(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)
The Portland Police Bureau is all set to do a targeted enforcement mission at Ladd Circle today. The action comes after they received complaints from area residents about people rolling through the stop signs.
As regular readers of this site know, this issue has plagued road users in this southeast Portland neighborhood for many years. We first reported about police activities at these stop signs in April 2007. Since then, the lack of compliance and resulting frustration from neighbors who say they’re afraid to walk around the circle and from people who feel the enforcement is unfair and a poor use of police resources, has continued.
On Monday, we received a phone call from PPB Traffic Division Lieutenant Chris Davis. He said he plans to send several officers out for the mission. “We’ve been getting complaints again of people running stop signs out at Ladd Circle,” said Lt. Davis. “We’re having the same issues with bikes and cars running the stop signs.” Lt. Davis said now that school is back in session, the bureau’s biggest concern is the safety of people walking in the area.
We’ve heard from various police sources that the mission might occur this morning and this afternoon.
Since this is such a major bicycling thoroughfare, some people might feel like the police are specifically targeting bicycle riders. But that’s not the case, says Lt. Davis. “They [his officers] have clear direction from me that we don’t just target bicycle riders, that we target anybody who is committing a traffic law violation, in particular one that is dangerous. That’s what we want to focus on.”
Keep in mind, the Traffic Division does enforcement actions like this all the time. They are often the result of citizen complaints and they are usually directed at motor vehicle speeding and/or other motor vehicle-related compliance issues. The PPB knows this is a sensitive topic for bicycle advocates, so they have given BikePortland, the BTA, and PBOT a heads up about today’s action.
If you plan on riding through Ladd Circle today, make sure you ride with extra courtesy and be sure to be on your best behavior. Or, if you simply always ride and drive with respect and care for the law and for other road users, you should have nothing to worry about. And remember, the law says bicycle riders must “cease forward motion,” so you are not required to put a foot down as long as you momentarily stop and then proceed when it’s safe.
— For more on the ongoing saga of the infamous stop signs at Ladd Circle, browse our past coverage.
UPDATE, 8:40 am: A phone call from a reader confirms the police are at the location this morning. 4-5 motorcycle cops and they are very busy. Our caller said there were about 5-6 people on bicycles stopped when he went through.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
If I complain about people with bad haircuts, will the police arrest them? The safety implications are the same.
There is no law regarding bad haircuts. There is a law regarding stop signs. Just stop.
That is funny, rainbike. There are laws against distracted driving, too. And against killing people (with cars), maiming them. I don’t see those enforced with particular zeal around here.
I understand you point, 9watts. The Traffic Division seems to be responding to a rash of citizen complaints around stop sign non-compliance at a particular location. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Perhaps we need a rash of citizen complaints regarding distracted driving at a specific intersection. That might provoke an enforcement action. Of course, these would have to be directed to the Traffic Division, not just posted about here on Bikeportland.
The problem here is this:
(on one hand) there have repeatedly been PERFECTLY VALID complaints from anonymous Ladd Circle residents about people on bicycles not stopping at stop signs. As far as I can tell PPD responds to these consistently.
(on the other hand) there have repeatedly been PERFECTLY VALID complaints from thousands of Portland’s citizens that bicycle or walk as their primary mode of transportation about people driving cars dangerously, not stopping at stop signs and generally killing us. As far as I can tell PPD responds to these rarely if ever.
In both cases something illegal was committed actively by a person. Consistent historical evidence seems to show that people on bicycles can get away with nothing and people driving cars can get away with murder.
This is pathetic… according to PPB and ODOT the 15% of autos that speed on SE Lincoln by 15% (or more) are not worth patrolling for. My children go to the school in question and it is simply not the issue so many think it is. BTW, 26 MPH IN A 25 MPH ZONE IS BREAKING THE LAW TOO! How about the cell phone issue that is NEVER ADDRESSED with a ticket. What a waste of PPB resources. And the guy who says to knock them off their bike… I will laugh at you ’til bedtime.
Thank you Portland Police Department. It is much appreciated seeing you guys out there today as a cyclist, pedestrian, and car driver who passes through here daily. Please perform these regularly.
We’ll gladly trade you our speeding cars for your devastating scourge of stop sign rolling bikes.
The fact is that resources spent on a stop sign enforcement at an intersection where there have been no serious injuries cannot be spent in areas where peds and other vulnerable road users are routinely injured and/or killed. I live near Foster for instance where many peds have been killed and have seen almost no enforcement there unless it’s one of the Mayor’s PR driven photo ops.
You don’t seem to “get it”. The residents who live there don’t like the actions of people blowing stop signs, cars or cyclists. It’s dangerous behavior and they’re calling people out on it. Nothing more. If anyone here doesn’t like it, they can simply stop at the sign and move on with their day. Everybody wins. Hell, man, it took you longer to type your response here than it does to stop at a sign in Ladd’s Addition.
Jeff, I would not begrudge Ladd’s Addition residents their enforcement actions if everywhere in the city with the same level of problems were getting as much enforcement. But the fact is that areas with much WORSE problems are getting NO or very little enforcement (e.g. Division between 82nd and 162nd). So the police should be focusing their energies there. I see this as an equity issue, not a “police should never do things focused on bikes” issue.
In this case “blow” means: to disregard
So you know what the residents of Ladd’s think do you? That’s funny, Jeff, I don’t recall a special election where you were elected as their representative. Call me a jerk but I would gladly trade the “danger” of hundreds of bikes rolling through a stop sign at a traffic circle for the lives of the young women and men who have been slaughtered by inattentive motorists.
Tony,
If you obeyed the laws then they wouldnt need to spend their time here. It is not PPDs fault, it is those disregarding the law in which are causing money and time to be spent here.
It is funny how they won’t put such focus on neighborhoods where the median property value is less than 1/2 a million.
man who knew my property values in fopo had jumped up that much. i’d swear they’ve been doing crosswalk enforcement here every once in awhile.
While I have always made an concerted effort to stop at the Ladd stop signs, can we all agree that the proper functioning of a roundabout (for both cars and bikes) is to be a YIELD? The roundabout is one the the simplest right of way intersections – you yield to users already in the one-way roundabout and proceed when safe. An entire continent (Europe) understands this, but for some reason we have stop signs at all the roundabouts in Portland. I will continue to dutifully stop at them, but really they make zero sense.
Also, if your situational awareness is so low that you don’t see a cop waiting, then you likely deserve the ticket. Always scan the area ahead for hazards…
And in the meantime, after years of trying to get enforcement for multi-thousand pound vehicles speeding through our neighborhood, we get nothing.
(as I type this I can hear car after car ripping down our street, easily doing 30mph in a 20mph zone)
After years of trying to get enforcement of multi-thousand pound vehicles entering our street at an intersection clearly marked DO NOT ENTER, we get nothing.
I guess our houses aren’t expensive enough here in our humble neighborhood to earn the periodic display of mustachioed motorcycle cop dominance.
This is beyond absurd. Somebody get a count of how many motorcycle cops are doing this because this “we don’t have the manpower” excuse is a pathetic lie.
+1
It’s easy! Just raise the per capita income in you area to as high as it is in Ladd’s and you will see some real results!
Do you think if I make phone calls to the police about cars speeding through my neighborhood and rolling through stop signs while drivers are on their cell phones the PPB would do anything? No. So I don’t bother trying. I live in Cully. We’re still waiting for sidewalks. These ‘safety patrols’ are infuriating because I lived on Clinton for years, and Ladds is just about as safe as it can get in Portland, using any mode of transportation. You could probably do cartwheels around those roundabouts and be safe. It’s a misuse of budget at best.
“Do you think if I make phone calls to the police about cars speeding through my neighborhood and rolling through stop signs while drivers are on their cell phones the PPB would do anything? No. So I don’t bother trying. …” Sarah
If you don’t bother trying…you’re part of the reason why your neighborhood continues to have issues you dislike. Do something.
“And in the meantime, after years of trying to get enforcement for multi-thousand pound vehicles speeding through our neighborhood, we get nothing. …” tonyt
People here seem to be listening to your claim. Lay it out in full detail, perhaps in a guest article bikeportland may be willing to offer you, detailing what efforts you and your neighborhood have made to bring traffic through your neighborhood around to passing through it in a safer, more livable manner. You may also consider bringing your plea to the new PBOT director, Leah Treat.
On the other hand, I doubt making snide, unfounded assumptions and accusations that neighborhood quality of housing garners it assignment of traffic details, is probably going to help you out.
“that we target anybody who is committing a traffic law violation, in particular one that is dangerous.”
Would the Lt like to compare the fatality stats of bikes rolling stop signs and cars speeding?
How about distracted driving?!I thought we’d moved on from this sort of nonsense. In the grand scheme of priorities, dangerousness, this is just a joke, and not because as Mamacita will no doubt think or say, I am a member of the bike evangelists, whatever that is, but because it is just silly. No one to my knowledge has ever been injured or killed by someone on a bike running a stop sign in Ladd’s. The PPB in their own training video admitted that this is no longer a priority for them.
really? that’s your metric? fatalities? no law enforcement should take place until someone dies? beautiful thinking, man, just beautiful.
“that’s your metric? fatalities? no law enforcement should take place until someone dies?”
How about this – Let’s start with focusing law enforcement’s attention there, eh?
When we’ve solved all those let’s move on to the trivial stuff like stop signs and bikes.
Obviously not trivial to those who called in the complaints. Perhaps trivial to those committing the infractions, though.
I’ll be sure to phone it in next time I’m killed.
I’m sure it isn’t trivial to those who called in the complaints. But perhaps we can agree that just because someone squeaks a lot doesn’t automatically mean society has to or should do their bidding, agree with them that it is all-important, eh?
Um, I think that’s not quite what was meant. But does anyone think the goal of law enforcement should be to keep society “safe”? Show of hands? Well, then should not law enforcement focus on more dangerous things first, regardless of fatal outcomes or lack thereof? Now sure, if a traffic officer is patrolling through Ladd’s, and happens to catch an unwary traveler failing to stop at a STOP sign, then by all means cite that offender for breaking the law. But, should a whole cadre of officers be pulled from other patrol duties to monitor a specific location where nothing bad happens? Meanwhile, speeding drivers at other notorious locations are actually killing people.
Anyway, waiting for fatalities is the roadway design change metric, not the law enforcement metric.
I go through this circle daily and make sure to put a foot down despite that fact that its completely ridiculous to have stop signs at a circle. the whole point of the circle is to keep things flowing in a controlled fashion.
Its easy picking to fill the coffers…
“…I go through this circle daily …” matt providence
But you don’t say you live there. To people living in Ladd’s Addition and walking through the circles, the enforcement details may not seem as ridiculous as it does to people like yourself.
Citation please.
For every 50 bikes that go through Ladd’s there is likely 1-2 people walking in the circle. Now, how many of those people do you think actually care enough to complain? Citizen complaints aren’t why the cops are there wsbob. They are there because it is easy pickings to justify their overweight meter maid avoidance of actual police work lifestyle. Despicable. Portland cops rank among the most useless.
On the flip side, if there are that many fewer walking pedestrians and they do complain at a higher rate, that suggests something is going on with the cyclists.
Please explain what you are saying. I am not sure from your comment what you mean.
“For every 50 bikes that go through Ladd’s there is likely 1-2 people walking in the circle. Now, how many of those people do you think actually care enough to complain? Citizen complaints aren’t why the cops are there wsbob. …” Scott
Indications are there is a high ratio of people on bikes to people driving through Ladd’s, and apparently to people on foot walking Ladd’s sidewalks through the neighborhood’s garden circles.
The relatively high number of bikes traveling through Ladd’s is likely due to what’s become a gradually increased use of mainly Ladd Ave by people riding bikes, as a cut-through away from thoroughfare traffic consisting largely of motor vehicles on the neighborhood’s perimeter (look at a map for a better sense of Ladd’s comparatively unique to anywhere else in Portland or possibly in the Metro area, diagonals within a square plat.).
Basically what seems to have happened, is that Ladd’s Addition’s central diagonal street has become coincidentally subject to very high numbers of people biking for commuting and other purposes. A disproportionate number of people riding through Ladd’s compared to streets on the perimeter or elsewhere.
I wouldn’t venture to say how many people from Ladd’s may be filing complaints with the city and the police about vehicle traffic behavior on the neighborhood’s streets, but given the situation there, I’d be surprised if there weren’t at least quite a number of people in the neighborhood unhappy with the indifferent attitude of some road users to their neighborhood, and finding themselves moved to take action. Ladd’s resident complaints probably aren’t the only reason traffic control enforcement details are conducted in Ladd’s, but they’re most likely happening, and serving as a very important factor in the details happening.
If anyone really feels a need to confirm more definitely whether, or to what extent enforcement details for a given area are initiated by resident complaints, or by whatever other reason, they probably ought to go about doing whatever is necessary to get the answers from the city.
wsbob,
I’ve read some of your posts and it strikes me, and I’m sure others, that you try to infer that you are not a resident of Ladd’s Special Addition, just a concerned citizen. I’m skeptical that you are simply a bystander in this non issue for Portland. After a wee bit of research it appears that you are a regular on this biannual topic (due to the 2 times per year that the landed gentry of Ladd’s Addition gets the City to respond to their distaste of ugly bicyclers), with dozens of posts on this blog over a number of years. Wow.
There are other options. Cable TV, painting, online dating, etc. I find it odd and offensive that you are so focused on representing the poor folks of Ladd’s. Perhaps you should run for City Council?
Criminy! It’s absurd to spend this amount of time (much less the City’s time and money) on this issue. I’m mortified that I’ve allowed myself to be sucked into this waste of time and resources!
Methinks you doth protest too loudly.
“I’ve read some of your posts and it strikes me, and I’m sure others, that you try to infer that you are not a resident of Ladd’s Special Addition, just a concerned citizen. …youdogsgit
I’m a long time resident of the big sub-metropolis of Beaverton.
The unique in some ways, traffic situation Ladd’s Addition is faced with, is a worthy one to think and write about, because associated issues of both safety and livability arising from road use, whatever the mode of travel, of neighborhood streets, may be ones neighborhoods elsewhere, if they haven’t already, may eventually find themselves having to deal with.
Many people seem to like to regard biking as some kind of ‘great new hope’ for cities. Maybe it can be, or already is to some extent, but when people that ride, decide to indifferently regard infrastructure installed to help sustain basic livability neighborhoods have every right to expect, this tends to take some of the glow off that ‘great new hope’.
Would I want any neighborhood in Beaverton to have to deal with this rampant self indulgent stop sign ignoring nonsense Ladd’s Additions residents have to deal with at their garden circles. No way.
Bad examples such as that many of the people that through-bike in Ladd’s have been making, can resonate far beyond a relatively small neighborhood.
The infrastructure in Ladd’s was designed to be stop sign free and to slow car traffic and make it nicer for bikes. Do your research, wsbob.
“The infrastructure in Ladd’s was designed to be stop sign free and to slow car traffic and make it nicer for bikes. Do your research, wsbob.”
Nicer, not only for bikes, and most likely not for bikes first, but instead…first, for pedestrians and next for the neighborhood itself. Following neighborhoods and pedestrians in order of consideration relative to street safety and livability qualities sought to be preserved, would be people’s use of vehicles.
In other words, in a neighborhood, the interests of people operating vehicles on neighborhood streets, are, or should be subordinate to the needs and interests of people walking in the neighborhood, living in the neighborhood, or both as the case may be.
Here in comments to past bikeportland stories about road user abuse of Ladd Addition neighborhood streets, someone may have offered info about when the neighborhood first had stop signs installed at the garden circle intersections. I don’t remember what date was suggested they were installed, or even if a reason for their being installed was offered, but as I recall, those signs have been in place for decades. As to exactly when and why they were installed, if that’s something you need verification of, certainly go ahead and do some research yourself. Post your findings here.
I think the stop signs’ presence at the garden circle intersections is self explanatory. Given that, according to wikipedia’s page, Ladd’s was platted around 1891, with houses built there starting around 1905…most likely, compared to today, there was little vehicle traffic, and almost no motor vehicle traffic. There may have been years in earlier times, when the stop signs were not needed. At some time, I expect as population increased, development expanded, and traffic also increased, increases in abuse of the neighborhood intersections occurred, prompting requests for placement of stop signs at the garden circle’s intersections.
“”-wsbob
The traffic friendly design makes it absolutely no surprise why people choose to bike through there, wsbob. but in all of Ladd’s, the only crosswalks and stop signs are the ones in the center circle. That’s it. So anywhere else that there is bikes and pedestrians meeting up, it’s just a courtesy if bikes, cars, trucks, or whatever stop to let them cross. So at 8 crossings (by design) in an area smaller than a city block (the center circle) there have been enough pedestrian complaints to warrant 4-5 police coming out 2-3 times a year? Sorry wsbob, that is thin to nonexistent even just under the sniff test.
Scott, you’re misinformed. Every corner is a crosswalk in Oregon, whether there’s a painted crosswalk or not. And, there are painted crosswalks at a number of other intersections in Ladd’s (SE Ladd & Palm comes to mind).
“The traffic friendly design makes it absolutely no surprise why people choose to bike through there …” Scott
And apparently, people are entirely welcome to ride their bikes through Ladd’s, if they’re willing to observe neighborhood safety and livability, by either fully stopping, or slowing to a walking speed as appropriate…at stop signs in the neighborhood.
“…So at 8 crossings (by design) in an area smaller than a city block (the center circle) there have been enough pedestrian complaints to warrant 4-5 police coming out 2-3 times a year? Sorry wsbob, that is thin to nonexistent even just under the sniff test.” Scott
You haven’t shared your layman’s opinion with bikeportland’s readers, as to how many pedestrian complaints, resident or otherwise, this or any other neighborhood in town, should be obliged to make, and under what circumstances, before the PD should feel obliged to initiate an enforcement detail.
Whether people are complaining or not, it’s wrong for people as road users, to not be following basic traffic controls. This particular neighborhood is an example of apparently a large number of people on bikes and in cars traveling through the neighborhood, chronically failing to comply with stop signs, and in doing so, failing also to show due regard for a place in town where people reside. In my layman’s opinion, this poor road user conduct, alone perhaps justifies the stop sign enforcement details conducted in this neighborhood.
I used to live there. And I used to commute through there when I didn’t live there. I never had a problem with anyone running the stop signs into the circle.
The main problem was on Ladd itself, where aggressive drivers would often pass way too close… and then I would usually catch up to them at the lights at either end. Unless you catch those lights just right, you’ll be waiting for a while.
Does this anecdotal evidence warrant a sting to catch people speeding through Ladd’s?
FWIW, I saw a car pulled over when I rode through Ladd’s this morning.
It’s not just the people living there, the elementary school in Ladd’s has boundaries that reach beyond Ladd’s Addition. Our kids are walking through that neighborhood too. I’ve had cars blow the stop sign into the circle (going from Hawthorne to Division) on my left as I roll to a stop. I’m stopping to check for kids that might be walking down the sidewalk and popping out into the crosswalk. I watched the last driver who did this carefully in my side mirror and then looking right at him. He never glanced right at all. Maybe he was avoiding my gaze? Whatever, he only looked left and proceeded into the circle with no brake lights that I could see. Infuriating. I sure as hell wished there was some enforcement that day.
I feel so sorry for the poor people of Ladd’s Addition. How can they persist through such difficult times. Is there a website that I can contribute money to? I just want to help these folks overcome such trying circumstances!
I live just off of Harrison east of the main circle. I bike daily and am sympathetic to the desire to not stop at the stop sign, but here is my problem with it. When you are coming from Harrison to try and get into the circle and bikes blow through the stop sign, you come so close to hitting them. It takes bikes about three seconds to get from “out of site” before the stop sign to right in front of Harrison. Trying to time it so I can pull out in my car and hope a bike doesnt blow through the stop sign is tricky and I have nearly hit half a dozen bikes. My wife wont even drive that way anymore because of this issue. Bikes only look left to oncoming traffic in the circle and pay no attention to the fact that they cannot be seen yet by cars pulling out into the lane. It is legitimately a safety issue in this situation.
Agreed. Time to normalize the traffic circle to the same standards as the rest of the world which promotes traffic flow.
CONVERT TO YIELD NOW!!!!! Let that be your rallying cry!
I say we start sending complaints about cars not fully stopping at stop signs. Which I believe is a lot more dangerous.
well, what are the fatality statistics for that in Ladd’s?
if it is zero, then it is just an not dangerous as cyclists.
i thought bikers ride to reduce the consumption of gas, though anyone with half a brain knows that cars waste the most fuel starting from complete stops. shouldn’t you all be praising cars that roll through stops? although i know this site is frequented by hypocrites who eat meat & cheese, have 5 kids, and dress head to toe in petroleum products (aka spandex), yet call themselves environmentalists. flame on…
Meanwhile, the death toll mounts from distracted speeding drivers, who have “accidents” all over our high speed arterials. Say what you want about existing laws and all that, but the fact remains that the PPB makes a value judgement with this enforcement. And those values are: take care of the whiny rich people.
A stop sign sting at Flint and Broadway is rarely far behind one at Ladds Circle. Just saying.
Or the stupidest urban stop sign in America, Couch and Broadway.
Really? I love that stop sign. Couch is one of my main routes, and it’s *way* easier to cross there now than it used to be (on foot and bike). Granted, it seems a little silly because there’s a signalized intersection just a block away, but the stop sign at Couch makes that whole section much friendlier and safer.
Just had one two weeks ago. I live/work in the apartment at this corner and it was hard to get work done because of the comedy stylings of the moto cop and his megaphone.
Or…enforcement for folks that don’t stop on southbound Skyline where it meets Hwy 26.
+1M
If I had to choose one place where I have been threatened or nearly hit most often, it would be the 14′ x 10′ rectangle bounded by the crosswalk lines, the curb, and the invisible continuation of the lane marking in the SB right turn lane of Skyline at US26. If you would like to see a large concentration of entitled road users, camp out here and watch those drivers making rights on red from Skyline onto WB 26…
If you’re reading this than you’re probably already at work, but they’re stationed in pairs or triplicates at SE 25th + Clinton, SE 21st + Clinton, and Ladd’s Circle…and they’re gettin’ after it.
On the one hand, I appreciate the effort because I think we often forget just how many traffic laws – minor or major – we might disobey on any given commute into town. On the other hand, its a disappointment that they decided to target riders during BTA’s Bike Commute Challenge month. It seems like the City of Portland could have picked a different time and instead been out in force to support people riding this month and just given gentle reminders to slow down, be courteous, stop, etc. I really think they could have been more creative and supportive and still arrive at the same outcome.
I saw at least five people getting pulled over on my way into town and the cop who pulled the fellow over right in front of me at SE 25th + Clinton just started yelling at him in very close proximity to his face, “DIDN”T YOU SEE THAT STOP SIGN? WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU DON’T HAVE TO STOP JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE ON A BIKE?” I wanted to stop and film him, but the moment passed and the rider was completely humiliated.
Not very productive or in line with the community’s overall objectives to support active transportation.
I think the way this is being handled is shameful.
Kristin Dahl
It’s a valid question. Why do people think they don’t have to stop?
A valid question my eye. Why don’t drivers think they need to drive the speed limit? Why don’t drivers think they need to yield to pedestrians or cyclists in a bike lane? Why don’t drivers think they need to stop before making a right on red? All valid questions, probably never yelled into the face of a driver on the rare occasion they are stopped for any of the above. I always thought the “valid question” first asked by officers at a traffic stop was “do you know why I stopped you today?” That an officer would immediately start yelling at someone rather than calmly writing them a citation indicates a pretty hefty helping of mode bias on the officer’s part.
Just because you’re in a car, why don’t you think you need to use your turn signals? The list goes on….
That is BS. Drivers do think they need to drive the speed limit, yield etc. A MINORITY of drivers do not obey the law, and yes, there are strings for those all the time!
And don’t fall down the logical fallacy that because some drivers don’t follow the rules of the road, bikes don’t have to either. Everyone should follow the laws all the time. Why can’t that be the argument made on this webpage?
The point isn’t who has to stop and who doesn’t. The point is the different treatment observed toward those stopped for a relatively harmless offense (yelling and scolding) vs. those stopped for the same or much worse offenses–if only because they are committed in a car, which has far, far greater damage potential. Why would an officer yell and scream at a cyclist, when they would never consider doing that to a motorist? In replying to a comment about unprofessional and demeaning treatment of a citizen by a police officer, why would “jeff” overlook that to make the point that “it’s a valid question”? I merely pointed out that many very similar “valid questions” are perhaps asked every day of motorists without the unprofessional conduct.
“And don’t fall down the logical fallacy that because some drivers don’t follow the rules of the road, bikes don’t have to either. Everyone should follow the laws all the time. Why can’t that be the argument made on this webpage?”
Don’t fall down the logical fallacy of believing that comparisons of relative harm are equal to excusing illegal behavior. I will never agree that I have some legal right to break the law when riding my bike just because drivers do it too. I will state that if I’m on my bike and I break the law by, oh, say, coasting through a stop sign–or even blowing through it at full speed–I’ll ever-so-rarely, if ever, be able to cause the same amount of damage as a car if I run into something. Again, don’t get caught up in the fallacy that I’m arguing for some excuse to get out of tickets if I break the law, but do understand that if you or I are driving a car, it is a much bigger responsibility than most people imagine it to be.
I agree that you running into something will not cause the same damage, except you are putting your own life at risk, as well as the psychological well being of a driver if they hit you. Mistakes happen, you may not see the car that has the right of way and is proceeding. Sure, 99% of the time you will make a good judgement call and not proceed in front of a car. But if one time you make a mistake, and proceed in front of a car, you will most certainly be gravely injured. A lot of traffic laws targeted at motorists are not just for the public safety but for the safety of motorists themselves such as seat belt laws. I will not cause any more damage to someone else if I am not wearing my seat belt, but I will be ticketed if I am spotted without one on.
Laws do not exist solely to prevent damage to the public. Traffic laws exist primarily to create an orderly, predictable environment on the road. With so many different modes of transportation on the roads today, and with the shear number of folks using the roads, the creation of a predictable, orderly environment is paramount. And I am sorry, but I would like to be able to predict whether a bike is going to obey the stop sign or not.
“I will not cause any more damage to someone else if I am not wearing my seat belt”
False. Belts prevent car occupants from smashing into each other inside the car and they keep the driver in position to control the vehicle.
“I would like to be able to predict whether a bike is going to obey the stop sign or not.”
In my riding or driving I make the same prediction for bikes or cars: they won’t stop. So far it has served me well. Knock on wood.
If you blow through a stop sign and slam into my 5 year old would that cause less damage than a car? Cars don’t blow through stop signs at 20 mph. Cars rolling through a stop sign at say 5-10mph is less of a threat to me and my family than someone on a bike doing 20 so that argument is bunk
Cars don’t blow through stop signs at 20 mph. Cars rolling through a stop sign at say 5-10mph is less of a threat to me and my family than someone on a bike doing 20 so that argument is bunk
“If you blow through a stop sign and slam into my 5 year old would that cause less damage than a car? ”
Yep.
“Cars don’t blow through stop signs at 20 mph.” But you assume I do. A car rolling through at 10mph will do a lot more damage than me rolling my bike through at my usual 1 – 7mph.
“Cars rolling through a stop sign at say 5-10mph is less of a threat to me and my family than someone on a bike doing 20 so that argument is bunk”
I think you can read a newspaper and discover for yourself whether–in real life, now–scofflaw cyclists or scofflaw drivers are “less of a threat”. I have a three-year-old of my own, so I am particularly vigilant for the presence of small children and am aware of their unpredictability. Sort of like as a cyclist, I am more aware of other cyclists and their expected behaviors when I drive. Do you ride a bike in traffic with any frequency?
I did a bike count this year at SE 6th & Ankeny. It was a slow day, so I started paying attention to who stopped at an uncontested intersection. The result was no one. Not a single person, car or bike, stopped, and there were many more cars than bikes.
I would argue that a majority of people do not obey the law all the time. If you would like more evidence, go drive the speed limit on a free flowing interstate.
Oregon’s Basic Law states that a motorist should drive with the flow of traffic. I do not agree with motorists speeding, but if we are talking safety, a motorist driving 50 on Banfield with medium traffic is actually creating a less safe environment for everyone around them.
byr, no one was talking about 50 on the Banfield. They were talking about compliance with stop-sign law, which is unequivocally to stop. Please apply rigor and discipline to your own thinking and actions (especially while weighing two tons) before sounding off against others.
Well, Greg did mention going the speed limit on a freeway, arguing that a majority of people driving cars do not obey the law all the time, but byr is simply wrong about 811.100, the Basic Speed Rule. It doesn’t say anything about “flow of traffic” or slower speeds. It says, “A person commits the offense of violating the basic speed rule if the person drives a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent…”
Wait, isn’t the speed limit 55 on the Banfield? So 50 given medium traffic seems perfectly reasonable to me….
because, as Idaho has proved, there’s no danger in a bicycle rolling through a stop sign when they would normally have the right of way…
Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps because for most people, most of the time, at this location there’s no cross traffic, and in most of the world a traffic circle like this doesn’t have a stop sign… Just guessing.
Wait, this was at 25th/Clinton, not Ladd Circle. That probably means the intersection where the stop didn’t happen was 26th/Clinton (not the 2 stop signs on 25th). This completely FUBAR intersection is one where EVERYONE should stop. Are you aware that people (in cars and on bikes) going northbound on SE 26th cannot see people who are stopped and waiting to go westbound on SE Clinton? There’s a telephone pole that blocks even bakfietsen with bright red Radio Flyer canopies from view. If they can’t see me, they can’t see anybody. Shrugging off the stop here because you’ve got momentum and think it’s clear is insane. Maybe other places but not this one, and it’s because of that pole and the fact that Clinton jogs a bit.
But, if the yelling in the face of the person on the bike had happened at Ladd’s, and be behind you 100%.
Reading these comments really disappoints me, because almost almost all the comments are “but cars!”
At oregonlive.com, almost all the comments are “but bikes!”
There are so many people on the low road, it becomes of traffic jam of finger-pointing.
It is not too much to ask to stop at a stop sign, tap your foot down briefly, and resume your commute.
Todd,
I think that is a false equivalence. We are not kids in the sandbox where Jimmy says “It was Johnny.” And Johnny yells, No, it was Jimmy!” People riding bikes don’t kill 30,000 people a year. They barely manage to kill one or two in a bad year. Even in Portland you see the same imbalance. Same for injuries.
9…
speaking of false equivalences….all that matters is what goes on at the stop sign in question….not how many people are killed nationwide. And if local residents have complained about it, likely there is an issue.
“all that matters is what goes on at the stop sign in question”
Talk about a narrow field of vision. I think at least 60% of the comments here suggest that this is exactly the problem: Those who complain from Ladd’s, and the police who do their bidding, seem to agree with you. All that matters is what is going on at the crossing near my house!
This action is a feel-good stunt. Nothing more. The intersection is not made safer, because it wasn’t unsafe to begin with. It was no doubt unnerving to be buzzed by someone one a bike, and I don’t think we need to minimize that, or let those callous imps off the hook, but the police’s main job isn’t to ‘teach those ruffians a lesson;’ it is or should be to enforce laws that actually correspond to harm.
“if local residents have complained about it, likely there is an issue.”
How can you be so sure? No, I suspect this is instead a reflection of good neighborhood organizing, and I applaud the residents for that. You (and the police) are confusing the ability and focus of the residents to repeatedly make a lot of targeted noise with a problem deserving of repeated police time.
Furthermore as we’ve seen in these comments, many have complained across the city where traffic conditions are actually believably dangerous. And yet by their own accounts no police ever show up. Is this because there is less of a problem there than in Ladd’s or because fewer of the bikeportland poster’s neighbors also called in, repeatedly? You tell me.
Asking cyclists to put their foot down at every stop sign is the equivalent of asking drivers to put their cars in park for a brief second. What does it accomplish?
The law does not require bicyclist to put a foot down, the law only requires forward movement to stop.
Which for most people means putting a foot down.
True, but that is very different from the law requiring you to put your foot down. You cannot (or should not) get a ticket for lack of “foot to roadway contact” at a stop sign.
But not, apparently, to the cops working Ladd’s Addition this morning.
Or you could training wheels on your bike. Jeez, if you stop a motorcycle you have to put a foot down…
What you are failing to note is the critical part:
IF THERE IS NO ONE WHOSE RIGHT OF WAY YOU WOULD DISTURB.
Given that so many people here and all over around town fail to understand that, we will continue to have this discussion. Sure, Idaho stops would be great, but if people don’t recognize now when they are about to cut off another cyclist, pedestrian or motorist, why should they be let further off the hook?
Maybe we shouldn’t all be in such a hurry.
Right, let’s ask all pedestrians to come to a complete stop at stop signs too. Bikes should fall somewhere between cars & pedestrians on the scale of proceeding safely through an intersection.
The fact is Todd that these are not limitless resources. They should be prioritized by the history or potential of deaths, injuries, or serious economic damage. And keep in mind that most of us on here are also drivers and we STILL would like to see motor vehicles prioritized.
It’s kind of that thinking that has changed the way I approach the stop sign issue. Instead of saying, but cars break laws too!! I’ve started saying, yeah I don’t come to a complete stop either, it’s not practical.
1. There is no legal requirement to “tap your foot down”.
2. When cyclists treat stop signs as yields there is no increase in accidents.
3. Laws that are of no compelling interest to society have a very low compliance rate.
4. Deal with it.
I’m not disagreeing per se, but I really would like to know where you’re getting the information to state No. 2 as a fact?
Assessment of cycling injuries/accidents after implementation of the Idaho stop law:
bclu.org/jmeggs-TRB-IDAHO-AUG10.pdf
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3311182.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9067129/Paris-cyclists-given-right-to-break-traffic-laws.html
The measure is already being tested in Bordeaux, Strasbourg and Nantes, where “these experiments have led to no rise in the number of accidents,” according to Paris’ town hall.
“On my daily bike run I go through three red lights so it saves me time,” Caroline, a cyclist in Nantes, told RTL radio. “I just need to look left to see whether a car or even a bike is coming. It works very smoothly.” Belgium, Germany and Scandinavia already apply the rule.
“It makes cycle traffic more fluid and avoids bunching up cyclists when the traffic lights go green for motorists,” said municipal authorities.
sweet,
I will use my own judgment about which signs to roll in my car….especially if there is no other traffic.
Well, join the club! Lots of drivers do that already, especially if they are turning right. I rarely see the wheels of motor vehicles come to a stop at STOP signs–and I’m a wheel-watcher. One of the only times I will see a car come to a complete stop is when the intersection is backed up. Even then, I notice that a majority of drivers will “stop” by slowly creeping until it is their turn. Plus, I almost–almost–never see drivers stop behind a crosswalk prior to creeping.
I takes a lot of energy for a biker to completely stop and then resume biking, when a slow down to ensure it’s safe to proceed is just as efficient and in some cases MORE safe. It’s called inertia.
A waste of valuable police resources. They should be data driven, not PR driven.
I’ve come around a little on this since moving into Ladd’s and riding around the circle almost everyday. I think there’s a huge distinction between people who are going flat out coming out of downtown or Division the other way and making NO effort to even think about touching their brakes (which happens frequently if you pay attention), and people who do slow down enough where they don’t stop, but can at least navigate anything coming or going safely. I don’t think you have anything to worry about if you do slow down enough to get in that second category; you’re not gonna get a ticket if you do anything other than put your foot down and wait for five seconds while swiveling your head both ways twice.
I’ve had a bunch of close calls in the last two years with people who will be flying through the stop sign while I’m angling to drop off of Harrison and can’t only not be bothered to stop, but can’t even turn their head to see who they’re cutting off, and it is never fun.
In other words, cry me a river if you’re idea of cycling is going through Ladd’s at full speed and not even acknowledging the stop sign. Pick another battle to fight that gives you that self-righteous feeling.
I doubt if you’ll find anyone interested in excusing that sort of behavior. As a matter of fact, in the rare instance that someone does try to justify that on these forums, they get pretty quickly smacked down. Seems pretty apparent that the main beef here is prioritizing the enforcement based on what regularly injures and kills people.
And in my case, my neighbors and I would like to get SOME sort of attention here, on a greenway, 2 blocks from a school. With all due respect, Ladd’s Addition has gotten more than it’s fair share of enforcements.
Totally agreed. I think any discerning eye can take a look at the types of homes in Ladd’s and surmise as to why the PPD always seems to be so responsive to citizen concern. Sucks that we have to think that way.
I don’t think Ladd’s needs less of these type enforcement details, but areas like yours should have more of them, or at least some.
http://bikeportland.org/2013/09/18/stop-police-will-target-ladd-circle-stop-sign-violators-today-94117#comment-4437080
They are pulling over people who slow to a crawl, look both ways, and toodle through at 7 mph. This action is cynical political theater that panders to an irrational and angry minority.
“…and toodle through at 7 mph. …” spare_wheel
7 mph is twice normal walking speed. That’s not a crawl, Rolling through at walking speed may reasonably garner some slack, but 7 mph probably wouldn’t.
Best comment on here. You are so right. I was ticketed for this exact action but slogged through at about 2mph.
There should not be a stop sign at the roundabout in the first place. You simply yield to the traffic on your left or allow people to cross on foot.
I love this recycled argument. Dude, since it has stop signs it’s NOT A TRAFFIC CIRCLE.
Well, what is it then, if not a traffic circle?
actually, because it has stop signs it’s a traffic circle…
if it didn’t have stop signs then it would be a round-a-bout…
Yeah, I’m sure you love this argument and you must be used to it by now. It’s likely not going away until they change the stop signs to yields just like every other town, city and country does with a traffic circle.
I’m relatively new to Portland and am astonished that gentrified segments of town can create this much attention to what everyone knows is a non issue in terms of safety or law. We’re really talking about one stop sign per commute for most commuters. I guess you have nothing else to complain about but to put it in perspective there are a lot of people with far worse problems, including here in Pdx.
I too am lucky to live in a quiet part of town, with nice houses, and low crime. I happen to live on a bike route and routinely watch cyclists slow for stop signs and proceed if there are no pedestrians or traffic. Yes, there is the occasional bad actor but proportionally to what I witness from motorists it’s not comparable. I’m far more concerned about major traffic violations, drug use, theft, and white collar crime. Hard to imaging how this rises to the top for the City when there’s an obvious solution that just requires some modest investment in infrastructure.
I commute nearly every day by bike and use the Ladd’s bike route. In four years of commuting on this route I have seen no major issues other than a cyclist going nuts on a car that cut him off at one of the roundabouts.
On my commute home today I saw motorists run 3 red lights at each major stop light I was at. Pretty bizarre to see several cyclists pulled over for not coming to a “complete” stop on the same day. Go figure. Welcome to Portlandia.
tah ffffffn dah!!!!! the winning answer. andy should receive a month supply of free beer and inner tubes for this concise and simple solution. because its the correct one.
americans don’t understand this concept
It won’t kill anyone to briefly pause at a stop sign. I won’t even hurt anyone.
Neither does treating these signs as yield signs. I don’t think many comments here are about anyone’s need to flout the law, Todd. I think they are about the absurdity of focusing on this when there are real problems the PPB could be dealing with this morning.
Distracted driving kills thousands of people every year. Why are we even bothering with this at all? It is a vanity project because the PPB has a code that stipulates ‘~once we receive so many complaints, we have to go enforce the law.’
The PPB could just tell the Ladd’s folks to take a hike. They’re over on Foster and 71st because that is where pedestrians are actually killed. But no.
Have you called and requested enforcement of distracted driving laws? I have! I called and requested enforcement for distracted driving and speeding on N Interstate 4 or 5 times over the years, I have yet to see a crew of motorcycle cops come to my rescue!
No, that’s just a cyclist’s rationalization to continue their own unlawful behavior.
And it won’t kill drivers to slow down. As a matter of fact, many people DO die because drivers won’t slow down. Let’s compare fatality stats and prioritize enforcement based on that.
*sigh*
This is what you get… I’m not shocked at all.
There are only two stop signs that are being watched politically.
Its not very hard to stop for just one sign.
My thought exactly. They have this enforcement almost every 6 months it seems. If people would just at least slow down substantially at the intersection they would go away (and then the PPB would be free to do all the other things everyone on here is suggesting they do instead).
We all know these stop signs are being closely watched, so just patronize them and stop. It’s like we’re continually poking the sleeping bear.
Bottom line is: even though it’s a stupid stop sign, it’s still there and it’s still the law. If we want equal respect as a road vehicle we need to act like one.
Yes, FALSE equivalency, 9wattts is right. Bikes just don’t pose the same danger that cars do. Cars kill and injure tens of thousands, bikes hardly any.
And Todd Hudson is right too, it is not too much to ask drivers of cars to stop at a stop sign, tap your foot down briefly, and resume your commute.
This part of town sure does see a lot of precious police resources compared to areas where pedestrians are routinely mowed down. Shameful.
And having stop signs at a round about is just ridiculous.
There is only one stop sign in question….so comparing national stats to this one stop sign is indeed a false equivalency.
I bike through Ladd’s almost every day (but randomly, not today), and the majority of bicyclists act like tools there. They do look left for car / bike traffic before rolling the stop sign, but I would guess no more than 10% look to the right for pedestrians. It takes a special kind of jerk to go full speed through a stop sign in front of someone walking their kids to school / daycare.
Looking to the right at the stop signs would also let you see the cops when they do these stings, giving you a chance to stop and not get a ticket, so it seems to me this is a habit that more people might like to adopt.
I’ll argue that this enforcement is a misuse of resources but at the same time I really don’t have too much sympathy for anyone who gets busted. If you’re not aware enough to see the cop, you’re obviously not aware enough to proceed without stopping.
Agreed. the vast majority of cyclists through there are inconsiderate tools trying to save themselves about 3 seconds on an otherwise slow commute. I hope the enforcement continues.
Man, you’ve really got a thing for Ladd’s Addition. I didn’t realize that it was some sort of club. Funny how you can label and generalize a group of people who are simply commuting by bike as inconsiderate tools. I think that your name calling is likely more emblematic of what kind of person you are.
it’s not a generalization when you see so many of them acting toolish, it’s just a reality.
As the proverb says, “the foolish sayings of a rich man pass for wise ones”.
I live less than a mile east from the police station on the high cfash corridor called Burnside. Although I have seen pull overs (DUI’s mostly), as far
as far as I can tell, even though commuters SPEED down the hill all the time there has never been an actual sting in ten years. Lots of accidents and 911calls though. How many cyclist/ped crashes have there been at Ladd’s circle?
isn’t there a felony hit and run that is still unsolved?
Yes, and Bush and Cheney have not been tried for war crimes….therefore all other enforcement activities should cease because they have not been tried yet.
confirmed…
26th and Clinton…
21st and Clinton…
and Ladd circle…
mostly bicycles being pulled over… but I did see a couple of cars pulled over…
a newer resident of Portland pulled up next to me and asked if this was normal… I assured her that it wasn’t…
I scream negligence… while they’re focused on a bicycle there’s a multi-ton motor-vehicle that’s much more dangerous breaking the law… when they arrive at a fight and see a guy with a gun and a guy with a knife do you think they’re going to focus on the guy with the knife? no, they focus on the person that’s most dangerous… unless that person is on a bike…
Agreed.
“A cyclist in San Francisco killed a pedestrian last year! We’re just making sure that doesn’t happen here in Portland!”
Lad’s Stop Signs are Yield Signs by design. If they really wanted to make a point, they’d pick a Stop with actual cross-traffic, like anything along 28th, where I see riders run stops regularly – at full speed – without looking at the traffic coming from both directions.
Lt Davis is requesting officers cite anyone who is doing something “dangerous”. Rolling through a stop sign on a bicycle at 5 mph although absolutely illegal (and potentially annoying to others), is not very dangerous.
This thread is kind of sad to me. I stop at stop signs (I rarely put a foot down, but I always pause), and I was rear-ended by another cyclist last week when doing so. He blamed me. Reading all your comments, save a couple, I’d imagine you all feel the same way.
Please ride legally and safely…not just safely. When Idaho stops become the law, roll through stop signs.
I’m also concerned about distracted driving, but that’s a separate issue. I’m considering getting a helmet cam mostly for my own safety, but I might take some of the footage and execute a few civilian citations for drivers on the phone. I got the instructions for how to do that from a link on this very site.
Meanwhile, this is about stopping at stop signs. Cars have to do it. Bikes have to do it. I have to do it. You have to do it. It’s not all that freakin’ hard to do.
I do a full and complete stop at every stop sign, too, and do get frustrated by people biking (and driving) almost never doing so.
However! I still think this is a waste of resources. Until drivers speeding and not yielding to pedestrians on 35 mph+ roads are less rampant in our fair city, doing repeated police enforcements in one low-speed area with lots of bikes is ignoring the bull in Portland’s china shop. Where are the repeated enforcement activities on Foster? On Powell? On MLK? On Barbur? On Naito / Hwy 43? On 82nd? On Division past 82nd? On 102nd? These are the streets where people are being killed on our streets. Not Ladd Circle.
I also have been nearly rear-ended (and yelled at) by a fellow cyclist because I stopped at a Ladd stop sign when he didn’t expect me to, so I’m disgusted by that behavior too. Obviously you should at least be able to choose to stop at a stop sign without being endangered or accosted for it.
But before you let your sadness get you down too much, bear in mind that there is a difference between the average 4000 pound car and the average 200 pound cyclist. One tiny little difference would be that the car is carrying 400 times as much kinetic energy as the cyclist at the same speed. Another would be that the car is less maneuverable and several times wider, making a collision much more likely if a pedestrian’s and a vehicle’s path are crossing. A car easily poses 1000 times as much danger to a pedestrian as a bike does.
So one can choose to stick to the simplistic “stop means stop” dogma, or one can look at the purpose of the law and the dangers it is trying to mitigate.
That’s a great argument for changing the law. It’s less effective as an argument for breaking the law.
Also, consider the kid who got seriously injured (hit by a car, likely speeding) while running a stop across Killingsworth a couple months ago. He only ran the stop because there was no traffic coming and he wasn’t a danger to anyone. But you only have to be wrong once. Executing a quick stop gives you time to assess whether traffic is coming with a little more accuracy, don’t you think?
I disagree. Bad laws are meant to be disobeyed, especially when no one else is harmed.
You forgot a major point as well. Automobiles have less field of vision than cyclists. There are numerous static interruptions in a drivers field of view. Mirrors, window frames, fuzzy dice etc. Even Trimet was having problems not to long ago with buses with poor designs.
You’d be lying if as a driver you said these minor interruptions in your field of view haven’t lead to, or nearly lead to a bad situation.
Also though clear, side windows do obscure a persons peripheral vision (minor or major glare and reflections) making it harder for the motorist to access the surrounding area.
Both of these situations are non existent with cyclists.
Part of the reason a car should come to a full stop is that the driver has a chance to access any objects that might have fallen into such blind spots.
I have always wondered why traffic circles in Portland have stop signs. Being from Bend OR where over the last 15 years many traffic circles have been added, non of which have stops signs, it seems like a the entire point of a traffic circle is diminished. When a traffic circle has a yield sign traffic can flow much faster, and very safely.
the ones without stop signs are called round-a-bouts… wish we had more here…
The STOP signs at this location are completely unnecessary. They should be YIELD signs. The PPB should enforce the yield to pedestrians here for all road users (autos and bikes) just like any other location. Actually, the enforcement should be MUCH more aggressive for the crosswalks all over the city. It’s an embarrassment that crosswalk enforcement is so minimal.
Why, why, why can PBOT not experiment with YIELD signs at this location? And match that with crosswalk enforcement by PPB?
Well, they are not yield signs, so deal with it until they become so.
“Well, they are not yield signs, so deal with it until they become so.”
But they are, jeff! That is exactly what people are doing.
Did you know that when it comes to cars/drivers our laws treat mass violations of, say, the speed limit as an indication that the speed limit isn’t set right? I’m not saying I agree with that particular example, but it gives one pause.
I wonder what the impetus for complaints is here. Is it that folks don’t stop, or is it that folks don’t yield to pedestrians (at all times) and other traffic (when appropriate)? Seems to me that if nobody were losing their right-of-way, then there would be no real reason to complain. My own level of stop sign compliance varies with context, but I try my hardest not to steal ROW from other road users–especially pedestrians. (Disclaimer: I have never ridden through Ladd’s Addition)
“I wonder what the impetus for complaints is here. …” El Biciclero
You could go and ask the people that live there, what their complaints about road users not stopping at the stop signs are. Or, as well as talking with Ladd’s residents, you could go spend a day at the stop signs at the circle intersections to see for yourself.
wsbob,
I’ll just say that your MO strikes me as curious. You invariably suggest that posters whose perspective strikes you as ill-informed or incomplete that they do reconnaissance, draft a ballot measure, visit the legislature, look up the DA, pursue these matters in depth. While that is in theory admirable, at least in my view often the issue at hand doesn’t require this. We live in a society where our tax dollars go to paying folks to do this work for us. The issue (on bikeportland and certainly in the comments section) often is that those so charged aren’t doing as good a job as some of us think they could or should, or are doing a terrible job (of prioritizing). Advising commenters that they should devote sizable chunks of their lives to investigating the nuances of, in this case, Ladd’s Addition residents’ perspectives is endearing but I think excessive and, frankly, misguided. As dozens of commenters have already noted here today (and in previous discussions of exactly this issue), we already know plenty about the comparative statistics, wealth gradient, PPB response algorithms, etc. to understand what is going on and why.
On the other hand, various people have suggested both here and on the Shift list that we should instead out-call the whiny Ladd’s folks; complain to (503) 823-safe or the mayorcharliehales@portlandoregon.gov about intersections or traffic where things are *actually* dangerous. That to me seems far more productive than interviewing Ladd’s residents or doing participant observation at the Circle.
“…Advising commenters that they should devote sizable chunks of their lives to investigating the nuances of, in this case, Ladd’s Addition residents’ perspectives …” 9watts
People knowing and understanding the reasons and importance of basic things like stopping at stop signs, likely won’t find themselves in the situation of having to spend sizable chunks of their lives paying off citations.
“People knowing and understanding the reasons and importance of basic things like stopping at stop signs, likely won’t find themselves in the situation of having to spend sizable chunks of their lives paying off citations.”
El Biciclero, to whom you directed your comment, and I, to whom you have directed similar comments, aren’t as far as I can tell in the category of folks who are getting ticketed. It is perfectly possible, wsbob, to be law abiding and yet incensed at this rerun (of a Ladd’s enforcement movie we’ve seen many times before). Understanding goes many different ways. It isn’t just the ticketed who could learn a thing or two.
I’ll stick with wondering. Also my own STOP sign philosophy.
In my experience it is more just that there are a few folks who live in Ladd’s who would prefer that no one come through their neighborhood who doesn’t live there. They don’t like that because it is safe it has become a very popular bike route and would prefer than people rode/drove around the edge even though it is more dangerous.
Sometimes I feel that stopping on Ladd will cause a collision, because the bicyclists behind me expect me to roll through the stop sign! I check to see if there is a cyclists tailgating me.
If the concern is safety then this would NEVER happen, because there is no safer place in the city to walk or ride a bike than ladd’s addition. The city has data around where injury accidents and deaths happen and the truth is that it is not in Ladd’s. There are dangerous intersections and crossings in this city, but this isn’t one of them and while it is a great revenue generator it isn’t making anyone any safer to pull police resources away from dangerous intersections to use them to discourage people from cycling through ladd’s when cycling around the perimeter is far more dangerous. If safety was the real goal we’d be better off giving the cops the day off than putting them here.
“…If safety was the real goal …” Bjorn
I expect safety is probably but a part of the objective behind initiating the enforcement details. Neighborhood livability is likely also part of the objective.
You must be joking. Again, with this? I’m sure that the bulk of Portlanders feel for the poor people in Ladd’s Addition. They are losing their way of life because cyclists aren’t coming to a full stop in their bucolic neighborhood. Give it a rest man. Do you know how that sounds to most people???
I’m not joking. Your response indicates you either don’t understand, or don’t care what’s meant by ‘neighborhood livability’.
Various effects of vehicle traffic upon neighborhoods, are quality of life issues. People, generally, in any neighborhood across the city, the metro area or elsewhere, probably tend to dislike negative effects of vehicle traffic on the quality of life they work to have their neighborhoods offer.
Streams of motor vehicles insensitively traveling through neighborhood features and traffic controls created for the purpose of promoting neighborhood livability, and of course, past people present in the neighborhood trying to enjoy those features, is not a traffic effect that’s positive.
Many people that bike…more some would say than those that don’t…fervently claim as a whole that they, with their mode of human powered transportation, bikes…epitomize a commitment to the support and defense of livability all across the community.
It would be excellent if that admirable commitment to livability was carried on consistently for the most part, instead of seldom, as people rode through the brief, beautiful, verdant refuge from the hustle and bustle of multi-lane thoroughfare traffic taking place outside the perimeter of the peace and quiet that Ladd’s, as most neighborhood residents anywhere in the city likely do, wish to keep, or have as one of the distinguishing characteristics of their neighborhood.
Man, I’m all for livability and in most affluent neighborhoods, and generally speaking in inner Portland, we have that in spades in my view. Maybe the good people of Ladd’s Addition need to get out more.
wsbob,
add me to the list of folks who think you are joking.
Safety?
My favorite bikeportland post in the last month was by Pete, here:
http://bikeportland.org/2013/09/13/psu-traffic-engineer-adds-new-criticism-of-odots-barbur-analysis-93940#comment-4431072
Pete noted that
“unsafe and unnerving are two different beasts.”
If you’re talking safety, wsbob, you might want to consider locations around town where people walking are routinely clipped, bumped, run over, maimed, incapacitated, and killed by people driving.
You wouldn’t think that the police would even need neighbors calling in since they have their own very detailed crash statistics. Just ask Greg Raisman of PBOT.
Shouldn’t targeted enforcement target the behaviors that have shown to actually injure and kill our citizens?
I rolled through the sign at 25th and Clinton this morning and was promptly stopped. The officer was a bit lectury, but otherwise completely professional. He extended the opportunity to me to attend a course that would dismiss the ticket. Having broken the law, and been caught doing do, I’m pretty happy that I can take the course and get the ticket dismissed. C’est la vie.
I have to question why PPB / PBoT announces crosswalk enforcement with signs well ahead of the intersection and press releases but does nothing of the sort for stop sign enforcement in bike-heavy areas. They claim that the reason for the publicity of crosswalk enforcement is to make drivers across the city aware that crosswalk enforcement happens. Why not do the same thing for stop sign enforcement?
Working hard to get some bile up… Oh, nevermind.
I emailed the mayor about this (he’s the commissioner in charge of the police bureau). Please do the same if you’d like enforcement at areas that are actually dangerous! His email: mayorhales@portlandoregon.gov
I thought traffic laws were never enforced during rush hour. And what the hell is up with informing media outlets about an enforcement? This is just absurd. Oh, it’s TBA. Must be someone’s performance piece.
I laughed out loud. 🙂
This kind of sting is absolutely ridiculous when we have distracted drivers killing, maiming and endangering people all over the place. Insufficient resources? Please. OK, so we need to be squeaky wheels to override the whining of self-entitled people? Fine. I’ll call PPB and complain about texting drivers … well, everywhere. But where I happen to notice it most is on the Ross Island Bridge. I’ve gotten in the habit of looking into oncoming cars’ windshields when I’m riding home on the sidepath in the evening, and I see at least one driver texting EVERY SINGLE DAY there (not to mention at least half a dozen people animatedly talking on their handhelds). Last week I saw a driver holding a phone up in front of her face with one hand and holding a lit cig with the other. Hopefully she was at least steering with her knee.
As several people above pointed out, these shouldn’t even BE stop signs. They would be yield signs if this were a compliant roundabout. And guess what? If there were yield signs, cops could still write tickets to cyclists who fail to yield to pedestrians!
One problem at a couple of the Ladd stop signs is that cyclists and pedestrians have poor visibility to pedestrians approaching from the right side, due to excessive vegetation. Maybe the solution to that problem isn’t a whole bunch of complaints to the PPB and then a whole bunch of tickets.
And BTW I have previously lived in Ladd’s Addition, and walk there with my child regularly, so I know exactly what it’s like to be a pedestrian there. I know that cyclists who blast through stop signs are a significant problem, but writing tickets to people rolling through at 2mph when there is no one to yield to is counterproductive.
Replacing the stop signs with yield signs and maybe another sign which notes to stop for pedestrians would save PPB the time and money of having to do stings here. Safety will not be reduced, and then everyone can be happy. What’s the point of the stop signs anyway; would someone care to make a valid argument for them?
Now I am guessing. Again, just guessing. But, I do see driver drive way too fast and use this as a cut through to get to Division. The stop signs could at least “make” drivers come to a stop instead of just fly around what could be a blind corner since I was taught in drivers ed that I only needed to look left when making a right.
Are they handing out warnings or tickets or both? How much are the tickets? It would make sense to me to vary results (warning or ticket) based on how dangerous the violation is to other vehicles and pedestrians.
I bike through Ladd’s Addition 2x / day on my reverse commute to SE from North Portland. (This morning I saw 3 cyclists being ticketed, 2 at the circle and 1 on 26th N of Clinton.)
With that as my frame, I have to say that almost daily I see someone – most often a cyclist, rarely a motorist – cutting off another road or sidewalk user. Even with all the action there this morning, I was nearly broadsided by a woman cycling off 16th through a stop sign without stopping.
Since there’s a school just a few blocks away, at morning rush hour there are often kids and parents with kids walking to school. Most frustrating to me is how often I see cyclists buzz past little kids in the crosswalk without slowing down.
As @el biciclero said, I would suggest that if EVERYONE treated the stop signs as yield signs (not even stops), there would be less distress on the part of the residents. As others have pointed out, if people were riding with the appropriate level of caution and awareness, they would get close to the stop sign, scan the area and see the cops waiting. If they are rolling too fast to stop at that point, I’d argue they may not be exhibiting enough caution to be safe, hence the complaints, and enforcement action.
Yes, stop signs at circles are dumb, and bikes stopping at stop signs when there is no one else around is also dumb. However, there are enough people who don’t understand [or care about] the distinction between impeding ROW and not, and those are the ones that make the rest of us look bad.
Wait, why are there stop signs for a traffic circle? I thought the purpose of a traffic circle was to get traffic to slow and flow, not stop.
My sentiments exactly. I think we need to eliminate stop signs at all traffic circles; it’s duplicative traffic control devices. The YIELD sign is the appropriate sign, not the STOP sign. There should be clear language that YIELD applies to pedestrians as well as to traffic in the circle, and crosswalks should be clearly marked; but the STOP sign is absolutely inappropriate in any situation involving a traffic circle!
Of course, going Idaho-style would solve the issue for bikes, but this comment is for both bikes AND cars…
In my opinion people don’t stop here because (feel free to debate me on this) A: the visibility is very clear for more than a comfortable distance upon approach, B: traffic is only coming from one other direction (from the left), C: the perceived risk to oneself or others is extremely low compared to most intersections, and D: there’s more than enough room for error correction should one somehow not see a vehicle coming from the left since the circle is extremely wide and vehicles are traveling in the same direction.
The low compliance of persons not stopping at Ladd’s is obviously saying something about behavior and perception. If x% of people on bikes or cars aren’t stopping then there’s something wrong with the design, not the people. If the mass majority of people are treating this intersection like a roundabout or circle, then why not put some plans together to make some changes to this flawed design? Having a stop sign here is like building a freeway and posting a 15mph speed limit. If you can’t change behavior then why not make a few small changes to the design so that it works they way folks are treating it?
Though to note, I don’t believe any changes will actually make it safer than it already is. Whether it will actually be safer or not will never matter to some folks I’m afraid, but only the perception of safety.
So please, let’s implement a solution here and get on with our lives so we worry about things that actually matter, like truly dangerous infrastructure design instead of technicality vs. actuality.
This is not correct: foot traffic comes from the right, which — like you — most cyclists passing through here do not seem to acknowledge.
Well you can easily see people walking from the right since they’re almost directly in front of you upon approach. I’m talking about traffic within the circle obviously. We don’t need to turn our heads at all to see people coming from the left or right, as it’s basic sight geometry.
You CANNOT easily see pedestrians coming from the right when you are approaching the stop sign heading from Hawthorne to Division. There’s a tree or two and hedge blocking your view. This is the exact spot where I get passed on the left by cars blowing the stop because I’m in their way when I stop and look for kids.
“Since then, the lack of compliance and resulting frustration from neighbors who say they’re afraid to walk around the circle”
It sounds to me like there are a lot of complaints due to people walking the circle (and other things, of course). People tend to only look left when going around the circle and often may miss a pedestrian walking clockwise when vehicle traffic flows counter-clockwise.
They’re not traffic circles, they’re gardens in the middle of intersections.
Just stop your bike.
Go to your neighborhood meetings. when the cop gives his wrap up and asks for questions, tell him or her about your particular beef with your local traffic.
It wasn’t just Ladds, but Clinton as well. I saw these doodz setting up this morning at 21st. I stopped like I always do and this gal did a no stop right turn right next to me. freaked me out too… people like that are stupid and should get pulled over by cops, sorry. the cops are effectively saving these people’s lives.
Just follow rules #1-#5 of the rules of cycling and everything should be fine.
I’m sorry you have weak thighs and calves and need “Momentum”… you should really follow rule #5 more…
It is definitely a traffic circle. The freaking Arc de Triomphe has a traffic circle around it, and you think that a few plants matter?
Something like this comes to mind for a quick and easy fix: In San Clemente there’s an intersection where they striped a bike lane around the corner where a stop sign exists. Take a look:
http://empte.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Avenida-Santa-Barbara-2.png
Approach:
http://empte.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Avenida-Santa-Barbara.png
there’s no exception to bicycles that I see noted on the signs so bikes still have to stop in that bike lane…
The point is the lane markings would work in a situation like this. But to the point of the example in San Clemente, you don’t have to stop when turning right here if you’re on a bicycle because you don’t actually cross a traffic lane. From San Clemente’s Bicycle Master Plan:
“Stop signs on slope cause cyclists to stop on incline, making it difficult to start again. This tends to dissuade cyclists from stopping at these stop signs.”
You’d still have to yield to a pedestrian (stop if need be); but otherwise, fine.
San Clemente has a rule that you don’t have to stop when turning on a bicycle if there’s no lanes to be crossed? that’s awesome! half of the way towards an Idaho stop law…
Jeff: I DO deal with it by STOPPING! That doesn’t keep me from believing it is stupid to have STOP signs there.
Let’s take as a premise the notion that citizen input into enforcement action allocation is a useful thing. Police can’t be everywhere, and may not be aware of real problems that are occurring.
Let’s also take as a premise that we want the greatest safety results per enforcement effort (time/money).
I think these are both reasonable premises. So, through what mechanism can we ensure that scarce enforcement resources are directed so as to create the greatest safety results, while continuing to be responsive to citizen input?
Enforcement at Ladd Circle is neither effective nor likely to produce a significant change in the safety record, because the baseline safety level is already pretty high. Collisions could happen, and they almost do happen sometimes, but they very rarely actually happen. This is a contrast to many, many intersections in Portland that have terrible safety records and documented crashes over multiple years. Enforcement here is a bad use of resources, yet it continues to be requested by citizens and therefore the police continue to spend time on it.
How do we make this stop, without making it okay for police to flat-out ignore repeated enforcement requests?
PPB, PBOT, the Mayor, and community groups would do well to figure this out, so we can stop misallocating our safety resources.
I think enforcement requests should be used as a flag that a location MAY warrant enforcement IF actual traffic safety data indicates that it has a disproportionate amount of reported collisions / injuries / deaths or unsafe behavior (e.g. speeding). I think PPB should feel completely free to not schedule enforcement actions at locations that are not objectively dangerous.
In response to repeated requests at locations which are empirically safe, PPB should say something like, “We’re not scheduling enforcement at your location; the reason is that it’s never had a reported collision and we are focusing our resources on locations with collisions. We apologize that we do not have infinite resources; if we did, we would certainly schedule enforcement at your location!” Also, they should send the requests on to PBoT as an indication that the street may not be engineered well at a location even if it hasn’t resulted in any reported collisions.
What do you think about that?
That’s how I’d like it to work, ideally. But the step I imagine occurring after that is a bunch of angry people at from the neighborhood association getting the attention of the city councilor or Mayor, going from policy to politics, and the politics overruling the policy.
If there was a better process for handling escalations in cases of longstanding disagreement over actual vs perceived safety (neighborhood groups meeting with traffic engineers might be one possibility, since consistent problems may indicate an engineering issue) I think a political escalation would be less likely.
The level of whine here is off the charts. Don’t blow the stop sign, don’t get a ticket. Pedestrians(like me) are tired of almost getting plowed over by cyclists down there.
Stand your ground. Don’t be afraid to knock someone off their bike if they don’t stop for you. I don’t yield to bikes as a pedestrian.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Give way to avoid collision.
ORS 811.005 Duty to exercise due care.
“I never step aside for a scallywag.”
“I always do.” –Mark Twain (?)
Wrongfully Attributed Statements (WAS-2) – Not Twain; try Henry Clay and John Randolph, and accounts conflict as to who said what. My money’s on Clay delivering the punch line.
Presumably your outcome in the genetic lottery puts the odds in your favor to stand your ground physically. Many people (mathematically, half) don’t have that privilege.
I’m certainly not going to tell my child to push a physical confrontation with an adult cyclist.
I stand my ground against motor-vehicles…
give me liberty or give me death!
what do you mean by “blow”? most people think of that as not even slowing down…
most people on bikes slow down and look before proceeding… those people yield as they should be… they were also ticketed for not coming to a complete stop…
As others have said, how well did they look if they couldn’t see a motorcycle cop waiting to write a ticket?
Spiffy how often to ride this area? i’m only on it once a week, but I have definitely not seen the majority or riders even slowing. Most just taking it at full bore.
I think the enforcement had some effect hough, as this morning (thurs.) both guys around me pretty much came to a stop!!!
I’m all for stopping at the stop signs, I even stop for peds trying to cross where there is no stop sign.
Problem I have is, when somebody in car is in a hurry trying to cut through ladd’s or clinton, riding my butt or unsafely passing me. There are too many cars now trying to cut through neighborhoods because of CAR TRAFFIC!!!!!
And yes, I have stopped at a stop signs and had motorists in a hurry run into the back of me. Worst on the round abouts getting run off road.
I think all bicyclists should take the full lane all the time through Ladd/Clinton and stop at all Stop signs and for Ped’s.
Sort of logic applies why I don’t ride bike on SE 39th, MLK, Powell or Division. But car’s speeding through neighborhood streets pisses me off.
I took the lane during the sting… didn’t stop cars from squeezing dangerously close on my left… you can see it in the video I posted below…
As a cyclist I take great joy in riding like normal traffic and regard the rules of the road. These rules generally protect everybody involved, no matter how great or small the vehicle’s or pedestrian’s potential to cause harm. Why bicycles should be an exception to this rule is a little beyond me. Stop, yield, signal, whatever it takes to actually BE part of the traffic. Simple Defensive Driving rules dictate that’s the way it works…
defensive driving assumes that nobody else is practicing defensive driving…
I’m sure that my comment (#126) will have something new or insightful to add.
This is a fun thread to read.
This discussion is as big a waste of electrons as a stop sign sting in Ladd’s addition is a waste of police resources.