or to train on exotic situations along the way), this situation does also highlight the need for better behavior by parents and street designs that force better behavior on parents.

Double-parking where kids are on foot or on bike is always a bad idea, whether or not there's a robot car driving past (equipped with semi-successful emergency brakes and even-more-successful lobbyists).

A request for donations from the Alameda Point Collaborative:

Last night, a fire broke out in one of our 4-bedroom units. The family of seven made it out, but their home and all their belongings have been destroyed. Thankfully, everyone is safe, though they have been displaced and are currently starting over from scratch – again.We are using all our resources to help stabilize the mom and her six children – readying the new unit, supplying gift cards for clothes and immediate necessities, and partnering with the food bank to keep them fed. We are working hard to get them what they need.

I sent in a small cash donation. If you're able to donate cash, gift cards, or clothing, see APC's Facebook post.