by PDOT at last night’s bike safety forum.
View entire presentation here
Last night in the Portland Building, Commissioner Adams and his Bike Safety Committee heard public testimony on bike safety issues and gave a presentation titled “Bike Safety in Portland” (view presentation).
From all reports (I was not able to attend myself), the comments shared were constructive and many people thanked Adams and PDOT for being responsive to these issues thus far.
After the meeting, one attendee said, “I think things are gaining momentum.” He also mentioned that Police Officer Robert Pickett from SE Precinct made a closing statement that reassured the crowd that the Police Bureau has heard community concerns about enforcement.
Southeast Portland resident Carl Larson was in the crowd (which he noted was “good-sized but not huge”). Carl said Officer Pickett fielded many questions about citations and investigations. He also added this observation:
“A common theme throughout the testimony was that cyclists and motorists don’t know the law. Comparisons to European road manners regarding cyclists came up more than once and long-term cultural initiatives like Safe Routes to School were cited as a means of improving our legal knowledge and our road culture.”
PDOT traffic safety program specialist Greg Raisman gave a 12-slide presentation.
Along with stats and graphs — including common bike crash types and fatality trends since 1995 — Raisman’s presentation included four slides addressing how PDOT might approach four key components of traffic safety: engineering, enforcement, equipment and education.
I’ve converted the PowerPoint into a webpage. You can view Greg’s presentation here.
The link doesn\’t seem to be working properly…
I wasn\’t able to attend last night, but I do have some reservations based on the presentation:
Declining Fatalities: shouldn\’t those have been presented as a percentage of traffic? To someone outside of the plugged-in cycling community, 6 bike fatalities seems very small compared to 15 motorists.
How does bridge crossing traffic have any relevance to the number of fatalities when none of them involved a crash at one of those bridges? Would it be better to present the fatalities in relation to total Portland bike traffic? What about all the people who live and work on just one side of the river and rarely cross the bridges? How is that traffic counted? Also, it\’s deceptive because it doesn\’t show the spike of fatalities with 2007 left out.
Finally, isn\’t it interesting that \”Portland is Taking Action\” includes \”explanation of citation practice\” not, \”citations to at-fault motorists and cyclists and pedestrians\”. PPB and the City are trying to skirt the issue and the law again!
OK. I know ya\’ll are gonna rip me apart for asking questions.
The general police response to bike/car incidents seems to be rather poor.
I mean, you\’d think that having someone hit and killed while riding in the bike lane would be a good opportunity for police to reinforce that drivers need to yield the bike lane to bikes, and be aware of their surroundings, but instead it seems like all we get is a bunch of blather about how a completely avoidable death was nobody\’s fault, etc etc.
It all begins with the enforcement. Without thorough and complete investigations of all accidents we will not have the facts to guide any other actions, or even enough data to build meaningful bar charts for a PowerPoint presentation.
I was a right-hook victim (southbound on N. Interstate and Greeley, no less) who was taken by ambulance to the \”regional trauma system\” (facts that REQUIRE an investigation) and told that no accident investigation or report would take place because my injuries were not life threatening (Me:\”You mean because I did not die?\” Officer Sablan: \”Well, yes.\”)
I am skeptical that Sam Adams or Rosie Sizer or any of our elected or appointed officials will be able to stop the police from turning a blind eye to assaults on cyclists by motorists. (You can call them accidents if you want, but the facts in my case were not so benign as to deserve the category of \”oops\”.)
Think about it. If the PPD files a report on every accident then the true scope of the danger cyclists face will be made public. And if all qualifying accidents were reported and investigated, the resulting increase in reported accidents would show that they had not been doing their jobs (as defined by PPD policy) for a very long time. As long as they continue to suppress the real numbers by not reporting they can make it look like they are doing a good job of protecting and serving.
The fox is in charge of the hen house folks.
Good morning everyone. I was at the meeting last and feel it was both productive and informative. I still have an issue with the \”double jeopardy\” issue (issuing citations at the scene of an accident), but that aside it was a really good event. Being a former Portland native that now resides in Honolulu Hawaii; I can tell you that the Portland officials are really trying to make the city a better place for all cyclist and pedestrians. Cyclists in other cities only wish their representatives were as concerned about their welfare. I would also add that other bicycle advocacy groups look to Portland as the leader in both city planning and bicycle transportation issues. What happens with the bike boxes might set the tone elsewhere in our great nation.
Judging by the voice of concern on this site that meeting room should have been packed with folks, it certainly wasn’t standing room only. Get involved people and voice your concern at these events. The solution to this issue IMHO is for thoughtful planning and a dialog between city planers and the bicycle community, something that city officials are going above and beyond the call of duty to do right now. Kudos to Commissioner Sam and the rest of the panel at last night’s event.
I did attend. My thoughts are as follows:
1) I was encouraged by the thoughtful testimony given by all the citizens present. This was my first meeting of this kind, and I really expected there to be some nonconstructive ruckus by one or more people — but even given the strong emotions and seriousness of the subject matter, everyone involved remained calm, clear, and respectful. Really cool.
2) I was disappointed that most there (representing the City, or the law in general) still felt the fear of double jeopardy was reason enough not to cite the drivers responsible for the recent deaths. Given that the relevant traffic violations are not criminal, I don\’t see how issuing one can impede a potential subsequent criminal case. I don\’t think the community can heal from what\’s happened until the drivers involved are held responsible.
3) I liked that there was a representative from a pedestrian concern organization, which brought a great perspective to the meeting.
4) Completely contrary to my initial gut feeling going into the meeting, I though the officer present (Officer Pickett): was a great listener; showed that he heard what we were saying; never got defensive; went so far as to encourage cyclists to make their concerns heard by any means necessary (although thoughtful, lawful means were preferred by him); and in general was a great ambassador for the police department — we should put him in charge.
5) Another great perspective was shared in the testimony of a woman who commutes to Portland from Vancouver — she shared that the moment you cross the border into Vancouver, the bike lanes and other infrastructure just disappear.
6) Overall the panel that Adams has assembled are incredibly competent, caring, hardworking people. I think this bodes well for the future of biking in Portland.
I am still angry about no citations, and the excuses made for that situation. One of the panelists shared her feelings that the reason many people wear seat belts is because of the click-it-or-ticket campaign and crackdown — I can\’t help but feel that many people will not take the extra 5 to 10 seconds to do a full check of the area around their vehicle before moving into a bike lane unless they are cited and fined heavily when they don\’t.
Agree totally Jerry.
It has been said before, but deserves repeating since it is at the core of the issue.
The PPB in a sense creates the statistics by choosing which collisions to \”investigate\” or cite.
They then allocate resources and conduct enforcement based on the statistics that they themselves have had a hand in manipulating.
Personally I don\’t think this is so much a conscious effort as it is an example of a self-fullfiling prophecy. When cops view bikes as second class, or even worse, as the enemy, then they will undoubtably focus an inordinate amount of attention to the infractions of cyclists.
You find what you\’re looking for.
I was disappointed that most there (representing the City, or the law in general) still felt the fear of double jeopardy was reason enough not to cite the drivers responsible for the recent deaths.
This is a major issue that deserves much more detailed discussion. That position is totally unsupported by the law. There is no way, in my opinion, that any attorney with knowledge of this area of law could reasonably take such a position. Either these people don\’t know the law on double jeopardy or they are using this as an excuse, taking advantage of the lack of specialized legal knowledge of most citizens, to avoid a responsible enforcement policy. Either way, it is evidence of a serious problem with the DA.
Driver\’s Ed. Remember that class? I am over 40. That last time I was at a driver\’s ed class I was 15. I took my one and only driving test in Washington State over 25 years ago. 15 years ago I walked into an Oregon DMV office, took a written test and got my Oregon license. I haven\’t been tested since.
Oregon DMV should require periodic testing including actual behind the wheel driving tests. And bicycling safety should be included in those tests.
I know this isn\’t something the City could do, but the City and all of us could lobby Salem for stricter ODL requirements.
Two comments:
1. Using Officer Pickett instead of Lt. Kruger was an ingenious piece of bait and switch advertising, but it doesn\’t mean anything will change soon vis-a-vis enforcement, since Officer Pickett is not actually on the Traffic Squad, and Lt. Kruger still is. Nor was there any committment made in Slide 10 on enforcement to alter enforcement policy specifically to protect the most vulnerable road users.
2. Slide 4, \’Declining Fatal Trends\’ probably reflects the inclusion of better safety features such as front and side air bags in newer cars; nothing in this slide can even remotely be construed to indicate that drivers are behaving more responsibly, and improved safety features in cars and trucks are designed only to protect occupants of the vehicle and do nothing to protect the most vulnerable road users – pedestrians and cyclists. In fact, four of the five highest fatality years for cyclists occurred in the last seven years.
Folks, the City is obfuscating the issues with manipulation of the statistical data, and making no significant new promises with respect to enforcement.
When faced with the type of unacceptable situation that has been allowed to develop over a period of years, resulting from a combination of poor engineering, lack of a viable education program and inappropriate enforcement priorities, bureaucracies tend to retrench for the primary purpose of covering their own ass. Fancy Power Point presentations notwithstanding, we should know better and not fall for this crap.
I am most concerned that they have the \”resources\” to conduct (large) bicycle stings that ticket cyclists who hurt no one, yet not enough \”resources\” to investigate when a motorist kills or hospitalizes a cyclist.
Whether or not a cyclist runs a stop sign or whether that is legal or not has no real value when we have a resource constrained police force. Police should be focusing their efforts in the areas with greatest public need.
Their \”stings\” have ceased being about safety and have become about power and revenue generation.
There seems to be a lot of pressure from the cycling community to change the behavior and attitudes of motorists. I think we all seem to agree that we have a long way to go here. I would also like to point out (maybe I don\’t need to) that us as cyclists also have behaviors and attitudes that could be changed as well.
Example 1
On my drive to work this morning I had stopped at a flashing red light, when it was my turn to go I started to cross the intersection. I had to stop to let a cyclist go through without stopping or even slowing down. Note (it was still very dark and they didn\’t have a light either).
Example 2
When I stopped for coffee on the same commute this morning I watched a different intersection with a flashing red light for several minutes. I counted 3 cyclists blow through the stop sign without even slowing down.
Now by no means am I the man without sin casing the first stone. I am guilty of both the examples I gave and many more on top of that. It wasn’t until I was confined to a car for a morning commute that I started noticing how my own behavior on a bike looks to others. I guess my point is: Keep up the good fight but also remember to be critical of our own actions too.
Thanks,
DG
Oh Burr, what would we do without your persistent pessimism (which is in reality quite valuable)?
First, I agree that using Pickett instead of Kruger was brilliant, only because Kruger is a huge problem, not a help to the situation. I don\’t think this was done as an insincere underhanded tactic to fool us into submission. Pickett even started his closing comments with \”I am not high enough in the organization to make any promises, but…\”
Second, I also agree that the reduction in traffic deaths year over year is almost certainly highly correlated to an increase in the safety features of automobiles, and that needs to be factored in but wasn\’t.
Finally, I am not so sure this group of folks are purposefully obfuscating and manipulating the issues.
I think they are working on the things they are most able to immediately work on, which means engineering is taking a front row seat — the priorities are backwards, I think most of us feel, in that enforcement and education should be the first items addressed.
But that does make Adams and his committee disingenuous or manipulative, just incapable of affecting a certain set of concerns as easily as another.
Ron
Of course I meant \”that does NOT make Adams…\”
I have a friend in the PPB. We finally met for lunch today to pick each other\’s brains on ways to find common ground, reach out and work in our own circles to make a difference.
While I believe strongly that things need to change and law enforcement plays a huge roll in that, I learned a few tidbits that I was not previously aware of. Do with these what you will.
– PPB has no one person dedicated to PR currently, therefore no one who is actively working to provide more transparency in their processes or decisions.
– The stings, according to my friend, are scheduled based on the number of complaints received. This is supposed to be for any mode of traffic.
– The PPB budget has been cut so drastically that officers are having to respond to only the most serious incidents – and not just traffic incidents. By law the only incidents they are required to take any action on are domestic violence cases.
– He himself once helped another friend file a Citizen\’s citation based on a car vs bike crash (his friend was on the bike) and nothing ever came of it. He was befuddled.
Like I said I believe they need to actively involve themselves in making things better in the city but I found it helpful to understand a little more of the context from which my friend describes most police respond. And yes, there are bad apples, but not all cops are anti-bike. We agreed to disagree on several points and he walked away from lunch with greater knowledge about cyclists. And we agreed to keep talking and do our part to make a change.
Ron – I appreciate the feedback. With regard to your last comment, my response is that PDOT has clearly already made up their minds to treat bicyclists as rolling pedestrians, rather than as they are classified by the vehicle code – as vehicle operators.
This is evident in the questionable engineering \’solutions\’ they are proposing to solve a problem they created themselves with an earlier round of questionable engineering designs; and despite a substantial number of well-articulated critical comments from experienced cyclists persistently pointing this out to PDOT.
BURR, of course you are right, it was PR move, but what value would it be to trot Kruger out there. A public stoning? A pound of flesh? Having a PPB representative that is just going to inspire animosity would inhibit dialog.
Burr, other cyclists point out how much we appreciate the ability to be seperated. Thanks PDOT for considering the rest of us who want to ride yet can\’t maintain a safe traffic speed for our entire ride. Note that I didn\’t say the speed limit. I get that you don\’t want to lose the road as a right of way and I agree no one should. Personaly I want to see fewer cars and more bikes. As I understand it that is the goal that PDOT is shooting for also. That will never happen if we all have to ride in auto traffic all the time.
Families ride too!!
So what guarantees are PDOT and PPB providing to cyclists who opt not to ride in or use bike lanes and bike boxes which they consider to be unnecessary or unsafe, that they will not be harassed by traffic division officers as long as they are riding legally in traffic, if that\’s where they opt to ride? None whatsoever as far as I can tell. IMO, this is a very slippery slope given the recent proclivities of the PPB Traffic Division.
5) Another great perspective was shared in the testimony of a woman who commutes to Portland from Vancouver — she shared that the moment you cross the border into Vancouver, the bike lanes and other infrastructure just disappear.
Not so fast. Portland is better, especially when it comes to considering various options for problem areas, but Vancouver has impressive bike infrastructure and it is improving. Bike lanes are abundant. Just use the map to find them.
http://www.cityofvancouver.us/upload/contents/738/Vancouver_Portland_Map_Combined_Final.pdf
a:
A while back, I spoke on the phone to Kruger, and he told me the same thing about stings – that they do them based on number of complaints. If that is true, I can\’t see why we cannot organize to complain about certain intersections that are dangerous to cyclists. I bet we can call the PPB as many times as the ratchety guy at Ladd\’s Circle (it\’s pretty substantiated that it\’s one guy doing all the calling there) and force them to change their priorities. Of course, we we have to have access to the true records of incoming complaint calls, so we know they really do make enforcement decisions based on that.
I propose we start with Interstate & Greeley, which is still dangerous from what I understand because of all the auto traffic that still turns right through the barriers. Let\’s all call the non-emergency number (503-823-3333), and complain about cars breaking the law at that location. We wouldn\’t even have to say anything that wasn\’t true.
schrauf,
i know that vancouver has bike lanes and is somewhat bike friendly – and being from north carolina i was impressed at how smooth/easy my commute was when i moved up here.
however, my point was to show appreciation for portland\’s innovative ways. and i think the commute, specifically from portland into vancouver, is a good example of that. after you cross the I-5 bridge you get dumped into a parking lot and there really aren\’t signs to tell you what to do next.
Ciara – understood and I agree.
I hope Siobhan is doing better. Email me if I can be of any help – schrauf @ yahoo dot com
I am currently bike commuting in Vancouver where I live, but will soon be commuting to Portland.
Thanks Schrauf, and Siobhan says thanks aswell.
I\’ll be biking from Vancouver to Portland on Saturday for the rally. If you\’re planning on going and would like to ride together let me know (helloyesterday at gmail dot com).
And cigarettes don\’t kill. And there were WMDs in Iraq. Yada Yada…
Just because you repeat it a lot doesn\’t make it true.
Like peejay said, we have no access to their complaint database to confirm or disprove what they claim.
But how is it possible that the stop sign on the closed road at SE Carruthers and the east bank – receives enough complaints to warrant regular stings? Why is it that our neighborhood complaints about cut-through traffic get ignored year after year?
Ladds Addition is a wealthy neighborhood and PPB hates bikes. You make the connection.
Bull puckey.
It sounds like your friend has completely drank the kool-ade.
Organizations always brainwash their employees. That is why health care companies have seminars for their employees about how great they are for people, and why forestry products companies love to preach to employees about how environmental they are.
The Police are going to tell their officers all sorts of propaganda. You can\’t have your foot soldiers disagreeing with you main mission, now can you?
I have met Officer Pickett, and I am not sure that his presence was orchestrated or planned. He is a bicyclist. I believe him to be genuine. However he is still part of an untrustworthy organization – which should be considered.
In the end the people have no real power to question the PPB. They control which statistics are kept and how they get released. There needs to be an outside auditing agency…
My guess is that if the general public finds out the police are spending resources harassing cyclists, while criminals are beating people with bats and getting away with serious crimes all over the metro area, there will be some strong demands for management changes from the top down.
When is the next mayor election? Any way to influence the next mayor candidate?
VR (#11) – the reason why PPB has the resources for traffic stings and not investigations is because they use two different types of cops. Traffic stings use traffic cops from Traffic Division. These officers have been trained to make traffic stops, and (ostensibly) are familiar with traffic laws. They are not generally qualified to handle crash investigations. PPB has LOTS of traffic cops.
Investigations are handled by two crash investigation teams. That\’s it – TWO. Three officers each, if I heard officer Pickett correctly at the meeting. I\’ve seen CCSO\’s equivalent (Clackamas Co Sheriff\’s Ofc) at work – those teams document everything – position of vehicles, skid marks, paint chips, etc. They photograph the scene, take measurements, submit samples of various substances to the lab, get toxicology reports on the people involved, etc. A crash investigation takes 8-12 weeks, and they typically handle multiple investigations at different stages of the process simultaneously. The officers on these teams are typically 8-12 year veterans of the force, and have loads of specialized training. You can\’t just wave a magic wand and make more of them. The only way to get more is to pay a lot of money to train experienced officers to create more teams, or pay a lot of money to acquire like-trained individuals from other jurisdictions (lateral transfers), which creates ill will between PPB and whoever they\’re scamming the talent from.
The question isn\’t why do they have the resources for stings and not investigations, the question is why are they using their ticket-writing resources to enforce intersections with low crash rates rather than intersections with high crash rates? (the answer, of course is that the department is answerable to the citizens, and the ones who complain are the ones getting the attention)
If we want to change this, we need to call, write letters, and show up for meetings to testify publicly before the police, the police chief, and the mayor. Until we become that squeaky wheel, the situation doesn\’t change.
At least three things need to happen:
1) Police need to cite drivers when they screw up. We shouldn\’t need to get some kind of head trauma or something before the police care about us enough to try to stop this ongoing violence. In addition, penalties need to be much higher if we are to have any chance of being taken seriouslly.
2) Motor vehicles need to be designed in ways that protect the people those vehicles *inevitably* crash into, not just the occupants. Blind spots need to be outlawed, large trucks need ways to protect people from being sucked under them, SUVs shouldn\’t have grills that hit people at heart-level.
3) The DMV *NEEDS* to actually do its job to educate motorists. Once in their lifetime, people take a pathetically simple drivers test and pay … less than the price of a tank of gas, right?… and are granted essentially a license to kill in Portland.
Thats just a start…
Peter:
I agree with everything you say, but we have to think about what WE can do today. And if we can get the traffic division to do enforcement stings at actial insafe intersections, well, that\’s something. So, does anyone want to join me in this calling thing? Let\’s get the cops where we need them! Ten or twenty calls about Interstate/Greeley should do it. Start tomorrow, and put your time of call on this thread. 503-823-3333. Good luck!
Wow. Maybe it\’s the late hour, but I\’m finding myself agreeing with Burr.
I\’m pretty much done with bike lanes.
Twice last week I was confronted with large vehicles (one a large rental moving van and the other a Tri-Met bus) signaling right turns as they passed me while I rode in a marked bike lane.
Both occasions were after sunset. I sport pretty good lighting (see K\’Tesh\’s forum thread if interested).
I took the lane and went around the left of the turning vehicles, despite having the right of way.
I am convinced that had I pressed my right of way, I would have ended up in trouble.
Back in the late 80s, I felt like a pioneer, out in the lane with the Gremlins and Volares. Bike messengers of the day were mostly old fellows riding basket bedecked cruisers, and they kept to the sidewalks for the most part.
I\’m moving more and more back into that lane. And I\’m moving more and more back into a frame of mind that makes it easy for me to justify to myself running the occasional light (and, really, pretty much every stop sign). Let\’s face it: I have little maneuvering capability at zero MPH. If I\’m rolling, I\’m still in some sort of control of my destiny.
If the cops don\’t care about me and traffic doesn\’t care about me, well, heck, what other road users (including my fellow cyclists) think about my actions really doesn\’t come into play.
So if you see somebody on an old black continental steel frame with camo mustache bars doing his own private Lucas Brunelle show some morning or afternoon, just know that it\’s not your average scofflaw: It\’s a middle aged former competitive roadie and current father of two toddlers trying to make sense out of an effed up situation. All I want to do is go home in the end.
And it\’s suddently and clearly apparent to him that bike lanes aren\’t the way to get there.
Burr #19 I suggest that we can fight together for our legal right to use any lane AND better bike infrastructure. I will continue to support open roads for all AND better bike infrastructure. Quit being so one sided in your view and help EVERYONE get on the bike!!
#30 Donald Have you started your kids bike commuting yet? Or do you haul them far very often? When you have two on board you may once again appreciate bike lanes. When your kids want to commute on there own bike you will appreciate them.
Isn\’t the goal fewer cars more bikes? If so we need to think about options for all. Not us or them because we are all kinds of people.
Lets work together to make biking better for everyone. To me and that means open roads for wheeled vehicles AND alternative options for peds (sidewalks/safe crossings) and cycles (timed signals, bike boxs, bike lanes, etc).
– If we want to change this, we need to call, write letters, and show up for meetings to testify publicly before the police, the police chief, and the mayor. Until we become that squeaky wheel, the situation doesn\’t change.
That\’s exactly where I was hoping this would go. There are plenty of intersections that are unsafe to cyclists but I\’m kind of thinking cyclists complain more often on our own blogs OR by changing their own behavior than by jumping through the hoops by calling PPB or the city to file official complaints.
– Let\’s get the cops where we need them! Ten or twenty calls about Interstate/Greeley should do it. Start tomorrow, and put your time of call on this thread. 503-823-3333. Good luck!
Right on peejay! And I would push further and say perhaps even post flyers at dangerous intersections with this info so cyclists passing through might take a moment to file further complaints at additional intersections.
Streetsblog has an article on familiar frustrations occuring recently in NYC:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/11/16/morgenthau-nypd-are-dismissive-of-ped-fatality-questions/#more-2886
At least we can get the data, now if we can just get the cops and DA to look at it and use it to form more rationale enforcement practices.
Bjorn
@ Jay (31)
Good point. We do trailer the lads quite a bit (trying to screw up the courage to tow them from NoPo to the rally on Saturday)
I do admit that I \”feel\” safer in the bike lane when I tow them. I\’m just not sure I really AM safer.
I\’m still dripping wet from today\’s press conference.
Working together to find safe multi-modal solutions rocks. I\’m glad I\’m (albeit slowly) getting activated to this.
I agree with comment #13. Burr brings up some good points, and I definitely feel that PPB ignores deaths caused by vehicles. What we need is for Officer Pickett to be promoted to a position of greater influence. He\’s already shown a dedication above & beyond the call of duty (very rare in any public service position).
I will repeat a few of my comments to the board. First we need a means of reporting dangerous drivers. Currently if a driver threatens someone and nobody is physically taken to the hospital, it\’s ignored by all. This is inexcusable.
We also need to develop very strong public messages which reinforce the benefits that cycling (and walking and transit) do for Portland along with responses to the \’free ride\’ mentality.