Slashdot Mirror

wrong, the law is a bunch of arm waving

read source before you spew, anon

https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

Imports represent ~29% of total electrical energy for 2017. Only about 20 GWh of what was imported was carbon (coal + gas) sources. This represents just 7% of all their electrical energy for that year.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/alman...

Cleaning this up is relatively easy; since electricity is fungible, you can specifically pay for renewable energy to make sure your money goes towards those sources. Nobody is forcing anyone to burn coal (except the coal industry and the Trump administration) and if everyone insists on buying renewable energy, then that's what providers will invest in and develop.
=Smidge=

Has anyone reporting on this actually read the entire text?

Well....actually, yes. And I don't even live in Cali. The text of the Senate Bill (I'm sure you are smart enough to find the House version) http://leginfo.legislature.ca....

Here is another interesting side note from a court case:

https://www.boe.ca.gov/meeting...

Who didn't know these cars would panic stop at weird moments and cause collisions? I saw that coming 5 years ago. Waymo (Google really) is hiding the crash data they use to publish, but you can still see the individual reports at CA DMV. No doubt they'll get that "fixed" soon. As expected the bulk of Waymo reports are rear end collisions when the car panic stops, probably for lens flare or some stupid figment of the car's imagination.

Here are the four most recent reports of Waymo's getting rear ended. They panic stop for stupid reasons that other drivers have no reason to anticipate because no human would behave similarly. 1, 2, 3, 4

Who didn't know these cars would panic stop at weird moments and cause collisions? I saw that coming 5 years ago. Waymo (Google really) is hiding the crash data they use to publish, but you can still see the individual reports at CA DMV. No doubt they'll get that "fixed" soon. As expected the bulk of Waymo reports are rear end collisions when the car panic stops, probably for lens flare or some stupid figment of the car's imagination.

Here are the four most recent reports of Waymo's getting rear ended. They panic stop for stupid reasons that other drivers have no reason to anticipate because no human would behave similarly. 1, 2, 3, 4

Who didn't know these cars would panic stop at weird moments and cause collisions? I saw that coming 5 years ago. Waymo (Google really) is hiding the crash data they use to publish, but you can still see the individual reports at CA DMV. No doubt they'll get that "fixed" soon. As expected the bulk of Waymo reports are rear end collisions when the car panic stops, probably for lens flare or some stupid figment of the car's imagination.

Here are the four most recent reports of Waymo's getting rear ended. They panic stop for stupid reasons that other drivers have no reason to anticipate because no human would behave similarly. 1, 2, 3, 4

Who didn't know these cars would panic stop at weird moments and cause collisions? I saw that coming 5 years ago. Waymo (Google really) is hiding the crash data they use to publish, but you can still see the individual reports at CA DMV. No doubt they'll get that "fixed" soon. As expected the bulk of Waymo reports are rear end collisions when the car panic stops, probably for lens flare or some stupid figment of the car's imagination.

Here are the four most recent reports of Waymo's getting rear ended. They panic stop for stupid reasons that other drivers have no reason to anticipate because no human would behave similarly. 1, 2, 3, 4

Who didn't know these cars would panic stop at weird moments and cause collisions? I saw that coming 5 years ago. Waymo (Google really) is hiding the crash data they use to publish, but you can still see the individual reports at CA DMV. No doubt they'll get that "fixed" soon. As expected the bulk of Waymo reports are rear end collisions when the car panic stops, probably for lens flare or some stupid figment of the car's imagination.

Here are the four most recent reports of Waymo's getting rear ended. They panic stop for stupid reasons that other drivers have no reason to anticipate because no human would behave similarly. 1, 2, 3, 4

You're quite amusing, but it's worth reflecting on how effective California's emissions regulations actually have been. We literally discovered that automobiles caused smog, and California's relentless push for stricter emissions standards can be credited with the bulk of the progress we have made as a nation.

But surely you aren't claiming that we should all be able to erratically stop for no reason whenever we want on any public road

Yes I am claiming this 100% and the law will claim it too.

You should reconsider your position.

For that that are having trouble reading your link, a quick summary:

California's Transportation Income in 2015 was $27 BILLION.
$6 billion from Federal funding
$6.5 billion in taxes and fees
$8.5 billion from tolls
$6 billion from the budget and other state government funding.

The total CalTrans budget for 2018 was $11 billion - approximately 40% of the transportation related income.
California's maintenance budget in 2015 was $450 million.
This budget includes CHiPs and other barely road-related functions as well.

In other words, Federal payments count for 50% of the CalTrans budget, and gas taxes, excise taxes, and shipping weight fees account for the rest. The other $16 billion the roads bring in is applied to the state's General Fund.

Plus the $3 billion for the "high-speed rail program"...

For that that are having trouble reading your link, a quick summary:

California's Transportation Income in 2015 was $27 BILLION.
$6 billion from Federal funding
$6.5 billion in taxes and fees
$8.5 billion from tolls
$6 billion from the budget and other state government funding.

The total CalTrans budget for 2018 was $11 billion - approximately 40% of the transportation related income.
California's maintenance budget in 2015 was $450 million.
This budget includes CHiPs and other barely road-related functions as well.

In other words, Federal payments count for 50% of the CalTrans budget, and gas taxes, excise taxes, and shipping weight fees account for the rest. The other $16 billion the roads bring in is applied to the state's General Fund.

Plus the $3 billion for the "high-speed rail program"...

I didnt think it would cover everything, but that little is kinda surprising. I found this PDF about the CA Transportation budget right now and it does have some interesting data on it.

The guy who orchestrated it was Ex-CEO Martin Winterkorn. He hated licensing Mercedes' diesel exhaust fluid technology (which combines ammonia with nitrous oxides to produce nitrogen, water, and CO2). So he specifically tasked his engineers with coming up with a diesel engine which didn't use DEF.*

When he resigned as CEO, he collected a $32 million golden parachute. Fines won't solve the problem. We need jail time.

* (To their credit, the engineers almost succeeded. The earlier 2-liter engines were a disaster - up to 5x the legal limit of NOx emissions (0.2-0.3 g/mi). But the 2015 2-liter diesel engines met EPA emissions limits without using DEF. They're just included in the scandal because they barely exceeded CARB's limits (0.05 g/mi).)

they'll get plenty of federal funding. California, OTOH, better hope those wild fires burn themselves out.

Sorry to breath fire on your narrative:

Aug 04 2018 SACRAMENTO – Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that the White House has approved California’s request for a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration submitted to the President earlier today to help with the impacts of the wildfire in Shasta County.

There's a lot of intentionally provocative/trollish bills california congress - which actually have weak effects, and are mostly pushing for industries to self-regulate, and are NOT actually expected to pass, but reach compromise.

If it isn't expected to pass, then why was the largest committee tally of "noes" only 2 votes and why did it pass the floor vote with 66% "yeas" of those who voted and 56% "yeas" if include the non-votes? Don't believe me? Then see for yourself.

That doesn't seem like something that has no chance of passing. It is has a chance at passing and as a result a chance of being profoundly damaging.

New cars regardless of mileage emit so little that I don't get why the focus is simply on that one factor. Emissions should be the primary factor.

Better fuel economy means less CO2 emissions, and worse fuel economy means more CO2 emissions. You're right when it comes to HCs or CO or even PPM, but not CO2.

And then there's the focus purely on cars when lawn mowers, leaf blowers, construction vehicles, etc, all spew out a lot more pollutants per minute than the hugest SUV or pickup truck.

California is trying to address the problem of emissions from that kind of equipment, as well. You can expect Trump to attack that, too.

.. of american life? Cancer.

Reformulating gasoline, and more efficient cars dramatically reduce the risk of cancer.

Source: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/st...

Bill Text: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB1001

(c) This chapter does not impose a duty on service providers of online platforms, including, but not limited to, Web hosting and Internet service providers.

The amendments to the bill stripped out any specific enforcement clauses that would require the Twitters and Facebooks platforms to come up with a way to allow users (human ones, I assume) to report suspected violations.

It also generally makes any of its provisions and obligations cumulative with other existing laws, but doesn't say which ones. Overly broad and unspecific laws are bad.

You're in a rough position and I don't envy you; it must suck to have to defend a defenseless position... the above attempt was desperate and while your "logic" rings hollow, you really shouldn't feel too bad... but if shilling for the Military/Prison Industrial Complex gets old (or you simply develop some self-respect), the good news is that the economy's doing well and you can probably get a job tomorrow delivering pizza... you do have a license, right??

That's an interesting insult against me. Where on earth did you see me say this was *MY* position?

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/how_info_shared

Scroll down to the bottom of that page under the "Database" section.

This isn't *MY* position, this is the governments position that I was only pointing out being the governments position.
It's also not *MY* logic. You should know better than to ever attempt finding logic in the law.

I've also stated elsewhere that I fully and completely disagree with this stance. But I won't hold that against you as I didn't state what is obvious to any rational human being in words directly in each and every post I made.

I guess this means I need to point out the fact this article is talking about California, and the specific state law link above is for California. That means they are the same place.

Care to offer your apology now? Or will you simply continue on being a hypocrite, justifying your shooting of the messenger simply because I'm posting anon?

I'm not sure where the law falls on motorized scooters, I would actually assume they fall into the bicycle category.

Here's what CA haws to say.

A motorized scooter is a two-wheeled device that has handlebars, a floorboard designed to be stood upon when riding, and is powered by a motor.
Motorized scooter does NOT have to be registered. A motorized scooter may be driven with any class driver license.

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Full...

Scroll down to page 22 to get past all the political statements and warm fuzzies. $144B in income and rollover from last budget year, minus $138B in expenses does not yield a negative number.

Found the political bullshitter with an agenda!

Non-citizens can apparently vote

Not really. They cannot vote in federal elections at all per 18 USC 611. (I'd link it at uscode.house.gov, but Slashdot apparently doesn't like the URL. I trust you can find it.)

Since you mentioned CA in particular, I'll note that they can't vote there at all. Only US citizens can vote in CA, according the California Secretary of State.

As far as I know, every state requires US citizenship in order to vote. Certainly everywhere I've lived.

It's OK if you're afraid of immigrants, but it's not OK to lie about how things work in the real world.

... which law firm to avoid.

It's a small business that made a classic business mistake of attacking a bad review rather than saying they're sorry the person was disappointed.

After the firm filed the defamation case, there was a default judgment, which usually means the defendant didn't fight it in court (they didn't get a lawyer or fight it without a lawyer). Then the law firm tried to use that judgment to force Yelp to take the review down. Yelp didn't, claiming they were protected by the Communications Decency Act, which says they're protected from being considered the "publisher" of third-party content someone posts on their site. The California Supreme Court Agreed. (They also claimed that they had not had due process because they were not part of the original case, but the CA Supreme Court did not need to rule on that issue because the Communications Decency Act determined the outcome of the case).

The law firm could still petition SCOTUS on this (contrary to what the AP coverage says, you don't "appeal" to the United States Supreme Court, you petition them for a writ of certiorari and they choose whether or not to grant it). It would be a fun argument, academically speaking. Very few people actually practice much First Amendment law, but it's a very interesting area. Obviously it's also important for a lot of businesses, because while there are lots of businesses out there with legitimately bad reviews, there are also lots of businesses out there with a couple of terrible customers who never give them a fair shake.

And because the article ridiculously didn't include a link to the court opinion, here it is: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opini...

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/motorcycles/motorcycles

Take a look at the graph again. Roads have a negative subsidy - meaning, they actually generate revenue. Air, transit, rail all have positive subsidies. At least the Federal level, roads tend to be money-makers.

Now, I know some States are poor at road maintenance. I live in California, and I know CADOT loves to spend money on anything but roads. We have 360,000 miles of State and local roads in CA, and about $20 billion in revenues. Ohio says it costs about $500,000 to pave 1 mile of 4 lane road (and Ohio winters and summers are much more extreme than most of California). So California should be able to pave 10% of our roads, every year - and we're lucky to get a few potholes filled per year.

There is, in fact, enough money if it was spent on roads, but a lot of times it goes to non-road spending like trains between Bakersfield and Modesto, bike paths, and such - and let roads and bridges continue to deteriorate. And thus raise gas taxes even further...

And then think of the windfall to California! California requires a minimum $800 for the right to sell within the State. Even if you have zero sales, and are an inactive (but not closed) entity, you MUST pay at least $800 per year. Now, suddenly every business shipping anything to the State of California will need to pay California that minimum amount. With around 28 million small businesses in the US, if just 10% of them have out-of-State sales, then California can expect to make around $2.4 billion per year, minimum...

... just like it is near the top in inequality, housing costs, poverty rates, poor schools, political polarization, debt, and numerous other negative social indicators.

Since I've moved here, I'm really amused at how obsessed with California conservatives in other states seem to be.

Don't you worry, the middle class is already leaving.

Most of the people leaving California are low-income, not "middle-class". And since we've recently gone from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 5th largest economy in the world, losing a million residents over a 10 year period is not a bad thing. It means there will be less traffic when I have to drive down to LAX or up to Frisco to catch a plane when I go on one of my charity missions to bring shoes and toothbrushes to people in red states.

http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/A...

You're such a lightweight.

There may be 5.5 million insurance claims, but how many more "interactions" are there including scrapes, less than 5 MPH, and unreported (no insurance, no money, illegal, etc) by human drivers? Just look at one of the yellow cabs in NYC for evidence. Tell us every black mark on that cab was an insurance claim? Of course not, but if that cab was an SDC every mark and scratch on it would be a reported "interaction".

Anyone that cares to read Waymo's actual report of incidents which are officially called disengagements can do so at https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/42aff875-7ab1-4115-a72a-97f6f24b23cc/Waymofull.pdf

What has essentially happened here is that acrylamide has been added to the list of chemicals covered by Prop 65.

The Prop 65 signs that were already in place... they stay. Places that represent a significant exposure to acrylamide (coffee shops) will be adding Prop 65 warning signs.

I'm not clear whether or not labels will need to be added to individual containers, but I seriously doubt that.

What has essentially happened here is that acrylamide has been added to the list of chemicals covered by Prop 65.

The Prop 65 signs that were already in place... they stay. Places that represent a significant exposure to acrylamide (coffee shops) will be adding Prop 65 warning signs.

I'm not clear whether or not labels will need to be added to individual containers, but I seriously doubt that.

The article mentions that Starbucks is against labeling coffee with the warning, which makes sense. Starbucks should stick it in the eye of California by creating a special blend where the packaging is just the warning label itself. Advertise it, draw attention to it so that consumers become aware of what a farce Proposition 65 has become.

It reminds me of a story told at the end of one of Paul Harvey's news segments. A regulator tells an established small diner that given the number of customers the establishment seats an additional toilet must be installed. To resize the bathroom or build a second would eat up a large chunk of the seating in the diner. Of course the owner's appeals were denied. The Regulatory State must be appeased. His solution was to install a fully functioning toilet in the front display window of the diner.

Cyclists are allowed on the road.

In Cali: https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

In Texas: Sure, we call them "targets".

It's amazing how many people don't know about CVC 21208. If there is a bike lane and you are going under the speed limit, you have to ride in it. Very few exceptions apply. https://leginfo.legislature.ca....

in added costs also pointed out the law wants houses to be "net zero" energy.

Nope. Net zero kWh is the standard. I don't think natural gas is included in that measure.
http://docketpublic.energy.ca....

HAHAHAHAHAno. The tech industry is fed up with the federal government dicking them around over data security. Instead of leaving, they would be staying in droves. And go ahead, tell us exactly what those federal contracts are worth. Meanwhile, marijuana production and tourism would explode, oh and by the way we grow half of the food the nation consumes. If you want to eat more than corn and wheat, you'll pay what we ask, fuckers.

The USA needs California far more than the other way around.

Well let's spend some time and look at that shall we? First let's look at what article this thread is attached to, "New California Ballot Measure Demands Groundbreaking Privacy Rights." That is a referendum put to a public vote to put restrictions on these tech. industries you say are fed up with the federal government dicking them around. So now instead of being regulated by a government body where they have a recourse in court, they would now be regulated by whelms of the public with no recourse in court. An you think they would stay in California?

California is moving to restrict the way these tech. companies do business so what are these companies going to do? They are going move their business to some place where the whelms of the public don't affect their business model. Current that location would be in the United States, so they would probably be relocating to New York.

$375.8 Billion dollars per year. That is what the those federal government spending in California.

http://lao.ca.gov/Publications...

Yes, you do grow a lot of food in California, but you only do that because you take water from the surrounding regions. If that was to go away you wouldn't be farming any where as much. Most of the land that you grow food would revert to its natural state, a desert. From what I'm reading corn and wheat are not grown in California. Those are produced in the Midwest, far away from anything that would be affected by a collapse of California ag. Industry.

So, no we don't need you more than you need us. Without the United States California would quickly collapse under is own debt and regulations.

Well, that's a nice populist sentiment that is not necessarily supported by actual numbers. Looking at slightly old (from 2015) numbers, half of all income tax revenue in California comes from those in the top 1% of income earners. For 2003 to 2014, all years except for one saw at least 40% of total income tax revenues coming from the top 1% of income earners.

I wonder how many of those 1%ers earn their income from CA-based companies that would effectively be shut down by this law? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, etc.

Well, that's a nice populist sentiment that is not necessarily supported by actual numbers. Looking at slightly old (from 2015) numbers, half of all income tax revenue in California comes from those in the top 1% of income earners. For 2003 to 2014, all years except for one saw at least 40% of total income tax revenues coming from the top 1% of income earners.

I wonder how many of those 1%ers earn their income from CA-based companies that would effectively be shut down by this law? Google, Facebook, Twitter, Uber, etc.

Having a large economy doesn't necessary mean you have a healthy economy. You also have the largest debt of any state in the union at over 700 billion.

In absolute terms, the debt is the largest of any state, but of course, that is entirely expected because the total California economy is the largest of any state. In terms of debt as a percentage of GDP, California is about in the middle in terms of ordinal ranking as well as being very close to the aggregate percentage of all states combined.

The highest tax rate, one of the highest homeless population in the country, and the fastest shrinking middle class. You know the ones that actually pay all those taxes.

Well, that's a nice populist sentiment that is not necessarily supported by actual numbers. Looking at slightly old (from 2015) numbers, half of all income tax revenue in California comes from those in the top 1% of income earners. For 2003 to 2014, all years except for one saw at least 40% of total income tax revenues coming from the top 1% of income earners.

An a complete and total dependency of surrounding states for water.

Well, sort of but not really. California uses about 40 million acre-feet of water per year. About 10% comes from the Colorado River system. One third comes from ground water. Another third comes from the Sierra snowpack. The rest comes mostly from in-state reservoirs.

Having a large economy doesn't necessary mean you have a healthy economy. You also have the largest debt of any state in the union at over 700 billion.

In absolute terms, the debt is the largest of any state, but of course, that is entirely expected because the total California economy is the largest of any state. In terms of debt as a percentage of GDP, California is about in the middle in terms of ordinal ranking as well as being very close to the aggregate percentage of all states combined.

The highest tax rate, one of the highest homeless population in the country, and the fastest shrinking middle class. You know the ones that actually pay all those taxes.

Well, that's a nice populist sentiment that is not necessarily supported by actual numbers. Looking at slightly old (from 2015) numbers, half of all income tax revenue in California comes from those in the top 1% of income earners. For 2003 to 2014, all years except for one saw at least 40% of total income tax revenues coming from the top 1% of income earners.

An a complete and total dependency of surrounding states for water.

Well, sort of but not really. California uses about 40 million acre-feet of water per year. About 10% comes from the Colorado River system. One third comes from ground water. Another third comes from the Sierra snowpack. The rest comes mostly from in-state reservoirs.

Some school districts in CA are pushing $40K in expenses per student, with the high being New Jerusalem Elementary School District coming in at $119,000 per student. Even it it was an average of $13K (which is about the average for California), the average class size is around 22, meaning close to $300K per classroom. A bit of math will show that teacher salary is around 20% of all student spending. That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.

I don't know about all of them but it looks like the top one is exploiting rules regarding Charter schools.

I'd need to see some proper media reports to understand what's going on in general since those schools over $50k per student seem kind of ridiculous.

Some school districts in CA are pushing $40K in expenses per student, with the high being New Jerusalem Elementary School District coming in at $119,000 per student. Even it it was an average of $13K (which is about the average for California), the average class size is around 22, meaning close to $300K per classroom. A bit of math will show that teacher salary is around 20% of all student spending. That's the issue - so much money is going to things beyond education.

First off, any effort to reduce emissions is great news. Thanks Lyft for the early Earth Day gift :) It's effectively cleaning up someone else's mess (in this case, capturing landfill methane was one example from the announcement) rather than their own, but it's an improvement nonetheless. If you have to use Lyft or Uber, use Lyft.

That said, a couple notes:

1) Lyft is most likely just offsetting for the ride itself, not for "deadhead" miles between "rides" (without passengers) or between a driver's house and the first or last ride, which may be a large amount. See this CPUC report, p. 11.

2) Another import note is that Lyft is currently opposing a bill (see the 4/20 legislative analysis, bottom of page 4) which

"would require, beginning January 1, 2030, that 100% of the vehicles that are purchased, leased, owned, or contracted for by a transportation network company be zero-emission vehicles"

as well as setting interim goals for increasing zero-emissions VMT.

Lyft's opposition apparently is partly because Lyft doesn't have faith in their efforts to increase zero emission miles, and partly from a distaste for rules of any kind ("We're going to oppose any version of the bill that can be seen as a mandate", according to Tim McRae, VP of Energy at Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who argued on behalf of Lyft and Uber during the bill's hearing in committee on 4/17).

The bill is SB 1014, going through the California Senate this session. (And of course, Uber is opposed as well.)

First off, any effort to reduce emissions is great news. Thanks Lyft for the early Earth Day gift :) It's effectively cleaning up someone else's mess (in this case, capturing landfill methane was one example from the announcement) rather than their own, but it's an improvement nonetheless. If you have to use Lyft or Uber, use Lyft.

That said, a couple notes:

1) Lyft is most likely just offsetting for the ride itself, not for "deadhead" miles between "rides" (without passengers) or between a driver's house and the first or last ride, which may be a large amount. See this CPUC report, p. 11.

2) Another import note is that Lyft is currently opposing a bill (see the 4/20 legislative analysis, bottom of page 4) which

"would require, beginning January 1, 2030, that 100% of the vehicles that are purchased, leased, owned, or contracted for by a transportation network company be zero-emission vehicles"

as well as setting interim goals for increasing zero-emissions VMT.

Lyft's opposition apparently is partly because Lyft doesn't have faith in their efforts to increase zero emission miles, and partly from a distaste for rules of any kind ("We're going to oppose any version of the bill that can be seen as a mandate", according to Tim McRae, VP of Energy at Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who argued on behalf of Lyft and Uber during the bill's hearing in committee on 4/17).

The bill is SB 1014, going through the California Senate this session. (And of course, Uber is opposed as well.)

First off, any effort to reduce emissions is great news. Thanks Lyft for the early Earth Day gift :) It's effectively cleaning up someone else's mess (in this case, capturing landfill methane was one example from the announcement) rather than their own, but it's an improvement nonetheless. If you have to use Lyft or Uber, use Lyft.

That said, a couple notes:

1) Lyft is most likely just offsetting for the ride itself, not for "deadhead" miles between "rides" (without passengers) or between a driver's house and the first or last ride, which may be a large amount. See this CPUC report, p. 11.

2) Another import note is that Lyft is currently opposing a bill (see the 4/20 legislative analysis, bottom of page 4) which

"would require, beginning January 1, 2030, that 100% of the vehicles that are purchased, leased, owned, or contracted for by a transportation network company be zero-emission vehicles"

as well as setting interim goals for increasing zero-emissions VMT.

Lyft's opposition apparently is partly because Lyft doesn't have faith in their efforts to increase zero emission miles, and partly from a distaste for rules of any kind ("We're going to oppose any version of the bill that can be seen as a mandate", according to Tim McRae, VP of Energy at Silicon Valley Leadership Group, who argued on behalf of Lyft and Uber during the bill's hearing in committee on 4/17).

The bill is SB 1014, going through the California Senate this session. (And of course, Uber is opposed as well.)

First, no one calls it "CalDOT", it's "Caltrans" or "California Department of Transportation".

Second, what law do you claim required Caltrans to repair or reset the crash attenuator in a particular period of time? Go ahead, here is a link to the California codes. Provide a cite or a link to support your claim.

The fact that Caltrans is responsible for maintaining some roads (including 101) does not mean they are legally required to repair every condition instantly or within some specific time period. Caltrans did not cause this accident -- the driver and Tesla did. It sounds like Caltrans has a policy that applies to repairs of this sort and it includes discretion (the safety of drivers and work crews in "cone zones" is presumably a major consideration) to account for inclement weather.

The situation would be quite different if, for example, there were a giant pothole in traffic lanes on a freeway and it was a danger to drivers who were driving responsibility. They DO shut down a freeway DURING RUSH HOUR from time to time for such conditions. However, repairing a crash attenuator that no one is supposed to hit and that is not impinging on the roadway is not something that would likely justify shutting down a freeway during any high traffic period as it's not a high priority repair.

I thought surely you were mistaken. You're not.

Drivers that are deaf or hard of hearing can adjust their driver safety habits by relying more on their seeing sense to compensate for the loss of hearing.

The actual California law is here.

The key wording is "The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection...The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian."

There is no explicit requirement to stop if someone is just "in the crosswalk", but of course if they are in the crosswalk and walking towards your car, you better stop to "yield right of way", "exercise all due care", and "safeguard the safety of the pedestrian".

I'm not sure that's the case. Does CA law require completely clear crosswalks?

Yes. In marked AND unmarked (implicit at each intersection) crosswalks the pedestrian has the right-of-way.