home

Video shows extremely low compliance at Ladd Circle stop signs - Updated

Posted by Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) on June 28th, 2011 at 11:12 am

A reader just sent in a new video shot by local community news site Neighborhood Notes that shows blatant disregard of stop signs at the SE Ladd Ave entrance into Ladd Circle. Watch it below...

Ladd Circle from Neighborhood Notes on Vimeo.


The video comes as local debate and dialogue heats up about how to deal with lack of compliance with stop signs at this location.

For what it's worth, the video shows only a few cars going through the intersection — all of which fail to fully stop. At least three of the bicycle operators in the video come to a complete stop (one of them to let someone walk across the crosswalk). One of them — who obviously noticed the filming taking place — put his foot down and demonstratively looked both ways before pedaling again (it's hilarious).

As I watched the video, I wasn't concerned or outraged at the blatant law-breaking. Instead, it makes it even more clear that something needs to be changed. This many otherwise law-abiding and upstanding citizens can't be wrong — and they certainly wouldn't choose to willingly put their lives in danger (notice that all types of people roll through, not just crazy scofflaw daredevils).

This video will likely give new strength to those who favor yield signs in this locations instead of stops.

This reminds me of another situation where an ill-advised stop sign was located. On SE Caruthers near OMSI, people on bikes frequently disobeyed the stop sign. Upon review of the situation, PBOT decided it shouldn't be there and they took it out. The sky has not fallen.

We look forward to more coverage of this issue from Neighborhood Notes and to results of the evolving conversation around this intersection.

UPDATE: As many have pointed out, it's obvious the footage has been edited, so it's hard to determine how many people actually did stop. I think it's safe to say though, that the footage was done over the course of a few hours, which proves that compliance is low.

UPDATE 2, 2:50pm: The person who took the video explains how it was edited:

I shot the video Monday June 27 between 4:45 and 5:45 PM. It's for a story that will be published on Neighborhood Notes. We're having a little technical issue and waiting until that is resolved before posting.

The video is definitely edited. If I included all the video clips I took yesterday the video would be too long. But I was careful to include behavior that was in line with what I saw. I'm comfortable stating that it is an accurate representation of yesterday's behavior. I included the cars because I wanted to show all behavior at the intersection. Some cars did come to a complete stop, but they were in clips that were edited out.

The video was not one single recording because I was using a point and shoot camera that does video. It can record 10 minute clips. This was not meant to be a scientific study, but rather to illustrate the issue an give a reasonable representation of behavior. I had one hour to shoot and then a couple hours to edit to meet a deadline.

There was another person shooting video from the center of the circle. He is a neighbor who is documenting the behavior.

I hope that clears up any questions about how this was put together. Look for our story later today!

Email This Post Email This Post

Possibly related posts


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • craig June 28, 2011 at 11:13 am

    No surprise, since those signs are completely in appropriate.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Nick V June 28, 2011 at 11:22 am

    That dude at around the 1:45 mark had to know he was on camera. Nice work.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • abby June 28, 2011 at 11:28 am

      The cameras were really, really obvious (to me at least). There was also a guy in a lawn chair in the circle staring right down the street, with a camera on a tripod next to him.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c June 28, 2011 at 11:23 am

    Wouldn't yield signs be much more appropriate for entering a traffic circle with this amount of traffic in it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Robin Canaday June 28, 2011 at 12:21 pm

      I wanted to say this also.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 1:31 pm

      Not only is it more appropriate, it's what it should have per federal requirements.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Scott Batson June 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm

        Paul, please cite your 'federal requirements'.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 3:00 pm

          US MUTCD, chapter 3.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Scott Batson July 5, 2011 at 11:02 am

            Chapter three is markings. Chapter 2 is signs, but citing signing and striping requirements for modern roundabouts is meaningless since Ladd Circle does not conform to the geometric and operational requirements of a Modern Roundabout. Modern roundabouts are designed to operate at about 20 mph. Modern roundabouts do not have parking in the circular roadway. Modern roundabouts do not have parks in the middle, and by state law do not permit pedestrians to cross the circular roadway. Single lane modern roundabouts are not typically larger than 120 ft in diameter (outside curb) with circular roadways of about 20 feet curb to curb. It's a traffic circle.

            Many people confuse older styles of circular intersections with modern roundabouts. Rotaries are not modern roundabouts. Traffic circles (Arc D’Triumph) are not modern roundabouts. European Vacation was not a modern roundabout. New Jersey/Europe are not removing modern roundabouts. Visit http://www.ksu.edu to see the differences. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov has a video about modern roundabouts that is mostly accurate (http://tinyurl.com/3hjrqus ).

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • sabernar June 28, 2011 at 2:56 pm

      Yes, they would probably be more appropriate. But the fact is, they are NOT currently yield signs. They are stop signs. Which means that everyone. should. stop.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob July 5, 2011 at 11:46 pm

      "Wouldn't yield signs be much more appropriate for entering a traffic circle with this amount of traffic in it." esther c

      No yield signs would not be more appropriate than stop signs at traffic circles in quiet, residential neighborhoods. The streets of this neighborhood, Ladd's Addition, are not supposed to be major thoroughfares required to handle huge volumes of traffic, for which roundabouts are sometimes put into use as a means of avoiding huge backlogs of traffic motor vehicle traffic.

      If roundabouts are such an excellent idea, why is Portland not proposing they be installed at, for example...7 corners? (That's 20th and Division.) It would be a lot of work to put them in, would require the city buying easements from property owners for room to build it, but if one was there, as road users, people would no longer have to stop at stop signs or stop lights. Correct?

      Just yield signs, which means pedestrians wanting to cross the street, are saddled with the extra burden of having to flag down roundabout bound vehicular traffic.

      By the way...Scott Batson...very nice bit of research on roundabouts in your July 5, 2011 at 11:02 am post, responding to esther c and Paul Johnson and their consideration that the Ladd Addition traffic circles, unaided by stop signs, would somehow be more appropriate.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR June 28, 2011 at 11:24 am

    so where's the problem? A cyclist yielded to the one pedestrian using the cross walk, and there were no conflicts between cyclists entering the circle and motorists or other users already in the circle.

    This whole thing is a non-issue and the stop signs should have been replaced by yield signs years ago.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig June 28, 2011 at 11:25 am

    The only conflicts I've observed there are 12-mph bikes nervously jockeying with 20-mph bikes in the circle itself.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Charlie June 28, 2011 at 11:30 am

    These should be yield signs not stop signs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bob_M June 28, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Motorists stopped less than cyclists. Still traffic flowed smoothly and the pedestrian got the respect and bike stopping they warrant.

    big non issue.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • davemess June 28, 2011 at 11:32 am

    And every car shown did the exact same thing.
    Pack mentality definitely is going on for the cyclists.
    i agree, the one pedestrian was stopped and yielded for.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Oliver June 28, 2011 at 11:32 am

    That's because stop signs are un-necessary at roundabouts.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 11:54 am

      Maybe on a freeway that would be true, but in a residential area they're a necessity. I don't think pedestrians should be expected to dodge cars or bikes just to get where they're going.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Lillian Karabaic June 28, 2011 at 12:03 pm

        I don't think that pedestrians should be required to expected to dodge cars or bikes, either, but I do think that stop signs are inappropriate at roundabouts like this. Why? Because legally pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks (and every corner is a crosswalk) in Oregon. This means that while I FULLY believe that bicycles/motorists should be halting for crossing pedestrians, I don't believe that stop signs at a roundabout in Ladd's circle are the way to get there. This video makes that even more clear- the one pedestrian was yielded to, but it wasn't the stop sign that made that happen. There is no reason to believe that stop signs make this intersection safer.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • single track June 28, 2011 at 12:36 pm

          +1

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • John Lascurettes June 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

          Perfectly said Lillian

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 1:09 pm

          I think you're wrong, Lillian. Stop signs are intended to force a vehicle to slow and then stop in order to look both ways before proceeding. In theory, cars and bikes should do this anytime there's a pedestrian trying to cross, even if there's no stop sign, and even if there's no crosswalk. But lots of people don't, including cars, bikes, and everything else.

          Tools like stop signs and painted crosswalks, all the way up to signals and other treatments, are effective in increasing compliance. That's a fact.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Chris I June 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

            Using your logic, there should be a stop sign at every crosswalk. That is not why we have stop signs.

            Have you seen how traffic circles work in the rest of the world? They are appropriate for roads of all speeds, from quiet neighborhood streets, to busy boulevards. They reduce the chance of high speed collisions for all road users.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • craig June 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm

            That's a fact? Really?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • ME 2 June 28, 2011 at 2:13 pm

            There is also mounting evidence that no stop signs can be safer as cars, bikes, etc. are forced to pay attention to their surroundings. I see this alot in my NE hood where cars blindly speed from stop sign to stop sign, but drive slower and more attentively in sections where there are uncontrolled intersections. The circle seems like an ideal location to remove the stop sign.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Troix June 28, 2011 at 7:45 pm

            "Have you seen how traffic circles work in the rest of the world?"
            Exactly - outside of here (and one absolutely crazy intersection in San Sabastian, Spain) I have NEVER seen a roundabout with stop signs. It makes ZERO sense. My wife is from Vail, Colorado and after 13 years here still can't fathom these versions of roundabouts. The stop signs negate the whole reason they exist in the first place.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • was carless June 28, 2011 at 1:34 pm

          +1
          +they also get a zebra-striped crosswalk!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm

            Which is better known as a "school crossing."

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • fatmidwesternwhiteguy June 29, 2011 at 12:59 pm

          Thanks Lillian. You said it better than I could have.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 1:32 pm

        If you believe that, then you should be advocating the removal of the roundabout. Or installation of stop signs at intersections that already have traffic signals. Redundant devices are redundant.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • craig June 28, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Note that "traffic circle" and "roundabout" mean different things to traffic engineers.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BURR June 28, 2011 at 11:44 am

      and 'traffic engineer' is an oxymoron

      next....

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • craig June 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm

        ??

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Oliver June 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm

      Traffic engineers main priority is efficient traffic management. The record shows that pedestrian injury is not a problem here. The video shows there isn't even pedestrian/traffic conflict. These stop signs continue to exist because of a few folks with loud voices.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • A.K. June 28, 2011 at 11:37 am

    I don't have speakers at work. Does this video include a soundtrack of the world's smallest violin playing?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • PDXbiker June 28, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Enough already. Put in the yield signs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Thane June 28, 2011 at 11:40 am

    It would be nice if they had the balls to go the route that Drachten did and just remove all the signs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Part of me wants to defend the rolling stops because, let's face it, it's exactly what the vast majority of cars do. But I hope we'd set our standard a little higher.

    I wish bikers were more conscious of pedestrians and I think it ought to be a priority for us to stop EVERY time there's a ped trying to cross. Not just "kind of" stop, or slow down and go around them, but REALLY stop.

    My fear is that a Yield sign instead of a Stop sign makes it even less likely that bikers will be alert for peds.

    (Cars? F them.)

    -John

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • lyle June 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm

      Conscious of pedestrians? Riding into this stop, you can see both approaches to the crosswalk probably 30-40 yards before you approach it, and the line of sight is perfectly clear in both directions. Unless you are approaching it from Hawthorne full speed with no intention of reducing your speed at all, you can be completely aware of pedestrians (or the lack of them in the vast majority of cases), and still proceed without stopping while not putting anybody at even a slight risk.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 3:34 pm

        Do they think they're at no risk, or is that just what you think?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dweendaddy June 28, 2011 at 11:54 am

    I agree that there should be yield signs, but I also think that the sidewalk should come out further into the lane to make pedestrians more visible so that when they are there, people do, in fact, yield to them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dan June 28, 2011 at 12:22 pm

      That's an excellent idea that would go a long way towards fixing that blind spot behind the hedge at the right as you come up to the stop sign.

      I do think that it's poor road manners to roll through the stop sign at full speed, particularly on the right side of the road where a pedestrian could conceivably surprise you. More people did that than I would have guessed.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carl B. June 28, 2011 at 11:54 am

    How many dozens of people who did stop were edited out? There was an edit every few seconds. No way to tell from this what proportion do stop.

    But does make it very clear that there is no good reason to stop other than the potential for a ticket.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • A.K. June 28, 2011 at 12:09 pm

      My thoughts too. Who knows what was edited out. For a true, unbiased sample I think you need to film for 5 or 10 minutes, WITHOUT CUTS.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 9watts June 28, 2011 at 11:54 am

    What I noticed about the first part of the film is that visibility is really good. The person on a bike can see whether a pedestrian is approaching. No need to have everyone stop when there are so obviously no pedestrians about.

    When the man approached the sidewalk, one or two of the folks on bikes could have stopped rather than ignore him, but as I said in an earlier discussion that is a matter of courtesy not safety.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jacob June 28, 2011 at 11:58 am

    lol, that guy at the end was hilarious!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dmc June 28, 2011 at 2:37 pm

      ahaha! Yeah. He was extra safe. :)

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • gumby June 28, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        would have made fire marshal Bill proud!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • dmc June 29, 2011 at 6:23 am

          o.m.g. The more I watch it the more I laugh. I know someone else is finding this man's genius as hilarious as I!!!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan 1.0 June 28, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Jonathon wrote: "At least three of the bicycle operators in the video come to a complete stop (one of them to let someone walk across the crosswalk)."

    The only complete stop I saw was the guy clowning for the camera. For the pedestrian, the rider slowed and yielded but did not stop. That still goes to show that yield signs would work just fine as long as traffic (bike and car) respects pedestrian crossings.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kww June 28, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    I have a few thoughts on this. No.1 is that roundabouts (as opposed to traffic circles) are originally designed to eliminate stop signs and improve traffic flow. There is confusion about what Ladd Circle is. Since there is a stop sign there, it is a traffic circle.

    Second, is the law is the law, and I have no sorrow for these cyclists who will get $300+ tickets for blowing through the stop signs. It's the law - follow it.

    Third, one car blowing through a stop sign has enough kinetic energy to kill a pedestrian at even 5-10mph.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      It doesn't matter, traffic circles are no longer an approved traffic pattern in the US. Existing ones are being removed or converted to roundabouts.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Mike Fish June 28, 2011 at 10:23 pm

      There are moral and immoral laws. There are smart and stupid laws. Use your head! I saw the guys with the cameras when one guy was camped out in the middle. I rolled my eyes, stopped, put my foot down and went on my merry way. If they do a sting there, I think I'll notice. Total non-issue.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Forseti June 28, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    So this is visual proof that the motorists who complain about bicyclists running stop signs are just complete hypocrites.

    And I hope it's clear to the bike haters that no amount of random stings is going to change the perfectly safe behavior of cyclists who slow and look before entering the intersection. When the law is a joke, you change the law, not keep whining about harmless violations.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • middle of the road guy June 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm

      You are going to base that assertion on one short, edited film at one intersection?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q`Tzal June 28, 2011 at 5:26 pm

      What ultimately proves that these stop signs are superfluous and unneeded is the manner of enforcement: on complaint only.

      If it is only enforced when bicycle hating residents complain loudly enough to get a police officer off of productive duty then we have the police force's tacit admission that there is no danger here.

      The video above only serves to show that there is uniform non-compliance and still there is not enough actual danger to warrent police attention until someone whines.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • indy June 28, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    I could setup camera around council crest and see the same noncompliance rates up there. This is unsurprising.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Burk June 28, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    I think people are missing the point. There are only two stop signs at that intersection. Clearly the number of stop signs needs to be increased and the problem will sort itself out.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dirt_merchant June 28, 2011 at 12:26 pm

    This video proves nothing. I've observed the stop sign near my house, and NO ONE stops completely unless there is another car/bike coming.

    There is a great difference in recognizing the spirit of the law (not hitting someone) and the letter of the law (complete cessation of forward movement).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • velvetackbar June 28, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    I was there, I saw the guy on the lawnchair, even talked to him, and I call bogus, and here is why:

    from the video: 44 bicyclists, most not stopping.
    4 cars, none stopping.

    You see cars in the background all over the roundabout, but no sight of them going into the traffic roundabout.

    The only cars you see are those that arrive along with the bicyclist, and I KNOW there were more cars in that circle. I WAS THERE.

    I remember seeing some of the cars in the video *myself* (although *I* was edited out of the video--I stopped as I always do)

    This video was clearly edited to remove cars.

    This video was VERY VERY selectively edited. Show uncut, and I might have some credibility.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jeff June 28, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    I saw those guys last night. Rolled by them. came to a complete stop. proceded on my way. I must have hit the edit room floor....

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bob June 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Yeah, so???

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • tonyt June 28, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    A couple points.

    Stop signs at roundabouts are like belts with suspenders. Totally pointless.

    The other thing is that if we had "speedvision" and were able to see what speed cars were doing, we'd see some pretty blatant disregard for speed limits.

    Not that that makes railing a stop sign okay, but the most common outcome of a video like this is the old "cyclists are all scofflaws."

    Slow down, yield to peds, yield to other traffic at stop signs, don't be a *%^#,

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy June 28, 2011 at 12:46 pm

    Sure looked to me that there were two cyclists in the video who FAILED to yield to a pedestrian.

    I also couldn't help but notice a number of times in the video where a cyclist at least bothered to slow down quite a bit -- only to be passed by a faster cyclist on the left. That, and "12-mph bikes nervously jockeying with 20-mph bikes in the circle itself," show how getting orderly flow out of cyclists is like herding cats.

    I completely agree that asking cyclists to always STOP for this very low-traffic circle is completely ridiculous, and that the the STOP signs need should be replaced by YIELD signs, along with making the other design changes to increase deflection prescribed by PBOT. But we DO have a behavior problem too.

    Fortunately, better roadway design can help improve the behavior.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BURR June 28, 2011 at 12:54 pm

      Neither enforcement nor engineering will improve behavior here, but education might.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 1:13 pm

        How 'bout we try enforcement sometime?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • BURR June 28, 2011 at 1:19 pm

          already done and failed

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 1:30 pm

            Occasional stings done for PR purposes are not the same as real, consistent enforcement.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • BURR June 28, 2011 at 1:44 pm

            real, consistent enforcement should be done where there is a documented safety problem, and not because a bunch of NIMBYs have their panties in a wad over a non-issue

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • A.K. June 28, 2011 at 2:55 pm

            I agree with BURR... I'd rather see real, constant police enforcement in the neighborhoods which are having all the SHOOTINGS right now, rather than the nice, safe ones where all those crazy outlaw cyclists are causing so many problems...

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • bjorn June 28, 2011 at 3:08 pm

            The only failure was that enforcement resources have ever been allowed to be wasted in Ladd's addition. It is arguably the safest place in the entire city to cross a street. At least 2 people have been killed trying to cross Sandy within a mile of my house in the last year, to my knowledge no one has ever died in any traffic related incident anywhere within Ladd's, let alone at the central traffic circle. Enforcement resources are far below what we need in this town and so they need to be targeted at the areas where people are actually being hurt and killed due to non-compliance, not at the areas where a couple of kooks with video cameras scream the loudest.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Psyfalcon June 28, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Isn't the law still that you have to be proceeding through a crosswalk to signal that through traffic needs to yield?

      He was standing back from the curb, two went through, he stepped to the curb, and the cyclist yielded. Can't see the violations there.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Chris I June 28, 2011 at 1:38 pm

        You have to break the plane by placing a part of your body in the roadway. Thus, no one failed to yield in this case.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Spiffy June 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm

          exactly... the only cyclist that legally needed to yield did so...

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy June 28, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    Thanks, velvetackbar, for the real-world info on how this video was put together. If they're editing out all the cyclists who did stop, then the whole video is BS.

    The noncompliance rate in the video did seem a bit higher than I usually observe.

    So now one of us needs to go to Ladd Circle with a video camera, and record all the CARS who fail to stop for the stop sign. (I.e., almost ALL of them).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • velvetackbar June 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    TO BE CLEAR: I didn't video tape the circle so I have nothing to compare it with.

    There is no justification for a claim that they edited out all the cyclists who stop --that clearly is not the case, given the presented video--at least one cyclist was on video coming to a complete stop.

    This just doesn't jibe with my memory of what was going on, nor the facts presented elsewhere in the video itself.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • ac June 28, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    the video is a fail if the director wanted to edit for cyclists unsafe behaviours. it shows a pretty safe intersection and argues for a dumb stop sign location.

    that guy at the end with the over the top stop is freakin awesome...i almost spit my drink over my monitor

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Bob R. June 28, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      I have no idea how that particular video was edited, but I can suggest how to do it in an unbiased fashion (should anyone care to) ... I made a similar video for my own neighborhood association to document the interactions of ALL road users at the NE 60th Ave. MAX station. The camera was set up at an angle where all activity could be seen from multiple directions (may not be possible with a circle, of course), with a wide angle lens, and then run for a full hour without interruption.

      Counts were made of all users, and then a spreadsheet was prepared documenting the quantity and nature of "violations" and "risky behavior" for each travel mode. An edited highlight reel was given to PBOT along with the spreadsheet, but it was made clear that if anyone (with a need) wanted to inspect the full-length unedited version, it would be made available.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SJ June 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm

    What's embarrassing is that there are stop signs at all--typical American answer to what should be a simple traffic roundabout. Go to Spain, France, or Italy and watch as everyone--from slow grandmothers on scooters to fast playboys in Ferraris and retirees on bikes--negotiates traffic circles (roundabouts) with no help from lights or stop signs. At best, there are a few directional signs. In a rental car, I loved it: the freedom to take responsibility for my own safety while not wasting time or gas stopping and waiting. And these were fairly high-traffic areas. Ladd's?! You can see traffic coming at relatively slow speeds for, what, 60, 80, 100 feet? Cars roll, bikes blow through. Legal? No. Right in the sense that it is asinine to stop in the first place? Yes.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) June 28, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    I don't think it really matters if the video was edited. Sure, maybe more people actually stopped and they were edited out of the footage... but it seems clear that the video was taken in the same general time period and there are a lot of illegal movements going on.

    To me, the point is that there are so many people not stopping.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Psyfalcon June 28, 2011 at 1:20 pm

      The point? We all know stop sign compliance is low.

      No one got run over, no one buzzed a pedestrian, no one terrified a group of children walking to the park. Why can't that be the point?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BURR June 28, 2011 at 1:46 pm

      but how do we know that if the video is highly edited? A devils advocate could easily say that they edited out the 90% of cyclists who did stop.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • velowocky June 28, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Take out the stops since they aren't working and focus on speed control and sight improvement at the cross walks. Mandate a 10 or 15 mph zone approaching and navigating into and around the circle and enforce it.
    I really think cyclists (most) would respond by reducing their speeds and with some higher visibility enforcement and pedestrian watch signs the problem, such as it is, should nearly disappear.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm

      There's no need to reduce the speed to alleyway or slower speeds here, and I'm pretty sure ODOT (who sets the speed limits) agrees on that point.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • BURR June 28, 2011 at 1:47 pm

        the posted speed limit on SE Ladd heading southeast towards the circle is 20 MPH

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • BURR June 28, 2011 at 1:48 pm

          when cyclists aren't present most motorists not only run the stop sign but also exceed the speed limit here

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • OnTheRoad June 28, 2011 at 2:59 pm

            Cyclists = movable traffic calming devices.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • velowocky June 28, 2011 at 2:06 pm

        The need to reduce speed is based on the fact that so many cyclists are proceeding through way too fast- putting other riders, pedestrians and auto traffic at unnecessary risk. Many people have commented that the speed differential between bikers is what is dangerous. In a lot of that footage it looks like if a bike had stopped at the sign they could have easily been run over by other cyclists from behind. It's not like it would cost anyone more than a couple seconds to slow to 'alleyway' speeds.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • was carless June 28, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Ironically, except for the stop signs, this is one of the safest, best-engineered traffic intersections in the State of Oregon.

    Although the vegetation could be trimmed back near where the sidewalk and crosswalk meet, so that bikes and cars are less likely to run peds over,

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MeiLin Miranda June 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    As it happens I had "Waltz of the Snowflakes" on my iTunes as I watched it, and it synched up in unexpected ways.

    This is nothing I haven't seen every single time I've ridden through Ladd's, which is often. Cars are as great offenders as bikes. I stop because it would be my luck to get caught, though I don't always put my foot down, preferring to teeter precariously. High speed bikers blowing past me and the stops *have* been dangerous in those situations, especially since I can neither see nor hear them until they're practically on top of me. A little courtesy to slower bikers please, guys.

    I agree with the yield signs, btw, and maybe some signage reminding ALL traffic that pedestrians have the right of way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel June 28, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    traffic interacting safely and efficiently! whats not to like?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 1:41 pm

    Chris I
    Using your logic, there should be a stop sign at every crosswalk. That is not why we have stop signs.

    Not every crosswalk, just the ones where painted stripes haven't been effective in ensuring a reasonable level of compliance.

    Compare the circle at Glisan and 39th: Ever tried crossing the street on foot? Pretty dangerous, but do-able. How about if we took out the stop signs? Your argument seems to be that the danger to pedestrians would be no worse with or without the signs, and I happen to disagree.

    Requiring cars and bikes to come to a stop allows them to see pedestrians trying to cross. Eliminating the stopsigns would ensure that the right-of-way of pedestrians will be ignored.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 1:47 pm

      Glisan and the street formerly known as 39th Avenue haven't ever intersected. But both do intersect Coe Circle.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 2:15 pm

        That's helpful, Paul.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Chris I June 29, 2011 at 7:26 am

      Interesting that you mention that one, because I live right by it. I typically cross 39th a few blocks south on Couch, where there is a painted crossing. I would say the 2/3 to 3/4 of the cars stop immediately when they see me about to step out. When I'm riding, it's probably 20% (they aren't required to stop for bikes). Is there something fundamentally different about the traffic circle from a driver's perspective? It seems to me that drivers around here are pretty good about stopping for pedestrians, in general.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • craig June 29, 2011 at 1:07 pm

        Road users ARE required to stop for any legal user of the crosswalk (marked or unmarked, whether they're on foot, bike, scooter, etc. They are NOT required to stop for bikes that are in the traffic lane waiting at a stop sign.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • chad June 28, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    "Upon review of the situation, PBOT decided it shouldn't be there and they took it out. The sky has not fallen." Ha, nice one, Jonathan. I doubt the sky would fall if these stop signs are removed or replaced. There are many traffic circles or roundabouts (whatever you want to call them) in Portland that have stop signs when they are not called for (39th and Glisan comes to mind.) Maybe the city needs to review all of them and take appropriate action so there is consistency.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kevin June 28, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    I think the most important lesson to take from that video is that bikes outnumber cars 10-1 in that area.

    That's the point the (selective) editor was trying to make, right?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jim Lee June 28, 2011 at 1:53 pm

    Ha!

    ALWAYS I pull a traffic stand there just to obstruct the "I'm too good to stop" hipsters freewheeling on through. Surprises the heck out their precious little egos too.

    Also, ALWAYS i stop there when riding the No. 10 bus. Somehow the No. 10 bus got relegated to the cutting room floor. There is a bus stop there, people!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonah June 28, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    Stopping for pedestrians is a city-wide issue, not something that is an anomaly in Ladd's. We should place some cameras on any street in Portland and see how many cars drive by before a pedestrian asserts themselves enough to get a chance to cross.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      And bikes?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Spiffy June 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      whenever I assert myself after waiting for a dozen cars to go by I get buzzed, honked at, and flipped off... I think bikes get more respect...

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Landolfe June 28, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    The City has actually been very proactive in taking out unnecessary stop signs on major bike routes (hello Going St!) if we ask nicely and make a good case.

    Whenever people complain to me about how many bicyclists blow stop signs, I note that it's probably within the ratio of number of drivers who drive after a couple or more drinks. That pretty much silences the "bicyclists don't obey traffic law" argument. Though, that also demonstrates how low compliance is, on its own, not a good argument for change.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul June 28, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    The crosswalk is in the wrong spot for a regular roundabout. It should should be painted further from the approach, not along the circle where it is now. Yank the stop signs and move the crosswalks back and I don't see any problems happening.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ken June 28, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Hey Everyone,
    I shot the video Monday June 27 between 4:45 and 5:45 PM. It's for a story that will be published on Neighborhood Notes. We're having a little technical issue and waiting until that is resolved before posting.

    The video is definitely edited. If I included all the video clips I took yesterday the video would be too long. But I was careful to include behavior that was in line with what I saw. I'm comfortable stating that it is an accurate representation of yesterday's behavior. I included the cars because I wanted to show all behavior at the intersection. Some cars did come to a complete stop, but they were in clips that were edited out.

    The video was not one single recording because I was using a point and shoot camera that does video. It can record 10 minute clips. This was not meant to be a scientific study, but rather to illustrate the issue an give a reasonable representation of behavior. I had one hour to shoot and then a couple hours to edit to meet a deadline.

    There was another person shooting video from the center of the circle. He is a neighbor who is documenting the behavior.

    I hope that clears up any questions about how this was put together. Look for our story later today!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • velowocky June 28, 2011 at 2:18 pm

      Appreciate your reply. Look forward to reading your story.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 3:09 pm

      Not sure 10 or 15 minutes would be too long to watch. Plus, you can always speed up the video for a time lapse.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Ken June 28, 2011 at 3:20 pm

        The complete set of clips is closer to 35 minutes. I thought about speeding it up but then you can't judge the actual speed at which bikes travel through the intersection. Again, it's not scientific, I'll leave that to PBOT or others, I wanted to illustrate the issue for our readers on Neighborhood Notes who aren't familiar with the intersection and reasonably represent the behavior at the intersection. Thanks!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 8:09 pm

          The idea of showing the complete footage isn't to be more scientific, but to demonstrate good editorial faith.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dachines June 28, 2011 at 2:20 pm

    The circle is small beans in the Ladd's area when it comes to bad or potentially dangerous bike behavior. The real problem is at SE Harrison and SE 20th.

    It seems that people misread the signage on SE Harrison (heading west) as it intersects 20th. There is nothing about that signage that says that it is okay for bikes to not stop, and unlike the circle, not stopping here is dangerous. Yet bikes roll this stop sign all of the time and often at a decent clip.

    (The signage only indicates that bikes do not have to make the mandatory right turn that motor vehicles must make, but stopping is still mandatory.)

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=portland,or&hl=en&ll=45.508456,-122.645053&spn=0,0.002427&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.507908,79.541016&z=19&layer=c&cbll=45.508483,-122.644924&panoid=cJP87K9vMnytYZwZ6WMLoQ&cbp=12,311.95,,0,4.67

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • dan June 28, 2011 at 3:07 pm

      It is discourteous to other road users and foolish (depending on strangers' reflexes and goodwill to protect you from harm) to roll through the stop sign at SE 20th and Harrison. I'm surprised because I don't see that behavior very often. In any case, it's likely to be self-correcting, as I suspect that if you make a habit of running this one, the error of your ways will be brought home to you rather forcefully.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BURR June 28, 2011 at 4:50 pm

      have you ever paid attention to how many motorists don't stop at SE 20th and Harrison?

      or wondered why PBOT in it's infinite wisdom didn't line the westbound curb cut in the divider at SE 20th and Harrison up with a cyclist's normal line through that intersection and instead off set the curb cut though the divider requiring cyclists there to make a dangerous maneuver in the intersection and turn on top of a potentially slippery metal manhole cover?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • dan June 28, 2011 at 10:15 pm

        I assume the offset is to encourage cyclists to stop or at least slow down. I commute on an MTB, so I can ride over the median strip comfortably enough, but I usually don't because I don't really have trouble with the offset. I've never noticed the need to turn on a manhole - I would agree that's a potential issue if a lot of people are going down there.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tomas Quinones June 28, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    PLEASE put in either Yield signs or "Except bicycles" at these intersections. The amount of time and effort put into this "conflict" must be ridiculous. We have more pot-holes to fix than a handful of signs at an intersection that has seen very few accidents.

    How about addressing the problem of wet street-car tracks?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Corndog June 28, 2011 at 2:50 pm

    The sad thing is you could do this at just about any stop sign in the city and you will see cars roll through these stops all day long. I ride a bike everyday, including commuting through Ladds and in my 15 mile round trip commute I see cars breaking the law on every trip. The fact is nobody obeys the rules, pedestrians cross on red, cars run stop signs and red lights and bikes do the same. At least if I bike runs an intersection and hits someone, they don't die.

    I am pretty sure at least 3 days a week I see a car run the stop sign at 20th ad harrison as I am entering into Ladds. I get so annoyed by motorist who love to complain about bikers running stop signs but don't seem to ever notice all the speeding cars, running lights and stop signs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Shetha (aka NIMBY) June 28, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I think it may be a more behavioral thing than an infrastructure thing. In my mind, the real failure is that road traffic is one way, but foot traffic is 2 way. Road users look left, see approaching traffic, and speed through the intersection to get into the flow. I've been buzzed MANY times (with 3 kids in tow) only to have the person apologize as they zoom past. They never even saw us there. So, when I want to cross, I yield. Unless I'm certain the cross traffic will stop. My kids aren't of the age where they can gauge speed and determine whether or not it's safe to cross. That's where our discomforts lie. I agree with JM that it shouldn't take a crash to define a need for change.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Kris June 28, 2011 at 3:23 pm

      Maybe the neighborhood assoc should apply with PBOT to have HAWK beacons (High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacons) installed at those spots where most bikes and cars enter and exit the traffic circle.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • David Parsons June 28, 2011 at 8:42 pm

        If I lived in Ladd's addition and discovered that the city was going to make it more difficult for me to cross the streets in my neighborhood, I would have kittens. Why should the onus be on the pedestrian to notify road users of their presence?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Mulvey June 28, 2011 at 3:29 pm

      Shetha:
      You're not a NIMBY for advocating for better pedestrian facilities in your neighborhood. Some people carelessly toss that label around. You can and should fight for livability in your neighborhood because nobody else will.
      -John

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ben June 28, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    1) When a car slows from 30+ to 10-15mph, it's very noticeable and looks like they at least slowed way down for a stop, even if they roll it. That's actually what police have admitted looking for anyway.

    2) When a bike slows from 15 to 10mph you might not notice at all... even though that's the target speed for a vehicle going through a signed intersection.

    So, the perception is that all the cyclists are scofflaws, and at least the cars slow down... how many people were killed by bikes this year in PDX again? And yes, all car drivers speed, every trip.

    3) It's an f-in roundabout for X's sake! Let's sign and treat it that way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    A.K.
    I agree with BURR... I'd rather see real, constant police enforcement in the neighborhoods which are having all the SHOOTINGS right now, rather than the nice, safe ones where all those crazy outlaw cyclists are causing so many problems...

    Never mind that the Northeast Precinct and the Traffic Division have next to nothing to do with each other, I'm inclined to agree.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • A.K. June 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm

      OK, well then the areas of town where the most incidences of traffic fatalities then.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • packzap June 28, 2011 at 3:15 pm

    Yes, for cryin' out loud. Return Ladd's circle to it's original design, as a free flowing organic vessel of roundabout traffic. That means you YIELD to traffic in the circle (including pedestrians). The same needs to be done at SE Chavez (39th) and Glisan. The stop signs are utter post world war II American bullshit.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob June 28, 2011 at 3:17 pm

    "...This many otherwise law-abiding and upstanding citizens can't be wrong..." maus/bikeportland

    They're not just wrong, they're flat out wrong. They're willfully disregarding traffic control devices designed to preserve safe travel and a high quality of living in this neighborhood; qualities most anyone would want for their own neighborhood.

    "...This video will likely give new strength to those who favor yield signs in this locations instead of stops. ..." maus/bikeportlan

    Or more likely, weaken them, unless residents of this neighborhood somehow were to come to feel that road users not having to stop at stop signs located at Ladd's Addition's traffic circles was in the best interests of the neighborhood.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Seth June 28, 2011 at 3:20 pm

    I came to a complete stop in front of that camera and they edited me out as well. I'd like the stop signs to stay and for the "Idaho stop" law to be put in effect here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • tacoma June 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm

      Yes to the "Idaho stop". Best suggestion posted here.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bob_M June 28, 2011 at 3:47 pm

    It is ironic that bicycles actually calm traffic in Ladds Edition. Being slower than cars, the bikes force motor vehicles to slow down also. Drivers who used to speed through the convienient cut through now speed elsewhere, or drive slowly. Even cars who speed past cyclists must slow down for the next clutch of cyclists. If cyclists were made to leave, then Ladd residents would see what a real hazard looks like.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • spare_wheel June 28, 2011 at 7:34 pm

      word.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • tacoma June 28, 2011 at 7:43 pm

        Indeed.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • lyle June 28, 2011 at 9:13 pm

      That reminds me of my favorite Ladd's edition experience. A few years ago I actually had the privilege of sitting on one of benches in front of Palio around midnite and witnessing some (most likely wasted... and crazy) a-hole materialize from nowhere literally at least at 60-70 mph... He blows through the stop sign (obviously)... and proceeds to try to do a series of circles while barely keeping his SUV from careening over and barrel rolling the entire time.

      Was a serious sight to behold.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • eljefe June 28, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Hey look, the property owner adjacent to the intersection has a blade of grass growing over the sidewalk! That's a code violation! And somebody is smoking 9'11" from the entrance to that cafe! Call the cops! See the guy drinking a homemade kombucha? Technically, it's an alcoholic beverage under ORS *&^$^%# !

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • q`Tzal June 28, 2011 at 7:32 pm

      Bad case of Gated Community Fiefdom-itis.
      Taking nieghborhood involement too far.
      If they want it that bad I say wall in that entire area so there is only ONE vehicular exit.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • wsbob June 28, 2011 at 10:40 pm

        "Bad case of Gated Community Fiefdom-itis.
        Taking nieghborhood involement too far.
        If they want it that bad I say wall in that entire area so there is only ONE vehicular exit." q`Tzal

        Why would say something as self-absorbed and obnoxious as this?

        I'm not a big fan of cul-de-sacs, but maybe Ladd's Addtion's only avenue of relief from people that don't appreciate riding through this neighborhood on condition of stopping at the stop signs, rather than taking the far busier perimeter streets 12th and 20th, is to close off all but one entrance/exit, essentially making the neighborhood one big cul-de-sac.

        Ladd's Addition has never asked that people using bikes for transportation not use the neighborhood's streets for travel. Actually, it seems Ladd's has generally welcomed cyclists (sorry maus...) to the neighborhood. So there's been no "Gated Community...blah-blah-blah", as you've chosen to so rudely describe Ladd's Addition's response to road users lacking sufficient respect for the neighborhood that would have them stop at the few stop signs on its streets.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • q`Tzal June 29, 2011 at 11:21 am

          Yeah, that was smack talk.
          Perhaps it is only 1%~2% of that area that believes that the road passing in front of their house belongs to them exclusively.

          Problem is that that a small minority (Ladds area squeaky wheels) is making life unnecessarily complicated and expensive (in the form of punitive ticketing) for a group of people that are causing no harm while pointedly ignoring the auto drivers doing worse.

          It is sad but true that a community will react to outsiders, strangers and deviants as a threat to be feared, shunned and attacked. While our insular online community sees itself as normal to these whining landowners we cyclists are the deviant threat to be dealt with

          Historically when landowners have had issues with strange people too close to them they have used threats such as firearms and attack animals.
          Also it has been, and still is, very common to erect a wall to keep out the undesirables.

          While thankfully it is not socially acceptable to wander around a neighborhood with a shotgun scaring off weirdos their chosen alternative is police harassment.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • wsbob June 29, 2011 at 7:35 pm

            "...Problem is that that a small minority (Ladds area squeaky wheels) is making life unnecessarily complicated and expensive (in the form of punitive ticketing) for a group of people that are causing no harm while pointedly ignoring the auto drivers doing worse. ..." q`Tzal

            In all the stories that have been done on the Ladd's Addition stop sign enforcement details by bikeportland's writing staff of one...Jonathan Maus...I don't think any report or document has ever been presented to suggest or prove in any way, that objection to road users blowing stop signs in Ladd's is limited to only those residents actually making complaints and prompting the enforcement details.

            That I'm aware of, no group representing Ladd's Addition residents has ever stepped forward to say 'We believe road users, including cyclists, should not have to stop at the traffic circles...remove those stop signs, please!"

            Often what happens, is that people actually having the time to step forward and do something about a problem in their neighborhood are but a fraction of the people in the neighborhood that are thoroughly fed up with the problem. Do Ladd's Addition residents generally like people on bikes and in motor vehicles blowing stop signs at the traffic circles and elsewhere in Ladd's? If they do...by all means...take the stop signs out, or turn them to yields.

            People residing in the neighborhood don't own the streets in their neighborhood, but they do have more of right to affect how those streets are used than do people not residing there; whatever that use is, affects their neighborhood's quality of life, among other things equally, if not more important.

            Until someone provides some reliable report to suggest otherwise, I'm going to consider it likely that the percentage of people residing in Ladd's that are prompting the stop sign enforcement details, may well represent a great number of Ladd's residents that are fed up with road users that apparently don't care one wit about people living in Ladd's, or about the rare and unique neighborhood environment that is Ladd's Addition.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alex June 28, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    What I'd like to know is why are there pointless stop signs at roundabouts but there are probably hundreds of three and four-way intersections with NO stop signs all throughout Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • cold worker June 28, 2011 at 11:45 pm

      no kidding. unprotected intersections scare me. ladd's roundabouts do not.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • zappafrank June 28, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    There is no way that I would ever stop at residential stop signs like this, except for oncoming car/pedestrian traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • banjo June 28, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    look at that main screenshot in the video... narrow the street with a wider traffic island, no wonder people race through without stopping. this needs to read like a chokepoint that will at least get people to slow down. these oversized lanes encourage speed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • BURR June 28, 2011 at 6:10 pm

      busses need that room to make the turn.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bumblebee June 28, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    As a cyclist, my concern would be recognizing a duty to yield to a pedestrian but fearing that the cyclist(s) gaining speed on me won't.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • spare_wheel June 28, 2011 at 7:35 pm

      please stop worrying about other cyclists and just ride. fast, slow, like a dutch anarchist, or a regimented dane...its all good.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kevin Wagoner June 28, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Jonathan, are you sure you are stereotyping crazy scofflaw daredevils? Just kidding. The guy that comes to a stop at the end was very funny. Dealing with this seems appropriate, but is it one of the more dangerous roads or intersections in the city? I doubt it, but hey the citizens are obviously engaged...good work getting attention.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c June 28, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    I don't understand what all the flap is about. No one ran the stop sign when the way wasn't clear. No one caused someone in the roundabout to have to slam on their brakes to avoid collisions. Visibility is good there. Sure, the law says we're supposed to stop. We're also supposed to drive 55 on the freeway through Portland etc.

    Show me video of people tearing through stop signs when they can't see if the coast is clear or tearing through lights after they've turned red and I'll share your outrage.

    Sometimes good sense is better than blind adherence to the law. Sometimes its safer to keep going and not be a sitting target when you're on a bike. Sometimes its safer to keep on going and get the hell out of the way of cars, to keep the flow of traffic going.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 28, 2011 at 8:22 pm

      Unless you're a traffic engineer, probably not a good idea to disregard the speed limits.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob June 29, 2011 at 8:57 am

      "...I don't understand..." esther c

      Obviously. You and many others here that draw on every possible rationale to justify serving your own interests and completely disregarding those of the neighborhood through which you ride. This is a variation of 'motor vehicle domination' personified in the form of bikes as transportation.

      The people in the video, shown not just rolling...but blowing...through the stop signs, is a fair example of why many housing developments came to be designed using cul-de-sacs. Developers came to realize that many home buyers were tired of the blatant disregard road users showed for neighborhoods they'd had previous experience living in. The cul-de-sac came about to block such road users from using neighborhood streets as cut-throughs, as streets such as Ladd Ave and 16th in Ladd's Addition are being used.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Paul Johnson June 29, 2011 at 1:41 pm

        Ladd's Addition can't be used as a cut through when it contains three of the officially designated thoroughfares for cyclists, by virtue of being a thoroughfare. It's not like this happened yesterday, either; Portland's had enough housing turnover that everyone who lives there now either saw it coming or knew what they were getting into.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • wsbob June 29, 2011 at 5:33 pm

          I looked at the map you provided a link to. As verification of "...officially designated thoroughfares for cyclists...", it's bogus. That's not an official city map, nor does it indicate existence of official designation of streets in Ladd's as thoroughfares for cyclists.

          The city may have identified some of the streets in Ladd's as bike routes, bike boulevards, or neighborhood greenways, but nobody as of yet, has provided documentation suggesting the city believes that so designated bike routes should not have stop signs.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Paul Johnson June 29, 2011 at 5:44 pm

            The map data in Ladd's Addition was provided courtesy of TriMet, who is currently working on importing bicycle boulevards into OpenStreetMap. Ask TriMet about RLIS for more information about the source data.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • wsbob June 30, 2011 at 1:16 am

          "...everyone who lives there now either saw it coming or knew what they were getting into. ..." Paul Johnson

          Even if everyone currently living in Ladd's Addition knew...which is doubtful...that road users blatantly disregard the stop signs at the traffic circles, that would not mean they shouldn't expect the situation to be corrected.

          Ladd's streets aren't thoroughfares. I don't know, their exact width, but from memory, when I've ridden them, they seemed somewhat narrow. These aren't streets designed for the idea of traveling fast without stops, from one side of Ladd's 9 to 11 blocks, to the other. Thoroughfares are multiple lane monstrosities like Foster Rd in Portland, or Canyon Rd and Beav/Hillsdale in Beaverton.

          If any exist...which also is doubtful...show us official documentation that the City of Portland's idea about designating certain neighborhood streets as neighborhood greenways and bike boulevards, carries with it an official obligation to remove existing stop signs for people that travel on bikes.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • drew June 28, 2011 at 8:16 pm

    What is the big deal here. It's like some people have too much time on their hands. That could be any stop sign intersection anywhere. Almost nobody ever stops when there is no perceived need to yield, unless they are lost and need to look at a map. We are ALL lawbreakers; including the person who took the video. I believe NOBODY can HONESTLY tell me they have come to a complete stop at every stop sign they encountered.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are June 28, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    burma shave signs not how you do it.
    this is how you do it:
    http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/08/first-foray.html

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe June 28, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Hello!!! How about looking at what is actually killing people and enforcing that....cell phone use!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cold worker June 28, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    these stop signs here (with very clear views of who is coming or not) are no different than when I'm out riding at 3am and don't stop for stop signs when I can see and hear who may or may not be coming. i still don't see the big deal. sorry.

    i'm not even that bothered by the autos that didn't stop in this video. and i usually get all aggro about stuff like that. meh.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Marid June 29, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Put in some harsh speed bumps.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 29, 2011 at 1:44 pm

      Speed bumps are never the right answer. They trip bicycles, damage fire engines and transit vehicles, and pose a real threat to the welfare of ambulance patients. Existing bumps should be removed and replaced with more modern traffic calming devices, preferably at the expense of whatever NIMBY neighborhood association requested them to be installed in the first place.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • commuter June 29, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Man, the traffic around that area is negligible. The neighborhood should focus on more pressing issues. Such as huge contrast from when I go back to my home country and here we are in portland debating about whether a bicycle should come to a complete stop when there isn't any traffic. What a luxury.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tomas Quinones June 29, 2011 at 9:34 am

    The problems 'white folks' have.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Mulvey June 29, 2011 at 9:22 pm

      Wait, aren't you the guy upthread complaining about wet streetcar tracks? Big issue among people of color, izzit?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • felix June 29, 2011 at 9:40 am

    white whine!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c June 29, 2011 at 9:54 am

    My guess is they just don't want cyclists in their neighborhood period. If they were all stopping then they'd be whining about the congestion.

    People ran a stop sign. No harm was done. Nobody had a close call. No animals were harmed in the making of that video.

    Go live in a gated community if you don't like people using your streets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Mulvey June 29, 2011 at 10:14 am

      This is a really frustrating attitude that harms biking more than it helps.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • q`Tzal June 29, 2011 at 11:38 am

        Yes this is a frustrating attitude.
        It seems that for evolution to take place not only does genetic change have to take place but the defective part has to die off.
        Unfortunately there is no reproductive penalty for being a moronic, anti-social, pig-headed Cro-Magnon.

        So while some people with a more diplomatic, intellectual and empathetic nature are willing to co-exist with each other peacefully we have to do it with other people whose religion seems to be "take what ever you want - burn the rest".

        When these Cro-Magnons fail to obey the laws they agreed to, or insisted upon, to the detriment of society and common decency I begin to think it might be beneficial to the rest of society if these people just completely wall themselves off from the rest of the world.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Johnson June 29, 2011 at 1:52 pm

      Or at least don't live on the intersection where three bike boulevards come together and expect nobody to bike...

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Joe C June 29, 2011 at 11:13 am

    Is compliance with a law in and of itself more important than the reason behind the law's existence, i.e., in this case, safety for all road users?

    Either way, it's funny/not funny that the danger posed (in terms of momentum and mass) by all the "scofflaw cyclists" added up together could never hope to eclipse the fatal potential of just one of the three car-drivers shown COMPLETELY rolling through the stop sign. They weren't even California stops; they were straight "oh-crap-the-light-is-about-to-turn-I'd-better-hurry" non-stops.

    When pedestrians cross, I see a livable neighborhood. When cyclists go through stop signs at roundabouts, I see only efficient organization of traffic. When I see speeding automobiles disobeying basic traffic laws, I see a loaded gun.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • pdxguy June 29, 2011 at 11:19 am

    I take this route almost daily and I always come to a complete stop (I've been ticketed before, and I'm usually in team kit and don't want to give my sponsor a bad name). Just a few things I've noticed: 1) Other cyclists rarely stop, 2) Automobiles rarely stop, 3) This "traffic circle" would be better suited as a "roundabout," with yield signs replacing stop signs. I've cycled through similarly-sized roundabouts in other parts of the Portland-Metro region, and there's really no reason why this one shouldn't be configured as such.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c June 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it does it still make a sound? If these videographers had had something better to do than videotape these cyclists would anyone have even known they were blowing the stop sign. No cars were coming. There was no one in the roundabout for them to stop for! This is like News from Nowhere.

    Totally victimless crime here.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • One Less :( June 29, 2011 at 1:12 pm

    Bottom line....if there is a stop sign you should STOP. If the light is red you should NOT run it. Do we like how this is set up, not one darn bit, but at this point it is the way it is. Just follow the law and there wouldn't be a problem. You can argue any angle you want, but the LAW states that you must stop at a stop sign. What does not stopping save you, maybe 20 seconds? Seems lame to not stop.

    Now if these film makers, who probably don't own a bike, would go to a regular intersection and show the blatant disregard for the law of the red light, we could probably see how many of 'them' don't follow that law.

    Its not us versus them, but they want us to think that. Just follow the damn law people and stop complaining about having to stop. It is a pretty lame thing to cry over.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • are June 29, 2011 at 5:27 pm

      the takeaway quote: just follow the law and there wouldn't be a problem. if only.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • esther c June 29, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    It is a pretty lame thing to cry over.

    Yes it is. Its pretty lame thing to cry over people running a stop sign when it does absolutely no harm to anyone. The world is full of real injustice and these guys take their video camera to do an exposé on the shocking fact that bikes and cars don't stop for a stop sign that shouldn't be there in the first place.

    They're upset because people are riding bikes in their neighborhood on what they think are their private streets. If they were truly concerned they would see that the stop sign is silly and be campaigning to have it changed to a yield sign.

    If they want to film some outrageous traffic behavior I'll give them a clue. Why don't they come film by the Interstate Ave Fred Meyers parking lot for an hour or so and see how many cars going into and out of the parking lot don't yield to bikes in the bike lane on Interstate Ave. You know, not yielding to actual bikes, not not stopping for cars that aren't even there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob June 29, 2011 at 5:47 pm

      "...They're upset because people are riding bikes in their neighborhood on what they think are their private streets. ..." esther c

      Who told you so? Did you ask anyone living in Ladd's that is unhappy with road users blowing the stop signs, whether they don't like bikes in their neighborhood? Did you ask them why they don't like road users...people driving cars, but also, people riding bikes...blatantly disregarding the stop signs?

      I'm remembering from past news stories, here at bikeportland and elsewhere, that Ladd's Addition residents are fine with bikes traveling through the neighborhood. The just want people riding them to stop, or at least slow to a walking speed roll through the stop signs, and of course, look for and yield for any pedestrians needing to cross the street,when they're there.

      They want people to stop in this manner whether or not other road traffic, or people on foot are present. Considering this is a very nice neighborhood to ride through, and a far more comfortable route for people riding bikes, than is either 12th, Hawthorne, 20th, or Division streets, asking people to respectfully stop at the stop signs is not a lot to ask.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy June 29, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    new title for this and all other videos of stop sign compliance "Video shows extremely low compliance at all stop signs"...

    doesn't matter where or what mode, nobody likes stopping...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • kww June 29, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    Appreciate the neighbors forthright information. It would be best if he provided all the raw video so that independent parties can do a raw count of car, and bike violations, compared with total traffic flow.

    Complete stops should only count as a stop....

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David June 29, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    I'm pretty sure "that dude" at the end is Team Beer's very on John Howe.

    Go Beer!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kyle June 29, 2011 at 10:32 pm

    This is the same neighborhood that gets upset over folks planting unapproved species of trees.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob June 30, 2011 at 11:03 am

      "This is the same neighborhood that gets upset over folks planting unapproved species of trees." Kyle

      Kind of off topic, but not all tree species are good in an urban setting. Some species are invasive, or nuisances with thorns and whatnot, or grow excessively fast and large, resulting in frequent and expensive sidewalk and street repair.

      I don't have a list, but I believe it's fairly common for neighborhoods and housing developments to have lists of approved species for planting.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gianni faresin June 29, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    What's wrong with people? It's a stop sign. Can't you just stop? I do whenever I go through there. Advocate for a roundabout, and argue that the stop signs are stupid. That's fine. I'm on the bike every day, and I resent you a-holes who blow through stops, provoking bad feelings from those who see you, and thereby making things more dangerous and hostile for me. Show some respect for your fellow riders and quit giving the rest of us a bad name.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Residentevil June 30, 2011 at 6:47 am

    A line where to stop would definitely help here. Otherwise it is kinda arbitrary.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Noel June 30, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Just go ahead and give people's ticket! Maybe we should allow rolling stop for cyclists and have sting setup where a "Fake" pedestrian comes and tries to cross the crosswalk. Give tickets to whoever not stop...

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • broMan June 30, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Traffic circles or roundabouts should have yield signs, not stopsigns, for the traffic entering the circle.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jolly Dodger June 30, 2011 at 4:32 pm

    I stop at all the stops. Often bikers who travel faster will come up behind me at the sign and almost hit me, giving me guff or the finger. Should I apologize for following the letter of the law? I didn't think i was "in the way" by trying to be safe and not get ticketed. Last thing i want is to be the guy who hits a child or kills a cat at a full stop intersection. This would most assuredly have the bike haters in P-town up in arms and ready to legislate all sorts of new prohibitions/requirements. Mandated adult helmet laws, bike registration, carrying insurance...>?

    Yes, this can happen. Ask any courier from Boston after 1999. One dead lawyer and an outraged community later - the bike messengers there are required to carry $10,000 in liability coverage. This has almost eliminated the culture of the 'indie' messenger without a companies' group rates.

    Traffic cameras at those intersections for those who disregard. Cars have tags. Ticket 'em. Bikers can be posted to a 'who's who' on a scofflaw website to humiliate. This may appease the residents somewhat and make bikers think twice. Breaking the law doesn't make it go away, any more than ignoring a bus or Max and it hitting you any less deadly. Be smart. Be safe. Live to ride tommorow. Don't let your last thought be, "gee, i wish i would've stopped THAT time." And a biker being killed not stopping would only fuel the flames of disrespect we all get from some angry drivers on a daily basis.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • fatmidwesternwhiteguy June 30, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Why the long thread? I'm not sure what the creator's intent of this video was, but whatever it was, it doesn't show cyclists as somehow being scofflaws while motorists are upstanding and law abiding. It shows both behaving exactly the same way...both violating the letter of the law in a very harmless way...rolling through stop signs when the way is clear at low speed. There's no story here folks. As a person who rides over 28 miles a day, I get angry at cyclists who do blow stop lights and other intersections...not because I think they are being dangerous, although sometimes they are. But really because I know that some redneck motorist is going to see that and then be aggressive with me as a result.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.