Parents in San Francisco are expressing growing frustration over the city’s apparent noncompliance with the state’s daylighting law, particularly in high-risk areas for pedestrians.
Assembly Bill 413, enacted last year, prohibits vehicles from parking or stopping within 20 feet of a crosswalk or 15 feet of a curb extension. This legislation aims to enhance the visibility of pedestrians by providing clear sightlines for motorists, thereby decreasing the likelihood of accidents.
Since the law went into effect, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) has started painting curbs red to denote no-parking zones, with a goal of implementing daylighting across all intersections by the end of 2026.
However, many parents have reported that the painted curbs are often falling short of the stipulated lengths, with some occurring at only 10 feet from crosswalks. This discrepancy is particularly alarming in areas perceived as high risk for pedestrian traffic.
Jen Nossokoff, a local mother of two from the Inner Richmond, was prompted to act after observing that four out of eight no-parking buffers near her child’s elementary school were not compliant with the law’s requirements.
After an unsatisfactory exchange with the city’s traffic engineer, Nossokoff and a group of parents formally requested that the SFMTA review the status of the curbs to ensure compliance with state regulations.
Despite assurances from the agency that they would bring the intersections into compliance, parents remain concerned about the lack of action regarding curbs in other city areas. Nossokoff expressed her frustration, stating, “Nobody appears to be doing anything, and that’s where my frustration as a parent comes from.”
In response to the parents’ concerns, the SFMTA issued a statement indicating that daylighting lengths in high-collision areas are adjusted based on engineering reviews. The agency emphasized that they would aim for consistency and compliance with state law by establishing 20-foot daylighting zones throughout the city.
According to AB 314, local authorities may implement different parking distances if adjustments are clearly marked and supported by relevant data demonstrating that the shorter distance is justified by established safety standards.
Other parents have also voiced their apprehensions regarding the inadequacy of the curbs and the dangers posed by parked vehicles near intersections. Danielle Jezienicki, another mother from the Richmond district, recounted a life-threatening incident involving her son, who was struck by a distracted driver just 100 feet from his school.
The incident occurred at the intersection of 7th Avenue and Balboa Street, an area that is identified as part of San Francisco’s high-injury network, characterized by a high percentage of severe injuries and fatalities from vehicle-related accidents.
Jezienicki noted that the buffer zone where her son was hit has also been painted to less than the recommended 20 feet, raising questions about the safety measures in place in these high-collision zones.
While she cannot definitively state whether stricter enforcement of the daylighting law would have altered the outcome of the collision, she believes that such measures could enhance the visibility of pedestrians for drivers.
Emphasizing the urgency of addressing these safety issues, she stated, “The city needs to enforce laws that protect pedestrians and cyclists, especially in areas that are already considered high-collision corridors.”
As parents continue to advocate for safer streets, the call for more rigorous enforcement of daylighting regulations in San Francisco remains a pressing concern.
image source from：kqed
