Cops out in force in OMSI construction zone
Posted by Jonathan Maus (Editor) on June 20th, 2007 at 10:54 am
(File photo)
Back in February, I shared the word from the Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division that the OMSI construction area would be an “enhanced enforcement zone” (see map below).
Now, given the amount of emails and phone calls I’ve received in recent days, it seems like they’ve significantly ratcheted up their efforts to cite bicyclists in this area.
One person — an employee at the Portland Opera who rides through the area every day — called me this morning to vent frustrations about the situation. During our 10 minute phone conversation, she watched four cyclists get pulled over.
Yesterday, I interviewed about the situation on KGW-TV. In the story they ran on their 5 and 6 o’clock newscasts last night, reporter Amy Troy said,
“In two days police handed out at least three-dozen citations to bicyclists who ran stop signs in one area of Southeast Portland (the OMSI construction zone).”
Is this simply bicyclists getting what’s coming to them for breaking the law? Can the engineering of this area be improved? Is it reasonable to expect 100% compliance in an area that is unsafe and confusing to navigate for bicyclists? Is this even an issue we should be concerned about? Do we need to take a closer look at different solutions? Do you care about this issue?
If you ride through this area, I would love to hear about your experiences.
In the meantime, let this serve as a reminder that Traffic Division officers are watching this area very closely.
*Here’s a map of the project area and approximate enforcement zone.
Email This Post
Possibly related posts
June 20th, 2007 10:59
I ride through the area almost every day and I watch cyclists blow the stop signs almost every day. I think a lot of the cyclists that blow through the signs, especially the ones at the Portland Opera cul-de-sac and at the intersections of Caruthers and Division Place, do so because there are so rarely any cars in that area (esp. with Water St. being closed at the time). We can question whether stop signs are necessary at the location,, but while they are there it seems to me that you blow them at your own risk.
June 20th, 2007 11:08
Early last week in the early A.M. (don't remember wich day, and the time was probably between 6:15 - 7:30) I saw a biker down on the intersection of 4th and Caruthers. There was a fire truck and police. The cyclist was on some kind of emergency board and looked pretty scraped up.
It was difficult to determine what had happened, but that stop sign on 4th (heading North) is blown pretty regularly as people turn either East or West onto Caruthers.
Does anyone have any information on this accident?
June 20th, 2007 11:16
Doesn't this enforcement just show that the previous enforcement at this location a month ago or so was ineffective at changing the behavior of cyclists in this area? Didn't we already show this at Ladd's, another place where coming to a complete stop is entirely superfluous?
Half of the stop signs in this zone are unnecessary. All should be yields for cyclists. Help make what we are going to do regardless of the law safe and legal!! I'll be taking 11th and 12th instead of the esplanade until the cops are gone.
June 20th, 2007 11:24
I have seen this sting location many times.
A friend and I went through there the other night. He thinks they are giving more citations to bikes than cars:
Portland Police target bicyclists disproportionately.
June 20th, 2007 11:25
Is anyone fed up enough to attempt level headed discussion with Portland Police/Mayor Potter about this? I'm not talking about having it made to be OK for cyclists to blow all stop signs, but maybe the start is to push for changing the signage in this particular area? Get rid of the stop signs at the exit/entrance for the Esplanade? Signage at the Water detour/4th Ave intersection that says 'Cross Traffic Does Not Stop'? Request that the PPB also stop motorists who roll through stops in that area? Anyone want to help pursue this?
June 20th, 2007 11:26
Why does it feel like the Police are trying to force a confrontation with us cyclists?
June 20th, 2007 11:32
I ride this area a couple of times a week, & have a couple of observations -
I've noticed a couple of unfortunate bikelane issues in this area that do seem to affect cyclist behaviour.
Firstly, since the area is primarily industrial, I've noticed a lot of trucks parking in the bikelanes. Sometimes they're loading & unloading, & other times it seems like they're parked there permenantly, forcing cyclists out into the street - particularly a whole line of them on Caruthers.
Perhaps sharrows could be a possible solution & comprimise between the need for businesses in the area to function, & the need for bicyclists of all ages & abilities to pass safely & comfortably through the area here?
I feel that the latter point is significant, since a great portion of riders in this section are families who may not be comfortable around traffic, & who may not know all of the rules of the road when it comes to bikes.
Leading on from the loading & unloading truck issue, I personally get uncomfortable riding in the newly striped bikelane on 4th that leads to the Springwater trailhead. This is because so many trucks use it to load & unload (if you look, their loading bays front the building directly onto the bikelane), there's a **lot** of horrible debris in the bikelane - grit, rocks, and lots and lots and lots of pieces of wood, & sections of splinters.
I worry about riding in the lane and getting a flat tire every time. And I worry about not riding in the lane, and getting a ticket from an over-zealous police officer.
I don't know who has legal responsibility for the bikelane, but I do think it would be nice if the factory could find it in its heart to perhaps volunteer a bit of goodwill towards bicyclists, & sweep the bikepath once a week, (since my understanding is they're primarily the ones dropping bits of wood & grit all over it on a daily basis, & not the city, or the bicyclists)
June 20th, 2007 11:36
What do I need to do to get some of those cops into my neighborhood to deal with the 3,000 lb cars doing 40 in a 25 zone (near a head-start school no less) and blowing stop signs and uncontrolled intersections at near full speed?
I call them and they tell me they can send ONE cop, and if s/he doesn't see anything in 15 minutes, they'll leave.
Yet they can send out the freakin army for this.
June 20th, 2007 11:40
Whaddaya bet the police are trying to fill that share the road class that got invented recently?
June 20th, 2007 11:43
Here we are again...let's not beat a dead horse... Doesn't it register in your bike riding minds that if you blow these particular stop signs - and also those in Ladds, that there is a good chance that you're going to be a recipient of a very expensive and time consuming traffic ticket? I say good luck and good riddance. Until something is done on a fair and permanent basis in these areas, stay away or stay smart. I pick and choose my spots as far as running or rolling through certain signs, let's be honest, because we all do it on occassion. But those of you getting the tickets in SE quit bitchin.' The cops are probably quite familiar with a few of you by now, and I bet they're often left scratching their heads.
June 20th, 2007 11:54
ME,
I appreciate your sentiments, but I don't think this is a dead horse.
It's not just as simple as "stay away or stay smart". Bicycles must have safe and efficient routes to travel through the city. If one of those is taken away, a reasonable alternative must be offered. In the case of OMSI, I'm not aware of a good alternate route.
So, given that no viable alternate route exists, we must travel this area.
Since the area is a dangerous construction zone with lots of truck traffic, haphazardly placed traffic control devices, and bike lanes that leave a lot to be desired, I don't think that it is appropriate to expect (and base enforcement practices on) 100% compliance with the law.
Look at the situation on Mt. Tabor. There were some complaints about cyclists speeding. The result was a stakeholder meeting attended by police, city engineers, n'hood groups, etc... The response was not to go out and give out tickets. Why not explore that same course of action in this situation?
Isn't Mayor Potter all about "community policing"?
I think we can do better. We need a new approach. While I do think enforcement has some positive educational impact, I remain unconvinced that this is the most effective solution.
June 20th, 2007 11:58
Springwater Regular Rider,
Here's what you can do about trucks parked in the bike lanes, debris that needs to be swept up, and general traffic safety concerns in that area. Program the following numbers in your cell phone and USE THEM:
Parking enforcement will come out during business hours and ticket cars or trucks parked illegally including parked in the bike lanes. 823-5195
Pavement repair and potholes. 823-BUMP
Lane and path sweeping and plant pruning. 823-CYCL, ext. 1
Safety concerns. 823-SAFE.
Michelle
June 20th, 2007 12:10
KGW report:
http://tinyurl.com/2ovfgz
June 20th, 2007 12:21
Dead horse or not, currently the only way to be sure (in theory) to avoid a citation is to not break the traffic laws, regardless of how ineffectual or inappropriate we feel they are. In this particular area we need to push for the city to either condemn or otherwise pressure the owners of the infamous "SK site" so that a better connection can be constructed. Statewide, a push for the "Idaho" law seems to be the logical way to go but then Ginny would probably screw that up too.
June 20th, 2007 12:25
The one good thing for me about the Springwater Cooridor being ripe for the ticket harvest is that it has provided me with enough motivation to climb the Riverview Cemetary every morning and avoid the area altoghter. Judging by the increase in cyclists I see in the cemetary now, I am assuming others are doing this as well.
June 20th, 2007 12:29
I took this photo riding through on Sunday:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7649140@N08/562765404/
This is what you see if you stop at the stop bar: nothing. I usually roll through this so that if there is a car bearing down on me, at least I have a little speed to swerve and get away. The long-bed articulated trucks that commonly turn here come will actually hit anyone who's properly stopped at the sign.
With the police crackdown, I feel much less safe, since I not only have to dodge cars and cement trucks (and cars trying to get around cement trucks), but I have to worry about following the letter of the law as to avoid $240 tickets.
Not very diplomatic, but maybe we can get a crew together to go down when they're stinging and hand out free bacon and soy bacon samples to cyclists who stop at the signs :)
June 20th, 2007 12:39
Phil raises an excellent point. Even for those of us who stop at stop signs, the location of the stop bar at *many* intersections in this city are not at all well planned. I regularly ride on Skidmore between NE 33rd and N Albina, and from about 8th to 20th, there are numerous intersections where I have no choice but to nose out into the intersection (*after* a legal stop, mind you, as I don't want to get ticketed) and risk getting hit because I can't clearly see traffic coming from both directions otherwise. And Skidmore's supposed to be a relatively bike-safe street!
June 20th, 2007 12:40
Jonathan, you seem to be saying that because the area is unsafe, cyclists must blow stop signs for their own safety. And of course, therefore, cops shouldn't be ticketing them for taking these innovative "safety precautions."
What, exactly, is it about these particular stop signs that makes stopping at them "unsafe"?
June 20th, 2007 12:44
I get the impression that Jonathan's point is that there are about 8 zillion auto violations going on in that particular area that are being ignored while this "enhanced enforcement" is taking place. Things like cars and truck rolling stop signs and trucks and construction equipment blocking the bike lanes.
June 20th, 2007 12:46
I wonder how the police would react if we started video taping their stings.
Just stand on a corner and inform them that you will be video taping and you will not violate any laws.
I wonder...
June 20th, 2007 12:48
If that's the case, and the cops are targeting cyclists, and not just all traffic scofflaws in what has been described here as a hazardous area, then of course cyclists need to bring city hall into this, and even investigate the legality of targeting one group of road users.
June 20th, 2007 12:57
This morning, three of us were stopped and cited by 2 motorcycle officers
for failure to stop at the stop sign just before OMSI. The officer
writing the ticket, he could see how annnoyed I was. In fact,
he noted that he COULD have just referred me to a 'biking education class', but due to my behavior he would instead be ticketing me. I told him (in a respectful way) that I was angry and needed a few minutes to calm down, but even after he had my written down my personal information, he continued to try to question me. I felt as if he knew by doing so he was baiting me into escalate the situation into a confrontation. I can certainly see how a simple ticket can turn into an arrest or even worse.
June 20th, 2007 12:58
All email addresses are @ci.portland.or.us
Commissioner Sam Adams: samadams
Commissioner Dan Saltzman: dansaltzman
Commissioner Erik Sten: esten
Commissioner Randy Leonard: rleonard
Mayor Tom Potter: mayorpotter
Be polite, but let them know that singling out cyclists is bad policy, and that we are noticing that it is happening.
June 20th, 2007 13:03
Enforcing the stop sign on Caruthers, right before OMSI?
That's completely absurd!
They might as well put a stop sign in the middle of the springwater trail and start enforcing.
Back to 11th and 12th for me.
June 20th, 2007 13:05
Sorry JMaus, but safe and efficient routes for cyclists throughout the city is a bit farther away then we like to think. Alot of us travel these subpar areas too, and seem to get by with smart and experienced riding. It's only when the cop's get a lead on what cyclists are doing in certain areas, lawful or not, that they crack down in those certain areas. For now the "hot spot" is by OMSI. Who knows where they will be next? But geeeez, how many people have to shout it from the rooftops or write about it in the local news before cyclists get it? "HEY...THE COPS ARE STAKING IT OUT DOWN THERE!" I do agree this situation can be handled in the same fashion as Tabor. But until that happens, if ever, we're all on our own.
June 20th, 2007 13:06
I ride this stretch every workday, both directions. My experience on SE 4th is totally different from "Springwater Regular Rider" (post #7). I've never seen trucks on SE 4th park in the bike lanes - they always park OUTSIDE them since the new lanes were striped and the bicycle stencils placed. (Carruthers is a different story - the trucks CONSTANTLY park across the bike lanes on that street) There is very little debris currently in the bike lanes on 4th, and what there is is easily avoidable.
Phil is right on as to the visibility. Yesterday morning, I stopped and still didn't see the 2 motorcycle cops that were there beyond the signs, even though they were parked in the middle of the road in (normal) plain view. The placement of the signs actually makes visibility much worse than normal.
Yesterday, 2 motorcycle cops, today there was one. I saw 4 people ride past me on 4th without riding in the bike lanes, even with the cop right there. Two of them did not stop for stop signs. We can debate all day what *should* be done, but what I'm witnessing actually *being* done is cyclists, motorists and truckers not following the law. I have no sympathy for those who get tickets when they break the law in front of a cop. Suck it up, and pay the fine. I agree we should have Idaho-style stops, but right now we don't - break the law, accept the consequences. That being said, why the hell are they out there in the first place? (the cops, that is?) Where's the enforcement on 82nd Avenue? Sandy Blvd? Multnomah Ave.? 122nd? West Burnside? Shouldn't these guys be targeting the most dangerous roads and intersections? Why are we paying them to protect a half-dozen construction workers on 4 streets with next to no traffic and no recorded fatalities? How about Powell? 39th? The municipal police departments complain about funding - I can relate, and I know they have funding problems, I'm a member of a law-enforcement advisory committee (not Portland, though). If they're having funding issues, then why aren't they using their resources efficiently and targeting areas proven to be deadly?
The Opera intersection should have the Carruthers side stop sign(s) covered during construction. They only side that needs to stop there at the moment is the Opera and construction traffic.
Oh, and the end of the Springwater should have a yield sign rather than stop, and the Ross Island S&G should have a STOP sign placed at its end - RIS&G's Ready Mix Plant is on a DRIVEWAY, not a road. Drivers are required by law to yield to road users, and the truckers are not doing it.
June 20th, 2007 13:17
"Jonathan, you seem to be saying that because the area is unsafe...What, exactly, is it about these particular stop signs that makes stopping at them ”unsafe”?”
rixtir,
I was down there yesterday and my feeling is that for many riders, the area feels generally unsafe. There are trucks parked directly adjacent to the bike lane, trucks coming and going, flaggers, new bike lanes (that are not well designed in my opinion), etc...
In my experience, when someone feels unsafe (especially on a 20lb bike around cement trucks) they make decisions that will preserve their life and compliance of stop signs and riding in designated bike lanes goes down.
Is it an excuse to break the law? No.
But what I have misgivings about is the expectation of compliance when the conditions are unsafe, inadequate and poorly engineered for a particular user group. I realize this is something that will take a while to fix. In the meantime, follow the laws on the ground.
I could be wrong, but I feel in my gut that there is room for some advocacy and improvement on this issue (and that it goes beyond just telling all cyclists to stop complaining and follow the law). We'll see.
June 20th, 2007 13:23
I just got a $242 ticket around 8:30am from officer Roland Hoesly, at the intersection of SE Division Pl and Grand. http://tinyurl.com/32cx8h
Grand is closed to traffic north of Division due to construction, and cars rarely drive on Grand south of Division. In fact, it almost acts as a T-intersection since Grand south of Division is so far west of the stop sign. So, in effect, right now it is almost like a straight road which would not require a stop sign.
I ride this every day, today I slowed and there were no cars around, so I continued on. When the cop stopped me I asked him if I was supposed to put my foot down and he said I just had to slow to a rolling stop, which is what I thought I did. I then said the road is closed on that side and the other street is rarely used. After he wrote me the ticket I asked if I could go to the safety class to reduce the fine, and he said he is not giving me that option because he claims I was contesting the ticket. All I was doing was asking questions. He is definitely on a power trip.
I asked if I could go to court, he said yes. Then he said if I pay the fine upfront the fine would be "significantly less" than otherwise, which I took to mean if I go to court. I called the court and they said it wouldn't be more if I go to court. I suppose he said this to discourage me from contesting.
I am going to go to court July 20th at 1pm to contest this, I hope others will be there too. Please e-mail me if you would like to get together on this polkamaster -at- gmail -dot- com
This is ridiculous, the fines should not be the same amount as motorist fines and punishing cyclists who slowly ride through stop signs when there are no other vehicles around is not what the police should be spending so much time and money on, especially when there are so many more important crimes they should be dealing with to ensure public safety. Perhaps the BTA could help change some regulations since so many people have problems with it.
June 20th, 2007 13:30
I wonder if we should all just pick up our bikes and carry them through this area during enforcement days. If they ask you what you are doing, tell them that you wish to be a pedestrian in this area as you are unable to safely navigate it as a cyclist and remain compliant in their interpretation of the law.
June 20th, 2007 13:32
Phil said: "Not very diplomatic, but maybe we can get a crew together to go down when they're stinging and hand out free bacon and soy bacon samples to cyclists who stop at the signs :)"
To reward us or insult us?
June 20th, 2007 13:55
Cyclists deserve to be stopped. I watch them run red lights and stop signs every single day and then act absolutely furious when they're almost hit by cars. You are not exempt from the law just because you're on two wheels instead of four. You are putting yourself and others in danger by breaking these rules.
June 20th, 2007 13:56
Really, is it so hard to stop at the stop signs? I go through this area at least three times a week on my commute and, while I love to go fast and try to beat my own times, I've never found it a hardship to stop at the stop signs. This area is full of large trucks, lost drivers, and low visiblity turns so why not just stop for a few seconds, take a look, clip back in and get rolling? Granted, I've "CA stopped" plenty of times, but completely blasting through the signs is just plain stupid. And, yes, i think the cops ought to be out doing something more productive like stopping the people going 70 on McLoughlin, but since they're not... Just be sure to give a heads up to cyclists you see on their way to the area if you see any cops because i'm sure the fewer tickets they are able to give out, the less likely they will want to stay down there and more likely to do some real work. Seriously though, they should at least have the bicycle cops doing the patrols, not motorcycle cops, talk about overkill.
June 20th, 2007 14:38
No one is complaining about having to stop. No one is advocating blowing through stopsigns.
The complaint is that the police are expending such a large effort while bicycles rarely kill anyone, yet cars kill every day.
The other complaint being that they are focusing on areas they know get violations - instead of actually focusing on unsafe areas. I have a map of the most deadly intersections in the city, and they are no where near any of these enforcement actions.
And the police are being rude and unfriendly to boot, which doesn't help matters much.
taylor: No one has suggested bicyclists are exempt from the law. What we have suggested is that bicyclists are getting more citations than cars because cyclists are "easy pickings".
Additionally, instead of being hard asses and issuing $250 citations all the time, why not just stop everyone and talk to them about the risks involved with running stop signs, and maybe only ticket the extreme offenders or the rude cyclists.
If SAFETY was truly the objective, their practices and locations would be completely different.
There is absolutely ZERO risk to ANYONES safety if a bicyclist slows, looks, and rolls through one of the stopsigns in this area. But the police will issue a $250 citation for that.
If someone just blows the stopsign, sure - ticket them. But come on, in a bike that is moving 5 miles per hour and slows to look around then creeps through the intersection at 2.5mph - you are not going to cause any accidents or injuries. Just saving a little time and energy...
Christ, when did we lose the ability to look at the big picture as a society?
Cars kill people. Lots of people. Cyclists do not kill people (with some extreme and rare exceptions).
Why should they not have slightly different rules?
And despite what the law says letter for letter - the police still don't have to set up massive sting operations...
Some common sense should apply to BOTH sides, bikes AND cops.
June 20th, 2007 14:48
peejay (#29):
I have to wonder if we did that if we would then get cited for jaywalking.
June 20th, 2007 14:50
#31:
Would you please stop talking about irresponsible cyclists who blow through traffic controls and subject themselves and others to danger? If you really read the comments thread, you'd know that this is not what's going on here. Two classes of situations were described: 1) failure to stop at a sign where current construction conditions result in no cross traffic, thus no risk of collision; and 2) failure to follow traffic controls when doing so would increase danger to the rider. Neither is an example of a foolish rider who thinks she's above the law, so knock it off with your false comparison.
#32:
You do realize that over-zealous enforcement of traffic controls that pose no safety danger is: 1) a waste of finite resources that leads to a lack of enforcement in truly dangerous areas; and 2) dangerous in and of itself, since it conditions cyclists to be more concerned with following arbitrary controls than awareness of their surroundings, thus putting themselves in peril in an effort to get them to comply.
The well used "do the crime, do the time" argument is a gross simplification of this situation. It convinces no more people the more it is used in this comment thread.
June 20th, 2007 15:17
For Jenel (#28)
What Office Hoesley might have been attempting to explain was that sometimes, depending on your driving record, you can get an automatic reduction when you go and pay your ticket without trial. If you go to trial, the judge has leniency to reduce or raise the fine, depending on what he decides, though I've seen it lowered more than I've seen it raised by a judge.
While you never know what will affect the judge, you will likely be disappointed at court, as all the officer has to do is convince the judge that it is more likely than not (a 51% chance, if you will) that your bike did not come to a complete stop at the stop sign, and you've already admitted that it didn't.
I believe that most officers use some discretion when stopping bikes for running signs, stopping not all slow-look-goers but only the ones who seem to do it an a particularly unsafe fashion. But of course they don't have to do it that way, and what looks unsafe to them may not feel unsafe to the bike rider.
It sounds as if the traffic division is enforcing there in response to complaints, which is simply one of the things that the traffic division does--responds to comunity perceptions about unsafe driving practices. It also seems like in this case the complaints might come from a particularly credible source, as there are few intersections where people stand and watch traffic all day, many days in a row, like those flaggers do. It seems like they would have a better perspective, particularly from a safety standpoint, even than regular commuters, who might only see the intersection a few times a day.
Regarding the "better things to do" argument, it is a very, very common one, as it is easy to refer to all the countless traffic violations happening all over the city at any given time. Of course the police know that too, and the other 10-15 traffic officers working that day probably did spend it all enforcing traffic laws on motor vehicles, and a review of traffic citations for the year would probably reveal that the percentage f citations given to cyclists is less than the percentage of bicycle vehicles on the road (though that is conjecture--I don't know for sure--I think the portland police website might have those numbers and I'm afraid to mess with my unstable brouser right now :)).
The other thing we can do is call the traffic division with a reasonable request for enforcement on the "better places", and the more particular the place and time and type of infraction, the easier it will be for them to respond.
It just seems that an enforcement system that responds to the community is better than one that doesn't.
And by all means, if there is a system of signage or traffic control that makes better sense for bikes in that area, let's figure it out an propose it reasonably to ODOT or PDOT or whomever is in charge. That is a great idea!
June 20th, 2007 15:24
Jonathan, Post 27 (and VR Post 33, peejay Post 35):
I think if it were truly dangerous to stop at a stop sign-- for example, if stopping at a deserted stop sign after dark in a dangerous neighborhood would have the real (as opposed to imagined) potential to lead to a mugging-- then blowing a stop sign could be said to be done for "safety." Blowing a stop sign because you always blow stop signs in every part of town isn't done for "safety."
And yes, VR, despite your belief, many, many people here are advocating blowing stop signs, and complaining about getting caught when the police begin an enforcement campaign.
Sorry people, but your stop-sign blowing behavior is anti-cycling behavior. The number one complaint motorists have about cyclists is that they blow through intersections as if the law doesn't apply to them. And that behavior breeds resentment of cyclists, and that resentment is harmful to cycling. Blowing through stop signs is faux adolescent rebellion, nothing more, and far too many of you should have put your adolescence behind you by now. You are poisoning the cycling environment with your anti-social riding styles.
It's time the cycling community took a good long look in the mirror, and had a dialog with itself, before it calls for dialog with the city.
As far as I'm concerned, the city isn't giving enough tickets to cyclists, because people have obviously not gotten the message about what everybody else in society thinks about their riding styles.
I say "ticket on, PPB."
June 20th, 2007 15:32
"Jonathan....Blowing a stop sign because you always blow stop signs in every part of town isn’t done for "safety""
rixtir,
I don't "blow stop signs"... I'm not sure why you refer to that.
And my point was to question whether or not it is appropriate to expect 100% compliance with traffic control devices in an area that is poorly engineered, offers suspect visibility of said devices, and is generally substandard in safety for a particular user group.
June 20th, 2007 15:34
Jonathan, my writing error, I realized after I posted that the entire post may have appeared to be directed at you. It wasn't. What I meant, rather inelegantly, it appears, is that I am questioning your statements that it's unsafe to stop there. Everything after that was directed at stop sign runners in general, not at you.
June 20th, 2007 15:37
"I am questioning your statements that it's unsafe to stop there."
My point is not that it's unsafe to stop there, it's that when a cyclist feels unsafe (given the conditions I describe above) their compliance will likely go down.
June 20th, 2007 15:42
I would be more susceptible to being swayed by that argument if compliance was higher in other areas of the city. In my experience, cyclists blow through stops everywhere in Portland.
Perhaps the PPB received complaints about cyclists blowing stops in this particular area from the businesses running trucks in the area?
June 20th, 2007 16:15
rixtir - the one cyclist in the city who comes to a COMPLETE stop at EVERY stop sign he encounters.
IMO, you're either a saint or a total hypocrite.
June 20th, 2007 16:24
Burr, I did roll through a stop once, because I didn't see it. Do you feel better now?
I can't in good conscience see something that is harming cycling and look the other way. Blowing stops is harming cycling. It has to stop. If people don't care enough about cycling to protect it, they should move on to some other fad, because they're not doing cycling any favors by riding.
June 20th, 2007 16:41
rixtir:
I don't know what's in the mind of the average motorist. I've heard from a number of them that they resent bicyclists for many things that are perfectly legal, like taking the lane when there's no room on the side of the road, or even for occupying a bike lane when the motorsit wished to move through that bike lane. I cannot help them if that's what they resent about us. I also cannot help them if they resent us for doing things that don't affect them in the least, like skipping a stop sign when there is no other traffic. If they don't get it that it's easier for them to get to where they want to go because there are fewer cars on the road as a direct consequence of bicycle use, I am not obligated to be concerned for their feelings.
June 20th, 2007 16:43
PoPo I did not know about the automatic reduction, thanks for the info. But I would not go to court to contest that I didn't stop at the sign, I would like the option to be able to go to the safety class and get a reduced ticket that way. Now I am wondering if the automatic reduction would be less or more than the reduction for taking the safety class, if I should risk it going to court.
June 20th, 2007 16:47
rixtir - the one cyclist in the city who comes to a COMPLETE stop at EVERY stop sign he encounters.
Hey, make that two saints. ;P rixtir's heavy-handedness cheeses me off at times but on the whole I agree with him, if not in approach (calling people immature scofflaws is no way to initiate a much-needed conversation) then in principle - I don't agree with the way our current stop sign laws work and I agree even less with the inconsistent enforcement, but let's none of us pretend for one stinkin' minute that blowing a stop, even when you're in the clear, is an act of civil disobedience or anything of the sort. It's about convenience, plain and simple. You want to change things, write letters and make phone calls and give some support to the BTA (no matter how nannying Mr. Bricker may sound at times, he's doing it for the right reasons). Until the law changes, it's either follow the law or risk a fine.
June 20th, 2007 16:48
rixtir:
Do you advocate stopping at a three-way intersection when you are on the cap of the "T"? Clearly, there is no utility in stopping there. But of course, a motorist might resent it, huh? So you would advocate that I stop, so that an ignorant driver doesn't think I'm pulling a fast one on him? That I'm cutting the line?
June 20th, 2007 16:53
peejay,
I've read all kinds of accounts from motorists, pedestrians, and anybody else who isn't on a bike. they all say the same thing: cyclists blow through stops as if the laws don't apply to them.
And it pisses them off.
Then they see cyclists do something that is perfectly legal, but they don't know that it's legal, such as taking the lane, or even riding in the street, and they assume that, like the red light and stop sign blowing, that the cyclist is once again doing something illegal.
And it pisses them off.
Are you really going to argue that pissing off everybody else in society is good for cycling advocacy?
You CAN help it that you're poisoning the cycling environment, even if you deny that you can't help it.
June 20th, 2007 16:54
Motorists have not followed the speed limit since the invention of the speedometer, and cops have an unspoken "margin" for when they bust you for speeding: generally 10 mph above the posted number. I resnt that. Cars will never earn my respect unitl they drive exactly at or under the speed limit. This continued abuse of the law with the complicit understanding of the police is going to prevent cars from ever being an accepted mode of transportation in this society!
June 20th, 2007 17:00
N.I.K., post 46: Sorry for cheesing you off, and I must admit, I am being deliberately provocative, but we cyclists really do need to begin addressing our own behavior if we're going to work cooperatively with the majority of society in creating a better cycling environment.
I suppose cheesing people off with provocative statements is similar to cheesing people off with provocative riding styles. In the end, people are just cheesed off.
June 20th, 2007 17:02
Hey, rixtir, don't worry about it, just making the old "hey, he's putting it forcefully, but you know, I think he's right" caveat. :)
June 20th, 2007 17:04
peejay, do you really expect the majority of people in society-- most of whom haven't been on a bike since they were 10-- to take your sophomoric arguments seriously?
June 20th, 2007 17:08
Hey, I'd like to say that anyone who drives a car for trips under five miles who is not transporting anything other than themselves is selfish to the point of contempt. Yet I understand that this disgusting practice is widely accepted by society. If drivers are that blind to the impact they have on their neighborhoods and to this world, I really cannot get too worked up about their fragile psyches. They're angry that cyclists exist on their roads. As I've said, unnecessary stop sign compliance (which is the issue here, NOT necessary stop sign compliance) is one of their stated reasons they don't like bikes. But it's not the true reason. So, let's say that cyclists overnight become 100% compliant with all the stop signs out there, including the most ludicrous ones. Will that "unpoison" the cycling environment? I very much doubt it.
June 20th, 2007 17:12
As for my post # 49, sorry I didn't add a [snark] label. I thought it was obvious. But I am dead serious about the argument in #53. We will never be accepted by motorists as equal sharers of the road, because they don't want to share!
June 20th, 2007 17:14
Anybody can get the outcome they want buy changing the data, peejay.
June 20th, 2007 17:15
My typo, it should be "by," not "buy"
June 20th, 2007 17:21
So, let's say that cyclists overnight become 100% compliant with all the stop signs out there, including the most ludicrous ones. Will that "unpoison" the cycling environment? I very much doubt it.
You honestly think that compliance *wouldn't* result in a tremendous drop in cycling-focused stop sign enforcement actions, B&B having so many fewer instances of ticketable offenses by bicyclists to sustain themselves on, and the marginal anti-cycling rhetoric embraced by some Portland motorists declining to a literal scant handful when there just aren't any more instances of cyclist law-breaking standing out on a day-to-day basis? Gain, it wouldn't happen overnight, but give such a compliance period three or four months and you'll have some results for sure.
June 20th, 2007 17:29
A motorcycle cop followed me from his hiding place behind a tractor trailer this morning. I made all of my stops but he followed me to the esplanade entrance, i really felt like he was being antagonistic. I also noted that he didn't put his foot down as he stopped. knowing that a friend was ticketed there for not putting a foot down when stopped I found this very interesting.
June 20th, 2007 17:40
Last comment before I quit this thread:
I think we all agree that bicyclists should be safe. Nobody argues that we should do - or tolerate - unsafe behavior, certainly when it could injure somebody else. My point about speed limits is that nearly everybody in cars still speeds, just as nearly everybody in bikes rolls through stop signs.
The similarities continue. Drivers say they speed only when the limits don't make sense, and when it's safe to do so. Riders say they only blow through stops when they have checked that it's clear. Both groups continue their behavior in spite of any enforcement measures ever devised by the police.
Why is this? Well, it's partly because of how the police do 90% of their traffic operations: they set traps at precisely the places where it makes the least sense to comply with the letter of the law! They conduct speed traps on the widest, straightest roads, and they bust bikes for running the stupidest stop signs. Their stated goal is to make road users compliant of the law, but their motivations look a lot like they just want to write the maximum number of tickets in the shortest amount of time.
Cyclists make the same calculations about safety that motorists do: when the law seems to make the least sense, compliance with that law is lowest. It's human nature. We need to punish those people who do not follow the sensible traffic controls first. Unfortunately, the police have other priorities.
And, rixtir, we need to stop pretending that the way to catch bad cyclists (yes, there are those) is to put traps at just the places where bad and good cyclists are likely to be breaking the law. Safety should come before image.
June 20th, 2007 18:35
100% peejay
June 20th, 2007 18:43
I'm holding out for the Idaho rule!
June 20th, 2007 19:14
If some of you who received tickets this morning feel that the police officer was truly abusing his power, then by all means file a complaint with the Independent Police Review Division. It *is* your right to do so.
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=7372&&c=27067
June 20th, 2007 19:35
A.O., hopefully you mean "100% peejay" for his last post. Hopefully you don't mean "100% peejay" when he said, for instance, "Hey, I'd like to say that anyone who drives a car for trips under five miles who is not transporting anything other than themselves is selfish to the point of contempt." I'm pretty sure we've all got elderly family members or friends, for example, who can't make a 5 mile trip except by car.
Hopefully, A.O., you're just agreeing with the completely ridiculous notion that society should just leave it up to each individual to decide what's safe and what isn't.
June 20th, 2007 20:16
A more legible version (where's preview?)
How viable is this in Portland?
Idaho Statutes
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7
PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.
(2) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a steady red traffic control light shall stop before entering the intersection and shall yield to all other traffic. Once the person has yielded, he may proceed through the steady red light with caution. Provided however, that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a right-hand turn. A left-hand turn onto a one-way highway may be made on a red light after stopping and yielding to other traffic.
June 20th, 2007 20:36
So both cyclists and motorists are likely to defy the law wen the law makes the least sense, but a car defying the law of the road is likely to cause much greater damage than a cyclist doing the same. Why does the law not reflect this? Cyclists are targeted, when cars in fact will potentially cause greater damage.
June 20th, 2007 20:42
In an ideal world any infraction of the law resulting in a fine would be on a sliding scale based on the income of the law violator, but fines should also be based on the potential damage caused by the infraction, thereby making infractions caused by car drivers significantly more costly than those caused by cyclists.
The potential damage caused by a law-breaking cyclist is minimal when compared with that of a motor vehicle.
June 20th, 2007 20:57
I ride this route just about every day, when the sting was announced on this site. I've actually had one of the cops say, "Thanks for stopping," which I thought was pretty cool. I agree that the stop sign at Water and Caruthers is unnecessary, but I see an awful lot of people failing to slow for the one at 4th and Caruthers, which is a dangerous enough intersection that cyclists really should come to a full stop.
The main point I wanted to make is that anybody who has been reading this site should know that PPD has their eye on this site, regardless of whether you come to a complete stop at most stop signs you should follow the letter of the law in this area, if you don't you really don't have anyone else to blame but yourselves.
June 20th, 2007 22:20
Ok how about:
1) BikePortland or BTA requesting from PDoT a formal review if these stop signs be reviewed and if they meet stop sign warrants
2) Also check to see why with the recent trail and road changes there why the exit from the Ross Island cement plant does not have a stop sign before entering into a public street and trail crossing
3) bike commuters through here carry large pieces of chalk and write on the pavement if a sting is ahead
4) And...bicyclists who ride through here just try to brake and stop here during the day when this area is active and dangerous...take the lane and legally slow traffic
June 20th, 2007 22:55
I would tell the truth about this situation but the truth would offend the police and those who want to keep this site politically correct.
Thus you will not read the truth here because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
June 20th, 2007 23:58
Everyone,
The Traffic Bureau (if that's what it's called) now has zero credibility for me. I tried to see their side after the first sting operation at that location, in which I got ticketed, when the mayor's spokesman said it was due to many observed close calls during the detour. But when the detour was over with the very next week, and they left the signs up making south-bound cyclists think it was still on, I realized that it was all bullshit. And now they're back!! In close-in SE, on the best bike path in the city. Where the Oregonian editorial confirmed that cyclists were--and feel--most secure. 2 goddamned motorcycle cops. NOT in outer SE, where cyclists are--and feel--least secure. Ticketing people rolling past a stop sign, next to the Opera HQ, at an intersection where auto traffic is very limited, visibility is very good, and chances of a collision are nil. Come on, people. Does this, in any way whatsoever, enhance safety or advance the--alleged--transportation goals of the City of Portland? Is this remotely a sensible use of resources? If we really have any political clout, we should call somebody on the carpet to answer those questions. Or else we suck.
June 21st, 2007 01:45
If we really have any political clout, we should call somebody on the carpet to answer those questions.
By all means, yes, call 'em on the carpet. But for !@#$'s sake, don't fuel their argument for why enforcement actions at these relatively safe locations are necessary, or the rebuttal will remain, "If you guys didn't blow the sign, we could be elsewhere," which says a lot about how jacked-up priorities are, but still paints the lot of us as a bunch of hypocrites (and a lot of easy tickets).
June 21st, 2007 08:49
When the three of us came to that intersection yesterday, a woman in a dark green minivan waved us on....We tried to explain this to the the officer, but all we got from him was sarcasm. I've been a serious rider for 30 yrs, and for me its always been about FLOW....I not sure what I'm going to do about this ticket (its so rediculous I feel like fighting it)but I also understand how the justice system works, and I'll probably walk out frustrated and having to write a check to the city....So much for "Bike Friendly" Portland and their "well loved" police dept.
June 21st, 2007 08:52
Many of the comments at the City of Portland Master Plan meetings concerned cyclists feeling safe when riding. The main concern was riding in traffic when there is no bicycle lane and how many potential cyclists may be reluctant to use bikes for short trips because of traffic concerns. It seems that what the City is doing now with bicycle stings is extremely counterproductive. Although cyclists should observe traffic laws the enforcement actions recently seem punitive at best (for all the reasons cited above). I'm not arguing that cyclists should be immune to enforcement but that going after cyclists on designated bike routes is not encouraging more riders to use those routes. I frequently avoid bike routes now just out of fear that maybe I will do something wrong that I can be cited for. Could I be cited for not using a hand signal when making a right turn with no traffic coming? I don't know, but by not using designated bike routes I will be less likely to be cited. The bike routes make it too easy for the police to ticket large numbers of cyclists.
June 21st, 2007 08:52
OK, I break my pledge not to post here, because I must answer rixtir's post #63.
First, I should clarify my point about short trip car use, by adding that physically capable people who drive short trips without cargo are contemptible. I stand by that point, and would like to hear what makes it so ludicrous to you.
As for the contention that I claim we should all make our own laws to suit our individual needs, I never made that claim. I do claim that in an otherwise law-abiding society such as ours, there does exist a relationship between observance of a law and the relative utility of that law. As a population, we collectively assign risk to certain traffic controls, and one that is consistently ignored is one that the majority of citizens have deemed unneccesary. Is this an excuse to break the law? No. But it is a sign that the traffic control should be re-evaluated and redesigned so that it makes sense, and you will find compliance rates go up. My contention is that in such cases, limited police resources should NOT be squandered in an effort to force compliance with such a poorly designed control. As I've stated earlier, it only means that you catch the good with the bad, and do not change collective behavior towards safety, which should be the point of traffic laws and policing priorities.
June 21st, 2007 09:04
Furthermore, bad traffic controls (and an emphasis on enforcing those primarily) make compliance rates of sensible controls go down. If I'm riding along and keep encountering stop signs where they don't make sense, I will start blowing them off. Now, although I try to be a good rider and assume that the next stop sign is a real one, at some point I may say that they're all stupid, and get more careless with each succeeding stop sign. If the signs were only where they needed to be, well then, I'd be more inclined to respect the next one. That is human nature: we make heuristic judgements all the time. If traffic planners don't understand this, they are not doing their jobs well.
June 21st, 2007 09:13
Craig said "When the three of us came to that intersection yesterday, a woman in a dark green minivan waved us on...."
Ah, the over-courteous Portland driver, encouraging cyclists to roll through a stop sign even though she has the right of way. The problem with this behavior is that other drivers (and cops) may not be so "understanding."
June 21st, 2007 09:31
I'm taking my $242 ticket to a judge. Regardless of the outcome, if the officer has to sit in front of a judge explaining enough random bicycle tickets, perhaps they'll use better discretion in the future.
From my experience commuting in this area, this is selective enforcement and has nothing to do with safety. Instead it is about issuing a quota of tickets to bike commuters to service complaints from a few key entities that feel a sense of ownership within the area. I wish we could get this kind of enforcement for the speeding cars within our neighborhood street!
On a related note, there isn't a safe route between Clinton and SWC now that the sidewalk is closed on 11th and Division and barriers have been put up near the RR tracks West of 11th. You can either ride on a narrow, congested Division, or go south towards Ross Isl Bridge where cars blow through stop signs on blind corners to get ahead of traffic.
I've given up the bike and commuting by car. Unfortunately the City has justified this for me.
June 21st, 2007 09:55
One of the issues with this whole situation is that the engineering behind the stop sign at Caruthers, (just at the southern terminus of the Esplanade in front of Portland Spirit) is probably not up to snuff. Or, as wonks would put it.. "it doesn't meet warrants for stop sign installations."
I'd love to dig deeper into this....but in the meantime, here's the official City of Portland policy on traffic control devices. might be worth some analysis.
(and please folks, just because I'm questioning the engineering behind an existing stop sign does not mean I believe cyclists should disobey it).
June 21st, 2007 10:04
I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is (so to speak)....If we can form a coalition of bicyclist willing to put some time and energy into dealing with this, possibly an attorney who could represent all those caught in this sting....You can reach me at (503)260-2638
June 21st, 2007 10:22
PoPo (#36)
"It just seems that an enforcement system that responds to the community is better than one that doesn't."
That's the problem - it doesn't respond to the public, it REACTS.
A responsive department would call/write/email the complainant and notify them as to the date, time, duration and results of the enforcement action that was enacted in response to their complaint.
Since there is NO feedback whatsoever in the process, there is a general sense that nothing is being done.
I realize that providing feedback would require additional police resources that are hard-pressed to begin with. I hope you see my point. I understand that 90% (or more) of officers are doing their jobs to the best of their ability, but the department as a whole has no real feedback mechanism to give the public the feeling that their concerns were heard and responded to. Until the department addresses that, there will always be a disconnect between what the department ACTUALLY does and what the public THINKS it does.
June 21st, 2007 10:26
"...if the officer has to sit in front of a judge explaining enough random bicycle tickets, perhaps they'll use better discretion in the future."
You do realize that you're basically just giving an officer some time off in an air-conditioned building with free coffee, right?
June 21st, 2007 10:27
For those of you intent on going to court, you should keep in mind that if you did indeed run the stop sign (as in not even bothering to pause), the court probably won't care about complaints re: overzealous cops. If it is a question about how long you paused, or whether you put your foot down, you may stand a better chance. In any event, keep your cool, explain your concerns and be respectful of both the court and the traffic officer (who will also be the "prosecutor) and even if you don't get off you may get the fine knocked down 25% (the most the court is allowed to do by statute).
June 21st, 2007 11:19
"Of course the police know that too, and the other 10-15 traffic officers working that day probably did spend it all enforcing traffic laws on motor vehicles, and a review of traffic citations for the year would probably reveal that the percentage f citations given to cyclists is less than the percentage of bicycle vehicles on the road (though that is conjecture--I don't know for sure"
-PoPo #36
Did you even bother to look at this post?
Portland Police Target Bicyclists Disproportionately
It may not be complete to the most minute detail, but it does give some insight.
June 21st, 2007 11:23
PoPo - in the interest of fairness, could the PPB also cite all of those Niketown Running Club folks who jaywalk and cross against the signals at that intersection on Wednesday nights? Equal enforcement and all that.
To cyclists: Wouldn't it be fun to get a caravan of several hundred bikes together at Oaks Park for a single file procession through that intersection? We could do it midday, everyone makes a completely legal foot down stop at all signals, and we show complete courtesy and defer to motor vehicles sharing the intersection.
When a Ross Island cement trucks can't leave the yard for two hours I suspect Bob Pamplin will make some angry phone calls to City Hall and the PPB won't darken that stretch of road again.
June 21st, 2007 11:44
There are too many posts before me to read them all, but has anyone noticed the sign that says "Bicycle concerns?" and includes a number to call and complain? If I was a truck driver, I'd want ALL bicyclists out of the area because it's difficult to see a bicyclist while driving and if I was an industrial property or business owner, I'd also want ALL bicyclists out of the area because they aren't compatible with the industrial operation (the trucks). So it seems to me, there would be complaints about bicyclists in that area regardless of whether cyclists are coming to a complete stop in a couple places (particularly where there are very, very few vehicles).
While there are probably a few rogue bicyclists cycling too fast in that area, hyperenforcement of stop sign laws does more harm than good because it's punishing far more "good" cyclists. Why don't those bicycle "complaints" go to PDOT rather than PPB to see if there's a way to improve the safety of that brief on-street connection between two heavily utilized trails?
Also, why not take down that sign? If someone has a concern, they can look up the number and make the concern known just like anywhere else in town.
June 21st, 2007 11:49
Joe,
I wrote about that sign a few weeks ago. see the story here.
it goes to the ODOT admin office in charge of the project. It was installed by ODOT at the request of a member of the Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee.
June 21st, 2007 12:25
Joe, that "Bicycle Concerns" sign is for cyclists to call in about hazards to them created by the project.
June 21st, 2007 12:39
3 points:
Post 77 suggested we ALL go to court with our traffic tickets. I agree. At least the officer will not be out doing more harm while (s)he is in court.
Post 84's suggetion about the bikes riding by the cement yard is a good idea too.
Lastly, wouldn't you like to have a cushy government maggot job where your big concern for the day was over a bicycle running a red light? WOW! THAT would be awesome. Maybe Chief Rosie is right: why do you need a college degree for THAT kind of responsibility?
June 21st, 2007 12:55
Re "completely legal" bike rides. I've got a wacky idea - why don't we all do completely legal bike rides every day? Everywhere we go?
June 21st, 2007 13:26
to Brad in #84,
I like that idea. OR, How about doing the contrary and not stopping but proceeding through the stop sign, in protest. They are not going to ticket a hundred or a couple hundred of cyclists.
June 21st, 2007 13:28
"How about doing the contrary and not stopping but proceeding through the stop sign, in protest. They are not going to ticket a hundred or a couple hundred of cyclists."
paul,
I think this would be a terrible idea and would be the first stone in an anti-bike jihad the likes of which we've never seen in this city before. We are finally working beyond things like this (Critical Mass)...and I think it would be a major step backwards.
June 21st, 2007 13:41
"It just seems that an enforcement system that responds to the community is better than one that doesn't."
Better yet would be an enforcement system that actually creates compliance with the law. I repeat my offer of $100 to anyone who can demonstrate a statistically significant long-term increase in compliance at the intersections where sting traps are set.
As it stands now the "enforcement policy" is simply a waste of tax money. It doesn't increase compliance and so it doesn't enhance safety. It merely squanders resources that are in great need elsewhere. This is the complete opposite of a system that serves the community.
Definitely some action is needed here:
#77: Clogging up the courts with hearings for each ticket will put pressure on these overzealous fools to stop this. It will create a burden on the court and it will force these police officers to show up for each hearing. Everyone who gets a ticket should take it to court and be sure to put the officer on the stand.
Another thing that would stop the overzealous enforcement would be videotaping the sting intersections. Video evidence is compelling and it would show that these cops are not just enforcing the law, they are harassing cyclists (following them on motorbikes?!).
#84: This would indeed piss off Pamplin, who holds great sway with the City, particularly now as he dangles the island he has destroyed before them as a "gift."
And you cannot underestimate the value of well-written letters to City officials.
It's time the City realized that this is an anti-cycling policy and is dissuading many people from riding who ride safely and legally. Enforcing the laws (in a way that works) is fine, but this has gone too far. Where the hell is the BTA?
June 21st, 2007 14:00
"And you cannot underestimate the value of well-written letters to City officials."
AO is correct - and I would emphasize the "well-written" part. Public officials get a LOT of letters and e-mail. They tend to give very short shrift to those that contain spelling and grammar errors, are disrespectful, or seem to have been cut and pasted from a suggested text. Write from your heart, not from someone else's, be polite, and proofread. Then proofread it again. Have a friend read it. Better yet, have someone who disagrees with you read it and ask him or her if they are at all persuaded by it. Hmm, I'm starting to sound like my old legal writing instructor . . . anyway, to both paraphrase and misquote old Willy S., write on, MacDuff . . .write on . .
June 21st, 2007 14:07
"We are finally working beyond things like this (Critical Mass)...and I think it would be a major step backwards."
Ok, as an analogy, if the above line of thinking is MLKjr. then I take a more Malcolm X philosophy here.
I always felt that critical mass was the front lines in the struggle for cyclists right to use the public roads.
If CM is more militant than you are comfortable with, then don't ride in it. But you should realize that if there is no one pushing the limits of cyclists right to the road, then the cops are the ones gaining ground in their effort to keep cyclists off the road.
That is the reality. Just look at all the increased sting operations lately.
--and the simultaneous decrease in CM riders.
Also, on a related note:
It is hypocritical to deride Critical Mass and at the same time ride in things like the Peoples Ride.
The Peoples Ride is just Critical Mass with a different name. And as Bill S. once wrote "A rose by any other name...."
June 21st, 2007 14:13
Qwendolyn is always good for a laugh back here on Planet Earth.
June 21st, 2007 14:16
A.O.:
Enforcing the law "is an anti-cycling policy and is dissuading many people from riding who ride safely and legally"?
People who ride legally are dissuaded from riding because the police are out ticketing people who don't ride legally?
Wow.
June 21st, 2007 14:37
Rixter, read Kathleen's post @ #73.
And I did not say that enforcing the law is an anti-cycling policy. I said that cyclist-targeted stings that do not enhance compliance with the law is an anti-cycling policy. It is because it (a) does not achieve its stated objectives, and (b) dissuades people from riding.
Since I know you are (or were) a law student, here's a good ol' law school hypothetical for you: If a policy had been shown to be ineffective in changing behavior (i.e., solving the problem it was designed to solve) but was popular with a small group of vocal citizens, would the State be justified in continuing to spend public money on it? Should it?
June 21st, 2007 14:42
peejay, Posts 74 & 75:
Consider the possibility that we’re on the same side. I ride (and walk) because I can’t in good conscience contribute to global warming and it’s attendant loss of species, or to continue to pollute the air and water as if it’s OK, or to take part in a system that leads to wars for the last of the oil…
As a society we have to make some profound shifts, or the world we leave will be a very different and lessened world than the one we entered. The statistics show that most automobile trips—something like 90-95%, I forget the number—are solo trips within 5 miles of the home. There’s no reason that as a society we can’t shift to a less destructive way of living—for example, by riding a bike those 5 miles, instead of driving an SUV. Still, the reality is that some people can’t. My mother, for example, can’t walk very far, because she broke her knee years ago (in an auto accident that almost killed her), and it hurts her to walk far. And because she’s older, she’s lost bone density, and she’s afraid that if she fell off her bike, she’d break a bone. And there’s nowhere safe for her to ride anyway. Really. So some people do need to drive. But most people don’t need to drive, at least for the majority of their trips.
A shift to the bicycle for most of our transportation needs is an integral part of that societal shift we need to make. That means increasing ridership exponentially. Even here in Portland, where the bicycle is a superstar, bicycle commuters make up 3.5% of commuters. That has to change. 3.5% is nothing to be proud of. A vulnerable road users statute with no teeth in it is nothing to be proud of. We are settling for laws with no teeth and minimal infrastructure, while we divert ourselves with drama about getting tickets because we don’t want brakes on our bikes, or because we don’t want to follow the law. We are being distracted away from what needs to be done to make that essential societal shift. And we are creating enemies where we had none. Every time we blow through a stop, we anger somebody who has to wait at the stop. Every time we blow through a stop, we create the impression that we are scofflaws. And when those angry people see us doing other things—things like riding in a traffic lane downtown, for instance, they assume that we are breaking the law again, and the impression that we are scofflaws is reinforced. Every time some cyclist breaks the law, and then tells the person he or she just endangered while breaking the law to “f-off,” we are creating an enemy. We are creating resistance where we had none. That is not beneficial for cycling advocacy—it is toxic to cycling advocacy.
June 21st, 2007 15:00
rixtir:
If your intention is to make cyclists as a whole safer, tell me how that happens when the police target a stop sign that both safe and unsafe cyclists do not follow. Wouldn't it be better to target a stop sign that has a high rate of compliance? One where only stupid and irresponsible cyclists run through? That would target those cyclists the most, rather than the utterly arbitrary sample of bikers that are subjected to tickets at this particular trap (a population that includes everyone but you and Cecil, apparently)?
June 21st, 2007 15:03
"Every time we blow through a stop, we create the impression that we are scofflaws....Every time some cyclist breaks the law, and then tells the person he or she just endangered while breaking the law to “f-off,” we are creating an enemy."
Absolutely! That's ridiculous behavior. The stings do *not* make this behavior less likely to occur.
If you're worried about this behavior on the part of cyclists, and I am sympathetic to your concern, then we need to find another way to address it.
I appreciate and agree with your perspective on the relative social merits and, yes, morality of riding v driving. I also appreciate and agree with your assertion that the stings are a distraction from more important issues. That's why I want our government to stop doing them and start focusing on something that promots this important shift that is necessary in our society.
June 21st, 2007 15:14
If a sting is happening in a relatively deserted place, where there are only likely to be cyclists running stops, then yes, that does nothing for traffic safety in Portland, and I agree that traffic enforcement should be happening on streets where safety is of more paramount concern. I also agree that traffic enforcement should be netting speeding drivers as well as stop-running cyclists-- stings directed at just cyclists while ignoring the arguably greater danger of speeding drivers would be patently unfair and not very safety-conscious to boot.
June 21st, 2007 15:17
Jonathan , Posts 78 & 91: I agree completely with your posts.
June 21st, 2007 15:19
It's not just stings in relatively deserted places that do not enhance traffic safety. There is absolutely no lasting effect on compliance from these stings *anywhere.*
I challenge you to go measure the compliance rate at the intersection a month after this sting stops. Take a good sample so we have a good estimate of what it is. I can help with methods and measuring inter-rater reliability. Then wait until the next sting at the same location and measure the compliance rate again a month after that. If it's significantly higher, I'll give you $100. I bet you it will not be higher.
June 21st, 2007 15:23
An update on my thoughts:
This is a very multi-faceted and complex issue. I have been thinking about it, responding to comments (here and on other blogs) and I've talked to Kruger, BTA, PDOT, Sam Adam's office, etc.... to try and get some clarity and figure out my thoughts about it.
I feel like I really need to post another story about it but I am fried and not sure I could put together something I feel good about right now.
I will address this issue again either tomorrow or Monday.
thanks for all your contributions thus far and please continue to discuss...
June 21st, 2007 15:26
rixtir:
IK, I just read #98 after posting, and I do agree we have a lot of common ground. I don't want people who physically cannot ride a bike to feel ashamed of driving short trips - your mother and mine are in the same situation regarding mobility. I also understand that everyone who rides today is effectively an ambassador from the cycling world to the automobile world. I do try to avoid antagonizing drivers. However, I'm not so polite when the driver goes after me first. My real beef is with the professionals who are charged with enforcing the traffic laws in ways that raise the level of safety. They're doing a lousy job of it, and I call them accountable. This is a forum that attracts bikers primarily, so I feel that I can complain about the police here in ways that I would not in a forum of mostly car users - although I feel that the police do an equally lousy job of administering justice to the motoring community.
Most drivers I talk to - even the ones who have mistaken beliefs about whether bikes are allowed in "car" lanes - understand the idea of rolling stops based on conditions and visibility.
Most other countries use stop signs as a last resort, where the default signal is more like a yield. They also have very heavy penalties for crashes, not like here, where the penalty is little more than what it would have been for the same violation had it not caused a crash. This is why I felt safer riding the streets of Tokyo a few weeks ago than I do in bike friendly Portland.
June 21st, 2007 15:28
A.O., what you are describing is ineffective traffic enforcement-- go out, do a high profile operation once a month somewhere in the city, and then go back to business as usual for the remainder of the month. Of course there's no lasting effect on compliance. I have no doubt that if they enforced the laws fairly, every day, there would be compliance. Eventually, speeding motorists and stop-running cyclists alike would grow weary of paying the fines, and they'd start complying.
Miracle of miracles, cyclists would discover that they are physically capable of starting and stopping again, and motorists would discover that they can drive 55. We might even have an impetus to make the changes Jonathan is talking about, instead of living with an inefficient system (stop signs at every intersection in NW, for example).
June 21st, 2007 15:30
Jonathan:
Thanks again for providing this forum, and thanks for letting the discussion get pretty healthy. I think we're all learning something.
June 21st, 2007 15:33
peejay, post 105: I agree with you, your points are well-made (and I wouldn't be nice to a driver who assaulted me, either-- I would try to be more lenient with somebody who just made a mistake--we all do that sometimes-- but somebody who assaults me is going to have hell to pay.).
June 21st, 2007 15:39
rxiter #98:
"because she broke her knee years ago (in an auto accident that almost killed her),"
...
"she’s lost bone density, and she’s afraid that if she fell off her bike, she’d break a bone."
So she won't ride a bike for fear of breaking a bone, and yet she drives when just a year ago she was in a horrible accident where she broke bones.
Hmm, makes sense to me - or not really.
Riding a bike is one of the lowest impact form of exercise. It comes highly recommended as we get older. Get a comfortable bike and ride it...
If we try hard enough we can all find excuses not to ride.
Here are mine that I struggle with every day:
1. It takes too long.
2. It is inconvenient.
3. Weather is not good enough (it is too hot, wet, cold, etc).
4. I am too tired.
I have to fight each of those, and I am glad every day that I do...
The only time I *really* can't ride is when I just have to go too far in too short of time. Because no matter how hard I try, I can't sustain 40mph on my bike.
:)
BUT - the police should not EVER target a single demographic. EVER.
Why is it not OK to target minorities, but it is OK to target bicyclists? It is NOT. Police should ALWAYS be fair and consistent, and in this case they are not. There is ample evidence that they are giving more citations to bicyclists than they are to automobiles, simply because cyclists are easier to catch.
And secondly, we need to work to get the Idaho style laws implemented. They apparently "get it".
And of course, I second the "well written" letter to city officials. Always try not to hurt your own cause by being an ass...
Oh yeah -
w00t! > 100 comments!!!
June 21st, 2007 15:55
VR;
1) “So she won't ride a bike for fear of breaking a bone, and yet she drives when just a year ago she was in a horrible accident where she broke bones.”
No, she broke her knee in 1970, and it’s never healed to what it was before. That happens with serious injuries. Now, 37 years later, she’s lost bone density. That happens to older people. And she’s afraid if she falls she’ll break a bone. How do I know this? Because I’ve encouraged her to ride her bike. She can’t ride from her house to the store, because the road is unsafe. I wouldn’t want her riding that road. She can ride on a trail, but doesn’t have a riding partner and she’s afraid to ride a trail alone. And I wouldn’t want her to. And even then, she’s afraid that she’ll break a bone if she falls.
2) “3. Weather is not good enough (it is too hot, wet, cold, etc).
4. I am too tired.”
I always have to struggle with those.
3) “The only time I *really* can't ride is when I just have to go too far in too short of time. Because no matter how hard I try, I can't sustain 40mph on my bike.”
Yep, I used to commute to work every day, for years, and no matter how fast I spun, it didn’t have the same effect as pushing down a little harder on the gas pedal, and I could never sustain it over the long haul anyway. “I’m late! I’m late! Nothing I can do,….” I like to leave earlier these days, it seems to get me there on time. ;)
4) “BUT - the police should not EVER target a single demographic. EVER.”
I agree, traffic laws should be enforced fairly.
5) “Why is it not OK to target minorities, but it is OK to target bicyclists?”
As even A.O. will tell you (although I suspect neither of us may agree with the reasoning), because minorities, and almost nobody else, are what the courts call a “suspect class.”
6) “ Police should ALWAYS be fair and consistent,”
I agree. I’ll bet PoPo agrees too.
7) “ There is ample evidence that they are giving more citations to bicyclists than they are to automobiles, simply because cyclists are easier to catch.”
I’m not a big fan of laziness in police work…
8) “And secondly, we need to work to get the Idaho style laws implemented. They apparently "get it".”
Even in Idaho, you have to stop on a red light. ;)
9) “w00t! > 100 comments!!!”
And peace, love, dove too! WOOT!!!
June 21st, 2007 16:06
"There is ample evidence that they are giving more citations to bicyclists than they are to automobiles, simply because cyclists are easier to catch."
I think unless we see the official numbers, we shouldn't assume this. During my conversation with Cmmdr. Kruger today, he said that Officer Hoesly issued 65 citations on Tuesday and 20 of them were to cyclists (I'm not sure if all 65 of those were in the OMSI area though).
I will make a trip to the Traffic Div. headquarters and get the numbers for June as soon as they're available.
June 21st, 2007 16:58
20/65 = 31%. Portland's ridership is around 3.5%. This is an unconscionable disgrace.
June 21st, 2007 17:47
Thanks for the preview Jonathan. Wow, is this the most responses for a post? It just shows how messed up the system is. I have been thinking a lot about this lately, as I got a ticket yesterday and I was really pissed off, and I was trying to figure out why I was so mad. Then it came to me, giving me a ticket for slowly moving through that stop sign when no traffic was around and when the cross streets are in low to no use, is an insult to my ability to asses a situation to be able to determine the best way to maneuver through the "intersection," especially when the result of my action to "blow" the stop sign would harm only myself.
Also, it seems like when the decision is made to concentrate time/money on cyclists biking through stop signs, some assumptions are being made. Namely, that cyclists biking through stop signs i