Enforcement action at Ladds Circle

Why do we have stop signs at traffic circles here in Portland? It is a large circle which should be regulated by the rules of traffic circles not by stop signs!

Bjorn

But for the kind warning of a cyclist going the other way I would have had ticket #2! I was at about 21st & Clinton bunched up with 4 cyclists. We each interpreted what we thought the stool pigeon had meant and all decided to stop at the Ladd Circle. There were multiple motorcycle mounted units and perhaps 3 cyclists pulled over when I went through. I doubt I have come to a legal stop there in over 30 years of cycling through that intersection- until today.

Thanks to the cyclist who provided the warning. And a tip of the cap to whoever decided to enforce the safest intersection in town.

bruce

As I went through the circle (after stopping and putting my foot down) I saw no fewer than five motorcycle cops, four of whom were writing tickets to bikers.

Good heavens, what a ratio. Imagine how many more tickets these five traffic cops could be writing if they went to separate intersections and chose to cite motorists pulling rolling stops just about…oh, I dunno…ANYWHERE! WTF?

Ok fine blowing stop signs is not good. But if you drive your car though Ladds feel free to treat it like a race way.

I saw four motorcycle police. Two were waiting on the northeast arc of the circle. Two other officers had already stopped cyclists – one on the northeast arc of the circle and one on Ladd Avenue. They were likely targeting riders going from from seven corners to Hawthorne/12th.

I ride that route to and from work every day and have never seen a cyclist come to a complete stop. I have also never seen nor heard of an accident so I’m guessing that local residents or business owners asked the police to intervene.

I went through that inttersection 3 times this morning, twice just to make sure that what I saw the first time was representative and not isolated.

The third time, I counted SIX motorcycle cops. Not once during the 3 times through did I see a motorist pulled over.

To think that that this amount of police resources would be so disproportionately allocated is maddening.

Normally, I heartily approve of police enforcing traffic regulations and responding to citizen’s complaints – that’s their job, and I believe that inside a city, all road users need to obey the laws.

This, however, is ridiculous.

4-5 motorcycles to enforce a single intersection?!? What other traffic violations were happening that weren’t enforced because 4 normally otherwise engaged officers were stuck ticketing cyclists in Ladd’s Addition, which as others have pointed out, is not a dangerous intersection.

Why weren’t these officers at, say:

West Burnside and 4th
West Burnside and 5th
West Burnside and 10th
SE 82nd and Powell
SE 82nd and Division
East Burnside and 12th / Sandy

or one of the other “deathtrap” intersections in Portland?

I don’t blame the officers in question – I’m sure that the vast majority of cops in Portland are professional, take pride in their job, and want to serve the public. I’m taking issue with the supervisors and “higher-ups” who are determining the priorities of police deployment. This is ridiculous.

I think it’s time for another Super-Legal ride.

I also agree with the other posters – Ladd’s Circle needs yield signs, not stop signs – or no signs at all. Everyone’s more careful in a traffic circle if they’re not sure anyone else is going to stop. Bjorn’s right – they’re self-regulating.

+1 Matt Picio

Jasun,
RE: showing your ID to cops.

I have a story in the works about this but my understanding is that you only have to show ID if you are being stopped for a specific illegal act.

In your case, I doubt there is a law on the books for warning others about traffic stings…and therefore you would not have to show your ID…or answer any personal questions.

There’s nothing illegal about telling cyclists to obey the law because there are police ahead. Encouraging others to obey the law is legal.

Do you have to show your drivers license? No. (at least, not yet – see below) You ARE required to give your name. Other information is currently a legal gray area. There is currently a bill up in front of the Oregon Senate (SB932) to require presenting ID to the Police (“papers, please”) – this was at the request of the Eugene police department.

As for the rest, hopefully one of the attorneys will enlighten us.

The above should not be construed as legal advice (God, how I hate disclaimers)

Jasun – I pretty sure that flashing your headlights to warn motorists of a speed trap is illegal; I’d imagine what you were doing was technically illegal. Thanks though, for trying.

Matt P is right – how many intersections could we name where motorists routinely roll through stops, crosswalks, and exceed speed limits? The enforcement here was due to complaints – could we organize via bikeportland.org a campaign to get 500+ bicyclists to call about an intersection? I can only imagine the Ladds enforcement was brought about by a few, imagine what we could do with numbers. It’d at least move the enforcement away from bicyclist thoroughfares. This is assuming that they’d take our complaints as seriously as the Ladd motorists.

Thanks, Evan. It really is time to sit down with the PPB. Police resources are being totally misdirected — Ladds Circle is one of the few intersections in town where I have never felt in danger, either on a bike or in a car. I’ve never seen signs of any crashes there, and even though cyclists regularly blow through the stop signs, I’ve never felt like doing so is dangerous (I slow way down, but don’t come to a stop — worked this morning, but probably because the cops were all busy writing tickets at the time).

It’s ironic that this post comes on the heels of the post about going for Platinum. If Portland really wants to go platinum, they’ve got to get the police on board and work WITH the cyclists, instead of against us.

Interesting that a traffic circle in a relatively calm network of streets has stop signs, while the very busy NE 39 and Glisan circle has only yield signs. Doesn’t make sense to me.

Sheldon,

Correction: NE 39th and Glisan has stop signs. I go through there, stopping, several times a week.

Sounds like the solution here is to lobby the city to make Ladd’s Circle a real roundabout with Yield instead of Stop signs.

Take on the neighborhood nabobs of negativity, go to PDOT with a petition signed by hundreds of cyclists, and explain that Ladd’s Circle is one of the safest routes for cyclists, and by cyclists using it, they avoid congesting Hawthorne and Division.

Don’t fight the cops for enforcing a stupid traffic control device — make the city change the traffic control!

I was much more annoyed by the motorists who almost killed me this morning than the cops. One of whom passed me with about 2 inches of room going east on SE Clay between 7th-6th while yelling out the window “use the bike lane!”. She then speeded for a block, and turned into the Multnomah county office parking structure where she presumably works, and does everything in her power to get bikes off the street. Clay is of course a bike route with no bike lanes, and about 6 inches of space between the edge of a car in the lane, and parked cars on the side of the street.

My one direction commute is about 5 miles, and even with coming to a complete stop at every stop sign on the route it still only takes me about 10 minutes longer than by car. I’m willing to obey a law that doesn’t make sense if it makes people with the power to kill me a little less angry.

Re: brian mack

I completely agree. I commute through Ladds everyday. I don’t think its necessary to come to a full, foot on the ground, stop at the circle, but on any given day I see cyclists tear through those intersections like they were on-ramps to a speedway.

Re: Yield signs in Ladds

I don’t think this is going to happen. People pay a ton of money to live in Ladds and they don’t want to see their neighborhood turned into a through-way- at least not anymore than it already is a shortcut between Division and Hawthorne. Frankly, I prefer the stop signs as I agree that they contribute to cutting down on some of the traffic and making the street safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

They were still there when I came through at about 9:15. A friendly motorist warned me in advance and I avoided Ladd Circle by taking an alternate route through the neighborhood.

C’mon, enforcing stop signs at a freaking roundabout? The whole point of traffic circles is to keep the flow of traffic moving. Having stop signs for traffic entering the circle is backwards. Enforcing backwards traffic control devices, in a low traffic neighborhood, on cyclists is bullsh*t.

“Stop sign, stop signal, or giving priority to entering vehicles”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout

This is straight up harassment.

It is kinda a pain when riding through Ladds and another cyclist runs a stopsign when I’m trying to turn right. I usually have to come to a complete stop to let them by, because their on my right.

Here goes my 2 cents…
Stop signs at roundabouts are ridiculous. The whole point is to keep the flow moving! For them to put SIX cops out there is definitely overkill.

As a group cyclists should pick a few dangerous intersections and flood the PPB with calls for an enforcement action. If it doesn’t happen, then we would have a valid complaint. If it does, then we have used our resources as citizens to make our lives safer.

I saw this coming last week as I rode home from work when I noticed an older bearded gent talking with the PPD at the north side intersection , I overheard him saying that I was the only biker he’d seen execute full stop at the intersection all day. I only stopped cause the PPD was there.
Another side of the coin is that in the morning especially, and occasionally in the evening there are lots of folks who RACE thru Ladds at speeds well above what is posted. I never see them speeding around the circle itself, but usually in the stretched between the smaller circles, in order to pass cyclists.
I say as cyclists we get plate numbers and make complaints about speeding motorists. You don’t have to live on the circle to be impacted by folks breaking traffic laws.

I come from England, where roundabouts (traffic circles) are the primary mode of traffic control at major intersections.

The reasoning in my country behind having stop signs, as opposed to just letting traffic yield & roll through at regular speed, is due to high number of foot traffic in addition to road traffic that we have in Europe.

It’s terrifying for a pedestrian trying to navigate a traffic circle when none of the traffic is stopping, or even looking out for them. Traffic cicrles encourage motorists and bicyclists to look left only for oncoming traffic. As a result, they’re often not looking right for pedestrian traffic trying to get across the intersection too.

I’ve seen first hand mothers with kids in strollers trying to get across the marked crosswalks at this particular intersection (Ladd Circle), and cyclists illegally just blowing right by them at top speed without even slowing down, let alone giving them the legal right of way.

That said, I agree that cyclists coming to a complete, foot down, stop, is a little excessive. Slowing right down to look for both cars and peds, and looking both ways at the intersection, makes the most sense for somebody navigating this area on a bike.

“This area is well-known as having some…how can I say…bike un-friendly folks.”

As a bike-friendly “folk” who lives in Ladd’s Addition I take umbrage at this gross generalization. I also feel the need to point out that as long as there is a “stop” sign at the Circle, the law requires vehicles, including bicycles, to stop. I rarely see any cyclists even slow down when entering the circle from Ladd Ave or any of the other feeder streets, let alone stop, and more than once while making my own way around the circle I have had close calls with cyclists blowing through the signs (I was also on a bike. Whether they misjudged my position, or speed, or made the stupid assumption that I was tunring, despite the fact I was nbot signalling a turn, who knows, what matters is that if they had taken the time to stop or even pause for chrissakes, they would not have caused the near miss.

Now whenever I ride around the circle and see a cyclist comoing from a side street I also make an assumption – I assume they will not stop or even slow down. I am almost always correct.

Given the amount of bicycle traffic in Ladd’s, it is inevitable that the visibility of dumb-ass moves by cyclists will be greater, and that resentment of said moves will be magnified. But that does not make everyone in the neighborhood unfriendly to cyclists. On the other hand, the best way to make friends with the neighbors is to obey the traffic laws.

If you don’t want to stop, then lobby to change the law or change the signage. Until then, the best way to avoid a ticket is to stop.

Add me to the list of people who agrees with this enforcement action. Ladd’s Addition is a pedestrian-friendly area, I’ve seen plenty of cyclists busting through stop signs at full speed to know why homeowners there might complain.

For all of you who narrowly avoided your second ticket today, my advice to you is to learn your lesson and start slowing to a near stop at stop signs.

Cecil,

my comment about “bike un-friendly folks” in Ladds was not meant to include everyone.

I realize there are bike-friendly folks in Ladds and I realize that bikes should never blow through stop signs.

Has anyone asked the ppb what in the general traffic officers mind constitutes a stop at a stop sign. Do you need to put your foot down for three seconds? Briefley set down your foot? Or are they content if you slow significantly to assess the traffic and continue on? I feel like the third option should cover a stop for a bike at a stop sign and that is my general practice.

AS far as stop signs at traffic circles are concerned I think having them is good for pedestrians. In NE PDX there are many small traffic circles that would not be safe without two of four directions having stop signs.

JayS.

Add me to the list of those who favor the enforcement. I get sick of seeing my fellow cyclists blow through red lights and stop signs. It makes life harder for the rest of us.

If you are gonna blow through a stop sign because you think it’s safe, or you don’t agree with traffic engineers’ decisions as to where to place signs — fine.

But don’t cry when you get a $242 ticket.

platinum?!

haha, yeah right!

with enforcement like this, i’d say we’re leaning toward “tin foil” status.

823-SAFE is a sham. Attrny Mark G. on the Shift list recounted his inability to get any police response to his repeated complaints of rampant motorist speeding on Mt Tabor.

823-SAFE is little more than Mayor Potter’s machine politics for the geriatric vote.

I reckon that’s one good thing about livin’ in the Hood’s of N & NE, no whiny geriatrics to complain about scufflaw cyclists. Our problems are bigger than rolling stop signs.

I travel through that circle on my bike twice a day every weekday and I saw the enforcement action this morning. While I realize that some cyclists got tickets for not stopping even if they slowed down, there were others who richly deserve having to shell out $242. I have been a pedestrian trying to cross the street in that circle. The cyclists who don’t even slow down make it very difficult to cross, and I’m an able-bodied adult. I can’t help but wonder what it’s like for a child, an elderly person, or the infirm. At the very least, the sign blowers must scare the crap out of them. I sure find them alarming.

I think it would be reasonable to say that at least half the cyclists who pass through the circle don’t even slow for the stop signs. I may not agree with the amount of resources used this morning, but come on, would it really kill people to at least slow down as they approach stop signs? Just remember, no Idaho-style law is going to get you out of a ticket for pulling that crap.

Go to Bend if you want to see traffic circles handled correctly. Practically all of them are of the “Yield and Go” variety. The whole point of a traffic circle is to keep traffic flowing. I can understand why Coe Circle at 39th/Glisan is signalized, given the volume, but there’s no reason Ladd Circle couldn’t be yield and go. And, my suspicion is that it probably was that way “back in the day.”

Point is…no, cyclists shouldn’t be breaking traffic laws. But, the traffic laws should be based on common sense, too.

I haven’t taken the time to read all the coments, but I thought I’d share my experience. At around 11 am I went through Ladds. When I got to the big circle I stopped at a stop sign to wait for a car and a bicycle who were both coming around the circle. Just as they were going past another cyclist approaching from behind, went around me without stopping and “merged” into traffic. There were no cops around, but this rider sure could have used a ticket–if only so she could know the error of her ways.

I hate these police stings and think they are a poor use of our resources, but there are some cases where I can see why they are out there.

There seems to be a number of people on bikes that don’t even consider that they may be bound by traffic laws. That’s who needs to be ticketed (or warned/educated.)

Anyway, I just had to share.

I’m with Tbird, the biggest safety hazard is motorists speeding and trying to pass cyclists on SE Ladd between SE Division and Ladd’s Circle and SE Ladd between SE Clay/Hawthorne and Ladd’s Circle, especially at the small traffic circles at the intermediate intersections. I’ve had several close calls and several altercations with motorists at these locations, but I’ve never had any trouble with motorists, pedestrians or other cyclists at or in Ladd’s Circle itself.

I have to agree with the enforcement too. I wish there were more and in different locations. Like others, I commute through there – 7 am heading in and 4:15 pm going home every day. I could probably count on one hand the number of times cyclists have SLOWED at the stop sign, let alone stopped.

We live in a city, and a growing one at that. For 99.9% of the commuters, there is not a traffic control-free route to wherever we go. Yet there’s an increasing percentage of us who act and ride like there’s nothing there, and that stop signs and red lights are more ‘guidelines’ than traffic devices we must obey.

Whether we agree with the stop signs entering Ladd’s or not isn’t the point. The point is that they’re there. If we continually flaunt them, and whine if we get caught, then we’ve got little argument towards replacing them with yield signs.

Burr: I agree.

Here’s a risky intersection:

N Fremont & N Vancouver Ave

Several times a week on my morning commute down N Vancouver, there will be motorists who, sitting behind a red light on Fremont (a two-way), turn left (south) onto Vancouver Ave (a one-way) then cut right over/through the bike lane to get on the Fremont Bridge via Cook.

It’s crazy – I’ve got to be extra-extra vigilant about cross-traffic at the intersection when I have the light! This would be a great sting operation for the PPB.

ok cycle friends,

I think we have to respect stop signs a bit better as a community.

I ride everyday, everywhere and have been doing so for quite some time. I understand that blowing a stop sign is an attractive option. If we had rolling stop law for bikes on the ballot/initiative whatever – I would sign the petition in a heartbeat and would probably help get signatures if asked.

But, it is messed up when I stop at a stop sign and the cycle behind me decides to keep going and run over the pedestrian I saw starting to cross the street.

Morever, if i pull up and make the stop and another cyclist later to the intersection doesn’t make the stop then that is messed up too.

If you dont know if it is clear – just make the stop.

-Also- we have stop signs on roundabouts in PDX because noone in this city can actually drive the roundabout properly. Drivers suck at using them. 39th and Glisan originaly had yields and a bunch of accidents occurred and city traffic engineers had to redo it with stop signs … Why? because drivers ARE idiots and people in general are lazy when behind the wheel.

Ladd’s will never have yield signs either. Because that neighborhood will do everything it can to stop anybody from doing that.

So – beyond ye ol’ protest – you have to stop for stop signs. Do it – the pedestrians and neighborhood deserve your respect. We are all pedestrians too. And don’t you want others to respect YOUR neighborhood and community?

But I also agree that this is the last neighborhood to worry about and that there are about 3billion other places that need a little more safety review from PPB.

.2cents.

Count me as yet another supporter of the stop sign enforcement. Every day on my ride to/from work I have to almost stop at intersections where I don’t have a stop sign because I see another cyclist cruising along at full speed with no intention of stopping at their stop sign. Every once in awhile they will stop but for the most part they don’t even slow down. I have had more close calls with other bikes than with cars.

jeff said – “I pretty sure that flashing your headlights to warn motorists of a speed trap is illegal; I’d imagine what you were doing was technically illegal.”

There’s a difference here. When you warn motorists of a speed trap, they’re already breaking the law, so you’re covering up for them – that *is* illegal. When you warn cyclists of a “stop trap” – they haven’t broken the law yet, so you aren’t covering up a crime, you’re discouraging it before it is committed. There’s nothing illegal about that.

sam said – “out of the 32 comments posted so far, you are the first to approve the sting”

I also approve of the sting, just not using 6 motorcycles to perform it. One or at most, two would have been fine. Six is a ridiculous waste of resources.

I got tired of reading the complaining, so just scrolled down to leave my comment..

You ran a stop sign and got a ticket?

Suck it up and pay it…….

If people didn’t run these stop signs repeatedly all day, for the last twenty years, this enforcement action never would have happened..

All this bitching about what if it was a yield sign is just that, bitching..
Until there is a yield law, you must stop.

I must point out that these stings could easily be done by officers on foot….. it is a waste of time, money, and resources to have motorcycle police doing this…

If you don’t stop, suck it up….

In response to #69 I find it unlikely that the officer would not have a card. If he didn’t he should have been willing to provide you with at least his name in writing. If you want it he is required to give you a badge # for your saftey. You never know when you are encountering a fake officer and that is why they have to give you the badge number.

JayS.

Thank you for the warnings on this sting–keep up the good work you sting warners–
I am not opposed to sting’s but they should be at intersections with high accident rates–not so sure this qualifies–and they should target cars too
I think we bikers need to get more bitchy with the cops and city about crappy motorists–demand stings that help us

I think if we as cyclists have a calling campaign to the PPB about cars, we might consider starting with the bike light at E Burnside and 41st. I have also had to wait for up to 3 vehicles – including a Tri-Met bus! – run the red before I could cross. Once they realized that light was for bikes, they stopped paying attention to it. Considering they spent $140,000 on that light, it ought to be enforced, don’t you think?

I think putting pressure on the person who oversees the police bureau, i.e. Mayor Potter, is the way to go on this issue. But it must go beyond just calling his office and meeting with him and complaining about a “waste” of police resources (remember this is an ex-police officer we’re talking about here). I recall that not long ago he went on a Critical Mass bike ride (imagine _that_ group riding through Ladd Circle). Maybe it is time to get him to come along on another bike ride, perhaps through some of these intersections that bike commuters are seeing as dangerous, and seeing the perspective of regular bike commuters. Maybe he’d even put his foot down… as some of his officers expect the rest of us to.

#66 mentioned Bend. Funny that the company that designed those roundabouts, Kittleson & Associates, is based here in Portland. In fact, they “wrote the book” on modern roundabouts. Too bad PDot hasn’t hired them…

I also agree with those who’ve said that they agree with the principle of the sting, but not with the large amount of resources devoted to it.

Now, if we could get the cops to “sting” cars at 39th and Clinton…

Yep, tried to warn a guy on my way home at 5:30 and sure enough he got nailed by the cops (3) waiting. Thanks for the heads up this am…

It was a surreal scene on my way home through Ladd’s. The gusts of wind had blown many branches down in the neighborhood. A couple of blocks before I approached the circle, there was a fellow cyclist clearing a four inch branch from the road, as I was about to commend him on his effort, a passing pick-up truck warned us of the sting. I thank you both for making this neighborhood a friendly place to live. Those cops could have made a lot better use of their time by clearing debris rather than giving out tickets to many undeserving folk. In my brief time commuting through Ladd’s this is the 3rd such sting I’ve seen. It obviously doesn’t work. The neighbors complaining ought to propose a more reasonable solution. I imagine the cops feel just as foolish for pulling us over as we do for not putting our foot down. Maybe it’s time we do put our foot down. I’d like to see what would happen if there was a sting busting every motorist who didn’t use a turn signal in that same loop.

On my way to work, a wonderful PEDESTRIAN warned me and several others of the sting. I find this interesting pedestrians are often very vocal about the stop sign issue. This points to a larger issue. Both peds & bikes have the same ability to communicate that cars lack, and we have the same vulnerability. I repaid the good service by warning other cyclists of the trap in the afternoon. (photo forthcoming)
As cyclists we are part of a community and we support each other. I have rebuked a cyclist or two for going full speed through a stop sign, but the absurdity both of enforcing rolling stops, and the fact that there were at least eight cops when I looked reflects the disparity of enforcement. The only other time that I’ve seen so many police was for a peace rally. The irony even more pronounced by the fact that I saw several cars make rolling stops during the sting. It would take more optimism than I have to assume that they were cited. I appreciate the effort of this community and I encourage us all to stick together.

I live in Ladd’s and every single day drive that circle, twice a week at 4:30 am, and frequently in the dark. Bikes never stop. For every one I see stop there are twenty that do not, to their peril, as it makes bikes harder to see, and the entry streets are close togehter. Biek or car, if you fail to stop, you deserve to get busted. Kids in this neighborhood have been hit by bikes , and cursed by bikers as they have been lawfully crossing the street. It seems to me many bicyclists are upset at the embarassment of getting busted. I observed the apparent embarrasment and obnoxiousness (which detracts from the “cause” of encouraging bike use)of a coupel of bicyclists nwho were nabbed today, both this AM and this PM. Ladd Circle is dangerous for everyone if cars and bikes and peds do not stop before entering the circle, whether on two wheels, four wheels, or two feet. The “enforcement action” was merited and long overdue. Folks in cars got busted too. I didn’t complain to teh city, but having seen that a response will be made, I will complain in the future.

It was the end to a perfect ride. First I got a flat tire which delayed my departure from work. Than I got to ride home from Vancouver in a downpour/20 mph head wind. 1.5 miles from home I get hit up for “running” a stop sign in Ladd Circle. What a great use of six police officer’s time!

And for those of you taking the class at Emanuel, beware. My friend just got back from tonights class and it was the biggest cluster F he’d ever been to. Be prepared for three hours of wasted time, where you’ll hear great presentations from the likes of the Pedestrian Alliance. Whooohoooo! Keep Portland Flounderific!

What this town really needs is a mayor who actually has some real vision.

The reality is that Tom Potter is an utter embarrassment for a city as progressive as Portland, and has mostly been a total failure as mayor, whose best claim to fame seems to be a bunch of new park benches downtown. We can do better than a freaking career cop for our mayor.

Not to say that Potter doesn’t have good intentions, it is just he lacks any serious vision, and seems more concerned about his freaking legacy than actually making the sort of changes that are required in a world that is facing peak oil and global climate chaos. Potter isn’t the right man to lead what should really be America’s most progressive city. These traffic stings are a part of much, much larger failure on the part of his administration.

The way to go is to pass local legislation. But we can do this even simpler — elect a mayor with some vision who would simply direct the police department not to issue any tickets to cyclists other than for absolutely ridiculous violations of the law.

It is really too bad that vision is so badly lacking in our Mayor’s office these days. We deserve and can do a hell of a lot better, and I really hope folks step up to the plate in the next election to replace Mr. Potter with someone who actually believes in leading this city to compete not with metro Detroit but with Amsterdam, putting us on the cutting edge of progressive evolution.

-Vladislav

Unnecessary stop signs are much the same as unsafe bike lanes, it’s a lot easier to get them installed than to get them removed.

The amazing thing to me about all this is the excuses, justifications, and rhetoric. This is the same thing we complain about in the driving community.

Issue: vehicles are running stop signs.

Responses

* Why do we get unfair treatment?

There are *multiple* stings set up *every day* for cars in the metro area. They’re called speed traps. I ride past a couple nearly every day.

* Cyclists shouldn’t have to stop. Slow ‘n Go is safe enough

Slow ‘n Go is safe enough until it isn’t. Slow ‘n Go is usually safe for cars too, until it isn’t. The law should not be subjective, or a matter of opinion.

* Cars weigh thousands of pounds. A cyclist couldn’t possibly hurt anybody.

I have witnessed a crash between two cyclists at a 4-way stop because neither of them stopped. It wasn’t pretty for either riders or bikes. I have also witnessed pedestrians, behaving in a lawful fashion, having to jump and dodge to avoid being whacked by cyclists running lights or stop signs.

* We could make those stop signs “disappear”….

I don’t even know where to start with this one.

* Yeah, ok so we should stop at stop signs, but they needn’t use 6 cops to ticket us!
If they weren’t ticketing, then vehicles wouldn’t stop. Are you suggesting that they ask nicely? If a big red stop sign doesn’t convince people to stop, I doubt a friendly plea will.

* It’s all the mayor’s fault.

Huh? The issue here is running stop signs.. Why muddy the waters with irrelevant issues?

This is the one of the simplest issues in the world, and as cyclists we should be *all for* this enforcement. We want to be treated as vehicles? Well here you go! We are being treated as vehicles.

AO, Burr, Vlad… Don’t you get it?! Stop means stop. People getting the tickets are not the only ones “pissed” in this story. Those neighbors who many of us saw out thanking the cops — those workers out cheering for the cops in the construction zone as cyclists were pulled over — in some of the best places to bike. If we want more of them, fueling the fire so that neighbors are out saying how bad it is to live on the best bike boulevard in the city HURTS BIKES. You’re “bikes are never wrong” attitudes are the very ones that are leading to neighborbors in Ladds Addition complaining about near misses between bikes and elderly people and bikes and kids. You want to hurt the cause? Keep on saying that bikes are never wrong, that bikes don’t have impact on others, and that bikes have no responsibility towards the people who live in the neighborhoods we want to ride through! I know you’ll attack me on a personal level after I hit submit… but how many times do I have to hear you say that every bike that gets a ticket “barely rolled through the sign”. We’ve all seen people blow the signs in Ladd Circle. I’ve seen bikes nearly hit people there. I’ve nearly been hit as both a biker and a walker there. It’s embarrassing and hurts the cause of making a better city to ride in.

AO — do you think they should stop giving out speeding tickets too? I saw someone speed in a car this morning!!! Clearly tickets don’t work and the whole speed policy of the city is a complete failure! I thought Mayor Potter knew what he was doing!

There is no way I would ever vote for you for so much as class president. My comments were not unfair. The best example that comes to mind for me is that way you attack PoPo every time he chimes in — you expect much more fairness for yourself then you give to others. The fact that I feel less threatened by speeding drivers in Portland than in any other places I’ve ridden a bike tells me that something about the enforcement in Portland is working — along with lots of other things that are not enforcement.

You also avoided the most important part of my comment. That you are a negative voice in the conersation that is pissing off the very people we need to win over. We don’t get anything good for bikes if we don’t take responsponsibility and at least offer a reasonable response to people who think that biking is doing bad things in their neighborhood. Do you think peopl like Spanky above should just go live in a hole because they don’t like bikers blowing stop signs in their neighborhood. Don’t you think that there should be some way that they can get help? Every time I’ve heard someone chime in with an idea about getting bike riders to follow the rules, they get personally attacked and told that they should learn to ride a bike — or blown off in some other rude, offensive, and self-important way. How can we ever help people who are on the bubble for liking bikes to get over the hump if we attack their concerns? That’s what I consistently hear you and others do on this site. It sets a harsh, negative, and hurtful tone — it hurts our cause.

“Plus the bike riders wastes all their (non-motorized) momentum coming to a complete stop every time”

That’s just an excuse to justify laziness. Stop means stop. “Less dangerous” does not equal “safe”. If you want to change the law so cyclists only have to yield at stop signs, then work to change the law. Until then, obey it – otherwise you’re undermining the efforts of everyone working to help cyclists.

If you want to “stick it to the man”, or show exactly how absurd the current laws are in terms of the differences between bikes and other vehicles, there are other means to do so which are just as effective yet don’t break the law. The Super Legal Ride is a perfect example.

It’s also really hard to generate good will towards cyclists in the neighborhoods with the attitude some people have, and the actions they perform. Maybe many of you don’t care – fine, but consider this: In any given neighborhood, there are maybe a hundred cyclists who normally ride through it (Ladd’s and a few others are probably the exceptions to this rule), but there are 4,000-5,000 residents. If you piss them all off, who do you think is going to win when talking to the city? And on a larger level, show some consideration and good will towards these people – if you don’t show consideration for the people in the neighborhood, then why should they give a damn about you? We’re the visitors and the guests in those neighborhoods – they live there.

From the perspective of a 30-something mother or a 72-year old retiree, there is no difference in safety between a car and a cyclist traveling 25mph and not stopping at intersections. One collision with a child or a senior can put that person in the hospital. Seniors in particular, when injured, have trouble recovering fully or quickly.

If they weren’t ticketing, then vehicles wouldn’t stop. Are you suggesting that they ask nicely? If a big red stop sign doesn’t convince people to stop, I doubt a friendly plea will.

What’s in your ears – bricks or fingers? That’s not what people are talking about at all.

Here’s what the issue is, spelled out very clearly so there’s no room for you to either get confused or to put spin on it: people are pissed about the PPB stationing *at least* six police officers at a relatively safe intersection to primarily ticket operators of vehicles weighing less than 50lbs. and generally not going much faster than 15 mph. The problems are as follows:

1) *All* vehicles need to be targeted in such an operation -we’ve seen nothing to indicate that even a single motorist was stopped in the action, but many people going through the intersection saw plenty of cyclists stopped -even motorists who warned cyclists that there were a considerable number of police officers up the road *stopping bikes*.

2) More importantly, six officers (or more…we’ve heard numbers as high as eight for Wednesday evening’s activities) are *NOT* necessary to carry out such an enforcement at a minor intersection. It could easily be done with two officers, and the remaining four could have been dispatched to *other* intersections where vehicles frequently run stop signs. We all know there are intersections *far* worse for this than the one at Ladd’s Circle.

Phredly, if you genuinely believe your suggestion that enforcement actions are necessary to get people to follow laws, you can’t honestly think that enforcing it for several hours on one day at a single intersection will make a certifiable difference. A fair portion of the folks who were running the sign may decide to be more cautious in that one area but not give a damn about it elsewhere.

As an aside, many of us *do* in fact stop at stop signs and haven’t been motivated to do so by ticketing, but rather because it’s the law or it’s often a safer choice …sometimes both. Not all behavior is instilled by punitive measures.

How do you know how many officers it takes to carry out a traffic enforcement sting?

They’re often done on major stretches of highway, where cars are traveling at speeds in excess of 50 miles per hour, with one to two officers, and they seem to go just fine. It’s not a huge stretch to say that it should take the same amount of officers or less in a largely residential area where vehicles are going considerably slower.

Do you *and* your bike weigh 50lbs?

To be fair, I said weight of the *vehicle*. In this case, combined weight of bicycle and operator still pales in comparison to the combined weight of an automobile and driver.

So what’s your point? If you run into my 30lb son going 15 mph, all ~200lbs of you and your bike are going to severly injure him. How is this irrelevant?

Point out where I said it’s irrelevant, Chris. Wait…what? Oh, that’s right, I DIDN’T. If you’re concerned about anyone’s safety in that intersection (or at any other), I’d say it’d be advisable to ask the PPB to stop and ticket *anyone* blowing that stop sign, not just one particular type of vehicle.

Can you make a qualified statement that a motorist who did not stop at the stop sign was not pulled over and ticketed?

Can you make a qualified statement that a motorist who did not stop at the stop sign *was* pulled over and ticketed? ;P

Seriously though: no, I can’t, and that’s why I chose my words very carefully. Nobody posting here has mentioned anything about seeing any motorists stopped by the police in that intersection during yesterday’s enforcement. Obviously the world doesn’t cease to exist beyond the field of vision of one individual or group, but given that there are sensible individuals here who aren’t all “OMG! MAJOR ANTI-BIKE CONSPIRACY!” over every little point, we would surely have heard from somebody by now saying, “Yes, I saw a car stopped when I went through. Don’t be hysterical and foolish.”

If you were resident of Ladd’s and crossed those intersections on foot with your children almost daily, what other intersections in the city would be more important to you?

Hm…tough hypothetical Chris, but I’d say just about *any* intersection I regularly crossed at, either alone or with others, where I frequently observed dangerous and/or unlawful behavior being carried out by vehicle operators. I’m sure it’s nice to live in Ladd’s and be able to get six officers to setup an enforcement action because of my complaint; it sure would be nice if I could get as many as one to come out and do something at any of the problem intersections I regularly deal with in Humboldt.

If not through ticketing and the threat of monetary loss, how would YOU effectively change the likelyhood that moving vehicles stop at a particular intersection?

Don’t mince words. I’m not suggesting we do away with ticketing and the like at all, not even for a second. Instead, I’m suggesting consistent or as-consistent-as-is-realistically-possible enforcement for the scofflaws who opt to ignore or break the rules.

Would you be angry at all about this if they were only stopping cars?

Absolutely. A vehicle’s a vehicle and traffic laws still apply to it. Nobody should have to have their safety jeopardized by a vehicle blowing a stop sign or any other infraction.

I’m cross posting this because it seems relevant. In the ‘bus driver’ thread, Paul the bus driver is proposing that cyclists be banned from arterial streets like SE Hawthorne and Division, and rerouted to parallel neighborhood bike boulevards like SE Salmon and SE Harrison/Ladd. I’m sure other motorists share this sentiment.

Herein lies the dilemma. A sizable percentage of motorists apparently don’t want cyclists on ‘their’ arterial streets, and it appears that a sizable percentage of the neighborhood residents apparently don’t want cyclists on ‘their’ neighborhood streets, either.

For the most part cyclists want to quickly and safely access the same destinations motorists do. Bike boulevards designed for low speed recreation cycling with a multiplicity of stop signs are not conducive to transporation cycling.

If these neighborhood routes are truly intended for transportational cycling, the city needs to do a better job of maintaining the flow of bicycle traffic, and limit the number of stops and other inconveniences – including police stings – for cyclists.

The alternative is to make the arterials like SE Hawthorne and SE Division bike accessible and safer for cyclists, but the city has not demonstrated a willingness or desire to do this in either the Hawthorne Boulevard Transportation Plan or the ‘Division Vision’ Plan.

Bottom line: bicyclists are here to stay, and their numbers are only going to continue growing. The city and the neighborhoods are being hypocritical and working at cross-purposes, and they can’t have it both ways.

Jonathan, what happened to this morning’s post recapping the events?

Here is a photo which I took of the event (before going and warning cyclists).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60961560@N00/456823642/
Can someone correct for me the figures for the number of police currently employed to patrol southeast Portland?
The controversy is ripe and this will be a challenging effort. But with strength we can bring enlightenment to the masses.

Personally, I’d rather ride Hawthorne than risk a $242 ticket for rolling an unnecessary stop sign which is an impediment to efficient bicycle transportation. But I’m familiar enough with Ladd’s Addition that I know other routes through the neighborhood that I can take to avoid the circle when the cops are there.

handmade signs are a good idea too.
I should say that i think stopping for other people is a good idea in ladds. I do do stops when people are looking, when people are around to create a good example, same as i hand signal a lot to create a good example, when i see someone and i think it will make them happy if I stop I do. Everywhere else I pull full stops, mostly. But in ladds it just makes sense to roll through when its all clear. its not even a question of endangering others in ladds, the range of visability is huge and the street is wide. All im saying is i like for everyone to be safe, and i enjoy the example of stopping, but i stop when there is a reason. umm and ive totally run over a two year old, when i was 9, but i was going super fast, in that story everyone was knocked around but ok.

So, it is safe to roll through because you can see so well? Great visibility at the circle and it is no trouble to make sure it is safe before blowing through, huh?

You are paying attention, can see all around and know it is safe?

Why the hell didn’t you see the eight cops and their hulking motorcycles? Huh? Anyone?

Perhaps you aren’t so aware after all?

I think it does matter how many neighbors complained. It’s they’re neighborhood; we just ride through it. If there are a large number of ladds residents that are angry with the cyclists riding through the area then clearly we’re not being courteous to the people we’re sharing those roads with. That is a serious problem that ought to be addressed. However it’s one or two cranky a**holes, then that’s a different matter all together.

Don’t get me wrong though, whether or not the enforcement action was justified six cops is still overkill.

I just spoke with a good friend that recently moved from Ladd’s addition, but had lived there for the last two years. When I told him I was cited for running a stop sign on my bike he nearly dropped the phone in laughter. He found this as absurd as I did. (Quite a different reaction from the other Ladd’s Addition residents posted here.) However, I choose to share my friends reaction since he walked to New Season’s Market nearly everyday with his two year old son. At no time could my friend recall being threatened, or even startled by a bike in Ladd’s addition.

I’m curious as to the alleged incident where a Ladd’s resident was hit by bikers on two seperate occassions as stated by the Portland Police. Was this person injured? Did they sustain any physical injuries or are they over reacting? And you folks in Ladd’s Addition, here’s a news flash: WE LIVE IN A CITY. And as Rodney King says “CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG??”

Thank you, and don’t forget, Keep on Keeping Portland Weird….

How do I get a sting my neighborhood? I am tired of all the “alternative” bikers in this town laying attitude on me and riding aggressively. I have been hit several times walking the Eastside Esplanade and the season is almost upon us where the majority of bikers will be out of control. Please have some respect for your fellow Portlanders and calm down while you ride. Yes I know you’re angry at all the drivers that have treated you so badly. Get over it!

I’m in favor of obeying the laws.

I haven’t been around all that long, but I do remember when 39th and Glisan was changed to stop signs in the ’70s or ’80s. Prior to that it was yields, if memory serves. I remember thinking that Joan of Arc must be pissed. There was a rash of accidents at 39th and Glisan. Idiots mostly. Stop signs was the answer, coupled with the whole right-turn-only deal for the curbside lanes, obviating risky lane-changes within the circle.

The rule in Europe and Britain (a) is that the circle has the right of way. An American rule (b) is that the car on your right has the right of way.

I’m not sure about Europe, but in Britain there is no “default” like this. Every single intersection either has the roundabout algorithm–concrete button in the middle of the intersection–or else there are signs or “give way” triangles painted in the pavement of the streets that must yield.

Rules (a) and (b) conflict. The cars that are in the circle are approaching you from your left. Sounds kind of obscure, but maybe it is part of the cause of those accidents. Ian’s turnip truck theory sounds good too.

The stop sign is a wonderful thing for pedestrians, and there is no better example than 39th and Glisan. With yield signs there it would be very hard to get past the circle on foot.

The problem with rigid enforcement of the stop sign law is that less than half of sober, church-going motorists actually stop at an uncontested stop sign where there is ample visibility and no cops present. Of course the stats are even worse for drunkards and rascals. Someone should stake out some stop signs and gather some info for us. I’m busy or I’d do it.

There is no unanimity on this, considering the amount of tickets written.

If so many cyclists don’t obey the stop signs that are currently in place (stop signs require stopping), what makes you think those same people will yield? The simple fact is those bad apples will go through even faster and with less care for other road users (at least until they keep getting tickets for failure to yield).

Personally, I obey the STOP signs, whether on a bike (as I usually am since I am a Ladd’s Addition resident) or in a vehicle. Those wanting YIELD signs are ones who want to speed up the flow of the traffic and make the neighborhood less safe for their own gains.

The STOP signs are there for a reason, and should be obeyed. Don’t put your selfish reasons ahead of the real need to slow down and be safe.

I think it has more to do with the fact that most bike riders probably think they are not doing anything “wrong enough” for the Police to bother with them. They probably think the Police are there to bust cars. Us weirdos know better.

“And stop and yield signs do not impose the same legal obligations….A stop sign is a “shall stop.” Period. A yield sign is “shall slow…” and “shall stop if necessary for safety.””

No, you’ve confused the behavior with the legal duty. The two signals may impose different behavioral obligations, but there is no distinction in the legal duties imposed. Your quotation of the statute is irrelevant.

“I would argue that decreased wariness makes it less likely that we will detect an approaching pedestrian, cyclist or car in time to avoid a collision.”

Interesting, then, that there have been no collisions at a stop sign where (almost) no one actually stops! Here, the facts invalidate the logic of your argument.

“And please direct us to the data that suggests Idaho hasn’t experienced “safety problems.””

No one can prove a negative. Show me some evidence that backs up your argument that yield signs cause “decreased wariness,” or risk appearing hypocritical.

“Yeah, it feels pretty safe to blow that stop sign at Ladds Circle. We’ve all done it. I’ve done it. But if the people who live there have had close calls and worry about being hit and aren’t feeling safe, that seems reasonable. They are there all the time and have a much better idea of what’s going on than me with my twice-a-day commute.”

No, remember your boy Joe always obeys the law. Every time he’s gone through a stop sign in his entire life he’s come to a full and complete stop. And he’s never done anything to deserve a $242 fine. He’s also sufficiently self-righteous to give public lectures on the topic. So, Shame on you for being such a scofflaw.

This last quote reveals three key things that you fail to understand about this issue, and are the root cause of why you are wrong on this:

1. Those people who are making the locals feel unsafe are not doing so simply because they are not stopping at a stop sign. They are doing so because they are not behaving safely. They would be equally in violation of a yield rule as they are of the stop rule.

2. The sting didn’t work. Go to Ladd’s today and see for yourself — people are still mostly slowing and looking, but a few continue to blow right through. It hasn’t worked elsewhere in PDX, either. So, the eight cops on motorcycles and the giant red signs with *STOP* printed on them aren’t doing anything to increase the neighborhood’s safety. Whatever perception-of-safety value they have is negated after the cops leave and the unsafe behavior continues.

3. People will complain about just about anything. I’m not saying some of the complaints weren’t justified (as discussed above), but setting law enforcement priorities based solely on reactions to individual citizen complaints is a bad idea if the goal is to have a safe community. So is using a technique, the sting, that is not effective.

None of this addresses how to solve this problem, but that’s a separate issue. The only reasonable conclusion here, however, is that a yield rule would enable the vast majority of safe cyclists to escape a ridiculous fine while continuing allow appropriate punishment of unsafe cycling behavior. It would also promote the development of an efficient cycling transportation system.

Elvis Lives said “And if the greater good isn’t to try to make us all as safe as possible as we negotiate our streets and neighborhoods, please tell us what is the greater good”

The greater good is to make us all as safe as is PRACTICABLE, not “possible”. To make us all as safe as POSSIBLE, we would limit all vehicles to 5 mph (the speed of a fast walk) or less, require a full and complete stop at all intersections under all circumstances, and require helmet and padding use in all vehicles. Bikes and other 2-wheeled vehicles would be banned outright, as they are inherently unstable at such low speeds. We wouldn’t run with scissors, and we’d all wait at least 45 minutes after supper before entering the pool.

We don’t make things as safe as possible, or we’d never get anything done. We manage risk, and create a balance where the level of risk is “acceptable”.

The problem isn’t whether there’s a higher legal standard for stop vs. yield, the problem is that everyone ignores the gods-blessed sign no matter what sign we put up there. There is no practical enforcement for traffic laws anymore (really, there hasn’t been since the 1950s), and 50+ years of people figuring out there isn’t likely to be anyone there to catch them has made every driver bold enough to “cheat” on all the laws – hence rolling stops, no turn signals, etc, etc.

The biggest problem today is the entitlement mentality – “well, if he can do that, I can too”. Cars speed, so we speed. Cars roll through a stop, so we do too. No one wants to give up the advantage, so suggestions that someone should obey the law are scoffed at, ignored, viewed as unrealistic, whatever. People have to make their own decision to ignore the entitlement mentality – we can’t legislate it away, and enforcement is so spotty, we can’t punish it away either.

A_O has the right of it in one important respect – police resources are limited, and they should be allocated where they’re going to do the most good. For traffic, that means drunk drivers and unsafe truckers – those who potentially can cause the most damage. If there’s resources left over, then we can focus on all modes at the most dangerous intersections, and work down the lists. Cyclists running a stop sign in Ladd’s, one of the safest areas in the city, SHOULD be at the bottom of the list.

If the Ladd’s residents (or any other) don’t like that, then maybe they should work with the city to form a community policing program, or voluntarily pay more taxes to hire more cops. As far as I can see, a few residents want the city to address a nuisance because they can’t be bothered to do anything about it themselves.

Note: I have nothing against the neighborhood, I’m sure they’re great people. I’m just saying that things work better if people get off their butts and interact with other people directly, rather than just calling the cops or a lawyer FIRST.

Hi everyone. I just have some general comments:
1) I ride/train usually 100-250 miles a week, much of which is done doing things like commuting by bike to my jobs, which are generally 12-15 miles way. Like many cyclists, I love riding fast and keeping momentum. So there is no way, even after a few 242 buck tickets, that I am going to change my riding habits, which are basically slow and go – or, if visibility is very good and no one is close, I don’t slow. I go. But I always look around for cars, pedestrians, dogs, etc., and if I think I am going to make ANYONE nervous or unsafe by not slowing or stopping, I slow or stop.
2) I screw up occasionally, which makes me feel like a dork, and I try to apologize if I can. Of course, if my screwing up results in my getting crsushed by someone with the right of way that I didn’t see, then so be it. Yes, I know that a driver doesn’t want to be traumatized by crushing a cyclist who screwed up.
3) I know this sounds naive, but are there really a lot of cyclists on the road who just dont’ want to slow for anything, who come really close to pedestrians etc., cut off cars and other cyclists, etc.? Maybe we cyclists, who want the Fifth Army to come running when a driver comes too close to us, should start campaighing against what I guess is the small minority of cyclists who don’t just slow and go (or stop, look at ago, which I sometimes do at red lights), but do the totally selfish crazy stuff which unnecessarily scares people. I don’t really like being lectured by another cyclist if I stop for a red light, look at ways, see no one within three blocks, and cruise through. Yes, I know some drivers really resent that, but oh well — if I do nothing to inconvenience them, and they want to curse at me for not obeying the law, I say get a life. But if I cut in front of cars, almost hit a pedestrian, yell at pedestrians and drivers who have the right of way etc. – write me a ticket, tell me I’m an idiot, tell BTA etc.
Of course one problem with the idea of campaigning against obnoxious cyclists is that we don’t have license plates. So ya can’t report them!
(Or, perhaps some people would say, ‘us’).
Sorry I went on so long. I’m looking for wisdom.

Everyone in favor of the law being obeyed and enforced to the letter of the law needs to examine speeding. The police will never pull someone over if they are going 1 mph over the speed limit. People do not drive the speed limit or under the speed limit on arteries. In neighborhoods, like Ladds, it’s safe and polite to drive the speed limit or below the speed limit, but, again, this does not happen on arterials. In terms of speeding, the police rightly exercise discretion when determining who deserves a ticket. The same should happen with bicycles and stop signs (until a law like ID can be passed). If someone doesn’t stop enough, they should get a ticket, but most officers aren’t going to give a bicyclist a ticket if they’re being safe. Same with jaywalking.

One person here also brought up a dilemma for cyclists. Drivers don’t want us in their neighborhoods or arterials.

I would also just like to add that drivers should thank cyclists for sharing the road all the time at the danger to themselves. When cyclists safety is in danger or when we’re riding by lines of parked cars that could door us, we are within our legal rights to take the entire line and make cars slow down behind us. That is legal, but we don’t do it. You’re welcome.

I never have approved of revenue collection with a gun and badge. This BS is worse than speed traps. Sting my ass.

That’s fine. My neighborhood is on NE Broadway and Weidler. I’d like the police to set up a sting there during rush hour and ticket every driver that’s going 1mph or more over the speed limit. Do you see how stupid this is? Please explain why it’s different when ticketing bicyclists?