Splendid Cycles Big Sale

With passage of action plan, Portland now has roadmap to zero traffic deaths

Posted by on December 2nd, 2016 at 11:31 am

PBOT Director Leah Treat presenting the action plan at City Council yesterday.

PBOT Director Leah Treat presenting the action plan at City Council yesterday.

21 of the 32 actions outlined in the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Vision Zero Action Plan should be completed within two years and all of them should be done by 2021.

Those are the marching orders given to PBOT from City Council after four commissioners (Mayor Charlie Hales was in Mexico at a climate change conference) voted unanimously yesterday to pass the plan (PDF), a 35-page document developed over six months of task force meetings, data-crunching, and public outreach.

The vote comes six months after City Council passed the Vision Zero resolution that says, “No loss of life is acceptable on our city streets.”

The plan of actions to reach a goal of zero fatalities by 2025 (just nine years from now) are broken down into five categories: street design, impairment, speed, dangerous behaviors, and engagement and accountability. They include things like: breaking ground on new capital projects on high crash corridors, increasing police training, gaining local authority to set speed limits, expanding the red light safety camera program, and more.

“If someone is repeatedly putting someone else at risk, why the hell are they still driving a car?!”
— Nick Fish, City Commissioner

Before hearing presentations from PBOT staff and public testimony, outgoing PBOT Commissioner Steve Novick said, “We know this work won’t hapen overnight.” Novick warned that the success of this initiative depends on partnerships with other agencies and organizations and funds to implement the plan. He also referenced the grim reality of the “particularly deadly” statistical trend of 2016. “We’re swimming against the current,” he said, “And the fact that we’re part of a national trend [of increased traffic deaths] is no comfort to the parents of children, siblings, and friends that we’ve lost.”

PBOT Director Leah Treat, who has made Vision Zero a priority since her first months on the job (in 2014 she said, “Every death on our roadways is a failure of government”), told City Council that the plan is the result of an “unprecedented level of collaboration” among sister agencies and stakeholders. Treat also said equity was the guiding principle of the Action Plan. She assured Council that traffic enforcement would not lead to racial profiling and that low-income and underserved neighborhoods would get priority when it comes to safety project investments.

In a good sign for the work ahead, all four commissioners on hand at yesterday’s hearing were engaged with the topic.

Commissioner Nick Fish said he and his colleagues are forced to make hard decisions come budget time, so he challenged PBOT Director Treat to tell them what the single highest priority is. “I would recommend to council that our investments focus on road diets and re-engineering roadways,” Treat responded, “That will have the most impact on slowing people down.”

Advertisement

We have a lot of work to do by 2025.

We have a lot of work to do by 2025.
(From p. 6 of the PBOT Vision Zero Action Plan (PDF))

Enforcement was on nearly everyone’s mind yesterday — despite the fact that the City’s Vision Zero Task Force recommended de-emphasizing it due to concerns of how it can disproportionately impact people of color (a topic that wasn’t talked about yesterday).

Fish said he was shocked to learn that 56 percent of all fatal crashes involve drugs or alcohol. He asked whether Council should support new laws to address it. PBOT Director Treat warned against that, saying the alcoholism and drug addiction problems in our society are on such a large scale they should be dealt with by social service agencies. Fish expressed outright frustration about repeat offenders with dozens of DUIs and violations who continue to drive and crash into other roads users. “If someone is repeatedly putting someone else at risk,” he said, “Why the hell are they still driving a car?!” Treat answered by saying the police are simply out of room in jails and are “forced to do triage.” “They let repeat offenders back out onto our streets,” she said, “Until they cause harm to others.”

Commissioner Novick said if he was re-elected he would have tried to raise the price of alcohol in hopes of making it less popular.

“I think it’s terrible someone can get their license in Oregon and drive for 60-70 years without ever having to get an education about all the new laws.”— Steve Todd, Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge

Despite voting to adopt a plan that specifically de-emphasizes enforcement and having a bureau director who feels enforcement isn’t the silver bullet to solving safety problems, Commissioner Saltzman said he prefers, “Hardcore enforcement.” “We’ve become complacement and we are desensitized to the fact that people have 34 prior violations yet we still support people’s right to drive because they ‘have to get to work’… We can’t afford to do that… I think we need strong enforcement and more overtime patrols.”

Saltzman also asked whether the city could ticket people caught using cell phones on speed radar camera photos. PBOT Division Manager Margi Bradway said they see quite a few people talking on phones in those images but they don’t have the authority to cite them for it.

Steve Todd, a Multnomah County Circuit Judge who has worked with the City on traffic safety issues for many years, said in testimony that he feels laws and police enforcement are not enough. “We need other solutions,” he said. “New laws aren’t going to work if they are hard to enforce and if no one knows about them. I think it’s terrible someone can get their license in Oregon and drive for 60-70 years without ever having to get an education about all the new laws.”

(Note: The Action Plan includes directives aimed at improving road user education including: Action D.4, “Increase access and expand referrals to traffic schools and other forms of traffic safety education for all road users”; and Action D.6, “Support legislation to increase funding for and access to driver education, frequency of testing, and inclusion of urban transportation safety in test materials.”)

Several community members testified in support of the plan (there was only one critic of it at the hearing, a man named Terry Parker who is well-known for his vehemently anti-bike opinions).

BTA Executive Director Rob Sadowsky said in order for Vision Zero to succeed, PBOT needs stronger commitments from Multnomah County and the Oregon Department of Transportation (neither of whom were at the hearing yesterday). He also said PBOT needs to “take back some streets” from ODOT like Powell, Barbur, 82nd and Columbia, “so we can truly make a difference.”

“If I’m a pedestrian who’s jaywalking, I’m just as culpable as the person who might hit me.”
— Amanda Fritz, City Commissioner

Two well-known transportation reform activists, Doug Klotz and Soren Impey said the City’s plan lacks teeth and doesn’t go nearly far enough. Another activist, Corey Poole, said he fears it will just sit on a shelf.

Klotz criticized the plan for being too vague and not having any funding attached to it. The plan also, “doesn’t represent a major shift in the city’s priorities,” he said. “I fear some of these goals may not be met because other factors besides safety will be given equal or greater weight. I hope I’m wrong.” Impey also criticized the plan’s lack of detail and funding and said, “It reminds me of the bike plan.” “I don’t believe this plan is anywhere near bold enough,” he added. Poole, who represents skateboarders, said “We need this to be more than a report on a shelf and we need to be willing to put human lives ahead of parking spaces and a slightly faster commute time.”

Before casting her “yes” vote, Commissioner Amanda Fritz (who admitted she has been caught on one of the city’s new red light cameras) referenced a letter of testimony from Bike Loud PDX where she took issue with their request for less enforcement on bikers and walkers and for the city to stop suggesting that dark clothing makes vulnerable users responsible for crashes. “If I’m a pedestrian who’s jaywalking, I’m just as culpable as the person who might hit me,” Fritz said. “The fact is we’re all responsible.” When it comes to allegations that mentioning dark clothing is victim-blaming, Fritz said, “Actually, it’s my responsibility as a pedestrian to wear something bright or carry a flashlight in my pocket… It’s a matter of life and death.”*

Fritz also introduced an amendment to clarify that a portion of funds raised from a recently passed marijuana tax (estimated to be $3 million a year) would be spent on road safety projects as part of the City’s Vision Zero effort. The amendment passed. She also wanted to make sure the plan ordinance passed as an emergency so that work could begin immediately.

Yesterday’s hearing made it clear there’s broad support for PBOT’s Vision Zero efforts. It’ll take all that and a lot more if we want to reach zero deaths by 2025.

(*Note: Because many people have asked about her comments. Here’s the full context, which you can also watch in this video:

I wanted to address a few of the issues Bike Loud Portland sent in a very informative letter, and I’m happy to say I agree with everything on the front page. Then they started talking about supporting infractions most likely to result in injury or death. They said because people walking or cycling rarely result in injury or death the draft Vision Zero Action Plan should contain language that de-emphasizes infractions by vulnerable traffic that do not pose risk to others. The thing is, if I’m a pedestrian and jaywalking and not crossing where I should be crossing, or not waiting for the light, I’m just as culpable as the person who might hit me.

Before I got on the Council I was yelled at by a police officer for jaywalking downtown. He stopped me and we had a nice conversation. I said, ‘Why? There’s nothing coming,’ and he said, ‘There’s children who might be watching you or there might be blind people who might sense you moving. It might be safe for you, but it’s not safe for them.’ Having had that conversation I almost never jaywalk anymore.

Again, it’s just embracing the fact that we’re all responsible. Again, Bike Loud PDX said that people walking or biking should not be blamed because they were wearing supposedly inapproproate or dark clothing. No, actually, it’s my responsibility as a pedestrian to wear something bright or carry a falshlight in my pocket so I don’t have to remember it’s there and I can turn it on when I get off the bus. So it’s all of us. There’s nobody who’s immune to this. It’s a matter of life and death, literally.

I know that this particular hearing is going to continue to be kind of like the holocaust victims reading in that it’s immensely painful to be thinking about traffic crashes and deaths and yet it’s absolutely essential that we continue to do so.”

Download the Vision Zero Action Plan here (PDF) .

— Jonathan Maus, (503) 706-8804 – jonathan@bikeportland.org

BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation today.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

183
Leave a Reply

avatar
26 Comment threads
157 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
47 Comment authors
Jim LeeEl BicicleroAlan KesslerAlex ReedinAdam H. Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
m
Guest
m

Kudos to the Council. That map is a powerful document. As an aside, the comment about Novick and alcohol is so classic for him. His response to absolutely everything during the last 4 years: MORE TAXES.

“Commissioner Novick said if he was re-elected he would have tried to raise the price of alcohol in hopes of making it less popular.”

Good riddance Steve.

bottom bracket
Guest
bottom bracket

So the mayor is in Mexico at a AGW conference. This is a ludicrous waste of taxpayer money. Whether you believe in AGW or not, the mayor of any city has no business spending money in this way. Portland can do nothing on their own to change he AGW situation. This is an example of the big business (really, it’s a religion) that AGW has become.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

I agree that it is unseemly to send the mayor to Mexico on the public dime, however, I see AGW as the issue of our time. Leadership has to come from all levels, especially now, as time to address the issue grows short and national leadership seems so hostile to the idea of taking even common-sense steps towards reducing the threat.

AGW is not something to “believe in”, at least no more than evolution or gravity. It’s a well establish fact. I’ll accept the mayor going to Mexico if it advances the cause of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, even a little.

CaptainKarma
Guest
CaptainKarma

Should have sent the mayor-elect.

dwk
Guest
dwk

Thanks for posting this famous anti climate change propaganda nonsense, Mr, “I voted for Trump”. Using this forum for right wing political trolling should at least come with disclaimer.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Oh Fritz, I really dislike your opinions.

Allan Rudwick
Subscriber

car culture out loud is really jarring to hear. ugh ugh ugh

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

You mean her amendment to provide a clear source of funding for the project, or treating the situation as an emergency so work could start immediately?

Her positions are not black and white, and she’s on the right side of a lot of issues.

Matheas Michaels
Guest
Matheas Michaels

I think it might have been her blatant victim blaming concerning pedestrian responsibility to not get hit by people driving cars.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Like I said, her positions are not black and white. Reactions should reflect that.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Oh Fritz, I really dislike many of your opinions. I hope someday somebody steps up to take your job.

bjorn
Guest
bjorn

When I say I don’t like Fritz I mean her constant victim blaming, as well as her anti ADU stance, and her general long standing NIMBY attitude.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Fritz is the worst.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“Oh Fritz, I really dislike your opinions.” dan

What specifically it is about those opinions you don’t like?

I’ve got to give credit to Fritz on a couple points:

One…she apparently carefully read and studied the areas of concern raised in the letter sent to her by local activist group BikeLoud.

Second, the commissioner was respectful of that group’s concerns, to the extent that publicly, before city council, she noted issues raised in the letter and was interested in them enough to offer her own viewpoint and opinions on them.

There are worthy objectives to try attain by way of the Vision Zero concept. Part of the means to success in attaining those objectives, will likely be for all road users… not just a percent of them defined by their particular mode of travel at any given time, and assigned exclusively to just one mode of travel: by motor vehicle …to embrace their respective personal responsibility for using various basic visibility measures that can help them reduce likelihood there may be, of them becoming a casualty or fatality in their use of the road.

“…Again, it’s just embracing the fact that we’re all responsible. Again, Bike Loud PDX said that people walking or biking should not be blamed because they were wearing supposedly inappropriate or dark clothing. No, actually, it’s my responsibility as a pedestrian to wear something bright or carry a falshlight in my pocket so I don’t have to remember it’s there and I can turn it on when I get off the bus. So it’s all of us. There’s nobody who’s immune to this. It’s a matter of life and death, literally. …” Portland City Commissioner Amanda Fritz.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

There is nothing equal about the destructive capability of cars and shoes. Trying to make them equally responsible is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Alex Reedin
Guest
Alex Reedin

Fritz didn’t say “equal;” she said “both responsible.” I think that is actually true (both user groups are responsible, to different degrees). I think the problem with her perspective is more nuanced, having to do with the proper role of government, and the current state of our culture around transportation.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

She said, “just as culpable”, i.e. “equally culpable”.

Alex Reedin
Guest
Alex Reedin

Oh, yep. You are right. Serves me right for trying to find a bright spot concerning Amanda Fritz and biking or walking.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Well, I do like her amendment to secure funds from the MJ tax for road safety projects. So there’s that.

Alex Reedin
Guest
Alex Reedin

That’s true. Thanks for pointing that out! I didn’t see that in my initial scan of the article. It’s so easy to get emotional and angry about this issue. I think I would do well to study the mental/spiritual techniques of activists fighting other unjust systems to improve my activism. I get angry, whiny, and confrontational far too easily, and I think it impacts my effectiveness (as well as my mental health).

rick
Guest
rick

I didn’t know I can crash into a brick building while walking and cause extensive damage..

Oliver
Guest
Oliver

I was almost hit this morning by a driver running a stop sign.

It wasn’t a California stop either, he had to have been doing every bit of 20 mph; In fact, I’m certain the he sped up in order to make it to the intersection before my wife and I got to the cross walk.

Incidentally, the likelihood of the operator of the vehicle at 6:00am being DWI is slim. I object in the strongest possible terms (I’d use a profanity if this weren’t a family blog) to the idea of taxing alcohol in order to make it less popular.

Adam
Subscriber

Commissioner Novick said if he was re-elected he would have tried to raise the price of alcohol in hopes of making it less popular.

This is asinine. The problem isn’t drunk people it’s drunk drivers. So make driving harder, not drinking. Why punish people who walk or take the bus to the bars just the same as those who drive drunk?

Saltzman calling for “hardcore enforcement” sounds like a police state to me. Given the recent behaviors of the Portland Police, and our current political climate, I find this notion absolutely terrifying. Don’t give police more reasons to stop people. They already ignore your constitutional rights.

Fritz’ comments were expected, but still discouraging. “We’re all responsible for traffic safety” is like saying “all lives matter”. The claim is not based in reality since the vast majority of people causing the problems are drivers. I’ll be damned if I’m going to carry a Pedestrian Safety Flashlight™ every time I leave the house. And what was with her comparison to the Holocaust? That was a wildly inappropriate and offensive claim. I’m not even 100% sure what the message she was trying to convey with her comparison was, but I was frankly disgusted by it.

I don’t have much faith this plan will be properly executed given out current city leadership. Here’s hoping Mayor-elect Wheeler will take a bolder approach.

dwk
Guest
dwk

How do you stop drunk driving without enforcement? The various technology remedies don’t seem to work at all. Since this is the major cause of deaths on the roads, we need more enforcement, not less.

m
Guest
m

Apparently we are more interested in slowing down the drunk drivers than getting off the road.

m
Guest
m

them

Kate
Guest
Kate

There was actually an interesting tangent about this. We can increase enforcement and so on, but there is no capacity in the jails to hold the drunk drivers so they just get released again. Commissioners and Treat noted that until the justice system can handle holding and processing (let alone have the officers to enforce), road diets and redesign will have a bigger impact in slowing down reckless driving and lessening devastation. I thought that was pretty clear-eyed and has the benefit of slowing all drivers, not just the impaired ones.

m
Guest
m

Just to play that out, we have a building that’s been sitting empty for years called Wapato that was specifically designed to be a jail. It cost something like $40 million and sits empty. No money to use for that apparently. You can only laugh.

m
Guest
m

I stand corrected. We have spent more than $90 MILLION on a jail that sits empty.

http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/291709-167096-wanted-a-plan-for-the-wapato-money-pit

Adam
Subscriber

Good. Leave it empty. In fact, why not empty out the other jails too? Oregon systemically locks up minorities and people of color for minor infractions. It’s modern form of slavery. End the prison-industrial complex.

m
Guest
m

“56 percent of all fatal crashes involve drugs or alcohol.”

Vision Zero ain’t happening with so many repeat offenders out there. Clearly a conflict with your laudable goal.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Jails should only be for dangerous drivers and bike thieves. All others should walk free.

Mike
Guest
Mike

Dude, I don’t even know how you get out your front door with all the troubles in the world weighing on your shoulders. You seem like the type of person who could look at a sunset and think of all the poor children about to get a sun burn. Chill out

Adam
Subscriber

If no one gets fired up about injustice, this simply allows the injustice to continue.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

If you get all fired up over every Injustice, whether it exists or not, you lose credibility when you try to fight for one that really matters.

Keep your powder dry and fire judiciously.

Adam
Subscriber

Who are you to decide what injustices matter to me?

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

I would never do that.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

And we can start confiscating and crushing cars. Did anybody say that?

Kyle Banerjee
Guest

dwk
How do you stop drunk driving without enforcement?

There are some really simple things that would put a serious dent in the problem.

For example, it stands to reason that someone who proves they can’t handle a responsibility (like drinking) should be able to lose it. For example, if someone gets convicted of driving drunk, their license (or having lost that, their ID) could be clearly marked in a way that prohibits them from buying alcohol.

This would require carding to be more universal and their friends might buy for them, but they would be subject to the same penalties as someone who bought for underage drinkers and the drinkers would likewise incur similar sanctions. Even with significant slippage, this would still make a huge difference.

As things are now, if someone is convicted of drunk driving, they can lose their license as well as their job if they can’t figure out another way to work. In one of the great ironies, one of the few things that you have a total right to do after killing someone after driving drunk is to continue to get drunk.

Pete
Guest
Pete

Maybe not so much more enforcement as more effective enforcement. Citizens like to scream en mass about the radicalist who snapped who was at one point in time a speck on the FBI’s huge list of people who could be of concern (which they are of course often criticized for even having). But when you read an article about a pedestrian killed by a driver with a suspended license due to N previous DUIs, it’s perfectly acceptable to respond with “Oh, that poor guy’s family… what was he wearing?”.

And even DUI itself seems the only amplifier… if the person had N previous speeding tickets, that’s barely (or rarely) reported. (I mean, who doesn’t have speeding tickets?).

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Your post is so full of hyperbole… but let me just ask who proposed punishing people walking or taking the bus after drinking the same as people driving drunk?

Adam
Subscriber

Novick proposed charging everyone more for beer, regardless of how they arrived to the bar. I don’t drive, so why should I pay more for beer because some moron decided to drive to the bar and drink too much? I am not opposed to a tax to combat drunk driving, but charging more for alcohol is not the right approach. It’s almost as if Novick assumes everyone drives to the bar.

Adam
Subscriber

Well, since everyone would be paying more for beer regardless of how they arrived at the bar, I see that as a punishment on people who don’t drive.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

A tax is not a punishment. Jail time, fines, loss of license… those are punishments.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

I should be taxed for bourbon I drink at home to reduce the chance of somebody else driving drunk? That’s an odd plan.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

It’s the plan implemented in everyone’s favorite city: Copenhagen.

Adam
Subscriber

Semantics. I’m still paying more for something because of another’s poor actions. It’s collective punishment through increased costs. The driving portion of “drunk driving” should be targeted, not the drunk part.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

What did pot smokers do to deserve the 3% punishment voters just imposed? Injustice!

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Just another case of a few bad actors ruining it for the rest of us.

Adam
Subscriber

Yep. What if someone was proposing taxing cyclists because a few of them ran red lights?

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

That would be as silly as taxing alcohol as a punishment for drunk driving would be. If that ever happened.

Gary B
Guest
Gary B

What, you didn’t sign up for our new post-truth world?

Adam
Subscriber

What about my post specifically do you find issue with?

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Personally, I have a hard time deciding if it’s the exaggeration or the misrepresentation.

Adam
Subscriber

Which part is an exaggeration. Which part is a mis-representation?

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Legend: [M] Misrepresentation [E] Exaggeration

This is asinine. The problem isn’t drunk people it’s drunk drivers. So make driving harder, not drinking. Why punish people who walk or take the bus to the bars just the same as those who drive drunk? ([M] adjusting alcohol taxes is not a punishment.)

Saltzman calling for “hardcore enforcement” sounds like a police state to me. Given the recent behaviors of the Portland Police, and our current political climate, I find this notion absolutely terrifying. Don’t give police more reasons to stop people. They already ignore your constitutional rights. ([E] Police generally do not ignore your constitutional rights.)

Fritz’ comments were expected, but still discouraging. “We’re all responsible for traffic safety” is like saying “all lives matter”. ([M] No it’s not.) The claim is not based in reality since the vast majority of people causing the problems are drivers. I’ll be damned if I’m going to carry a Pedestrian Safety Flashlight™ every time I leave the house ([M] No you won’t. God doesn’t care.) And what was with her comparison to the Holocaust? ([M] She was referring to her own grief, not equating traffic deaths with the holocaust.) That was a wildly inappropriate and offensive claim. ([M] She didn’t make this claim.) I’m not even 100% sure what the message she was trying to convey with her comparison was (You’re actaully spot on with this comment!), but I was frankly disgusted by it.

I don’t have much faith this plan will be properly executed given out current city leadership. Here’s hoping Mayor-elect Wheeler will take a bolder approach.

—–

Based on my analysis above, I guess it’s clear that it’s the misrepresentation.

J_R
Guest
J_R

Without increased enforcement, the Vision Zero effort is doomed to fail.

The very expensive infrastructure changes will produce some benefits, but they are unlikely to produce any statistically significant reductions in fatalities.

The whole effort is simply a way to say we’re doing something and pat ourselves on the back for recognizing the existence of a problem.

Todd Hudson
Guest
Todd Hudson

“Added enforcement of impaired driving is not included as an action at this time due to concerns about potential disparate impacts on people of color.”

We’re beyond the looking glass, people!

Adam
Subscriber

This is less about “people of color should be allowed to drive drunk” and more about “police will kill more people of color if they are given more interactions with them”.

Todd Hudson
Guest
Todd Hudson

No, it’s about the city using a ridiculous excuse to not do their job. It’s even worse than “we’ll do something when we receive enough complaints.” You should consider resuming one of your many other debates on this thread – I’m not interested!

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Don’t “communities of color” deserve protection against drunk drivers?

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

Even if I accept that Portland police will kill more people of color if they interact with them more by actually enforcing the traffic laws, the key question is whether that increase will be greater or less than the number of lives of people of color saved by enforcing those laws.

Perhaps I’m misinformed as to just how rogue our cops are, but we are looking at some 500 roadway deaths statewide this year, all of them preventable if traffic laws were enforced to such an extent that motorists drove lawfully. How many people of color have police statewide killed? One percent of that 500? How many of those 500 were people of color?

This “cops will kill people of color if they enforce traffic laws” rings like “think of the children” in so many other contexts. Neither one are legitimate and turn us away from reason and towards emotion.

Adam
Subscriber

You’re thinking from a pure economic standpoint. However, Vision Zero has a goal of zero traffic deaths. If enforcing traffic laws results in more killings by police, then it’s not Vision Zero. Obviously, the solution is to fix the police, but that’s not exactly trivial. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it is a bit outside the scope of PBOT’s ability to affect traffic safety, and thus the only logical conclusion for PBOT to take is to distrust the effectiveness of police enforcement.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

No, I’m not talking economics, I’m talking quantitation. Vision Zero is about moving towards zero traffic deaths, not doing it in one fell swoop (sorry). If risking some unknown number of hypothetical racially motivated killings by police is a possible consequence of enforcing our traffic laws so as to dramatically reduce the number of traffic deaths, then we should, as a matter of equity, make darn sure that the decrease from enforcement is going to be greater than the increase from killer cops. I think it is obvious from past experience that this is the case, thus increasing enforcement is a legitimate tool in the Vision Zero quest.

Also, VZ is a city-wide (actually wider still, but this installment is only about the Portland city policy) policy, not a PBoT policy. It is certainly appropriate to consider all bureaus and not just one that appears to be nearly impotent in reducing, or even stopping an increase in, traffic deaths.

Kelly Francois
Guest
Kelly Francois

Adam – you are making excellent points, that need to keep being made. More enforcement will definitely have a negative impact of communities of color. Oregon criminal justice has an outrageously high percentage of non-whites in the system. Every level of our criminal justice system here has higher percentages of brown and black people represented, from traffic stops all the way to how high a bail is set. There are minority run organizations screaming about the injustices, while the white moderates are saying they want more enforcement. Black people know exactly what that means to them. More harassment. Until Portland really starts listening to what the minority communities are saying, progress will be reserved for the white people. None of us are truly free until we are all free. It sounds like Leah Treat has been listening to minority communities. Our council is full of unchecked white privilege.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

What do you tell crime victims in communities of color? “Sorry, we’ve reduced enforcement”? I don’t think reducing law enforcement is a satisfactory solution to bad policing.

Adam
Subscriber

In many communities of color, the police exhibit far more heavy-handed policing and targeted discrimination compared to white neighborhoods. Less police would only help these neighborhoods, not hurt them.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

I understand that. But some of those communities are also facing severe crime and violence problems. Withdrawing the police is not the right answer. Perhaps giving communities more of a say in how they are policed might help.

Adam
Subscriber

Are they though? Violent crime is down city-wide.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

I was thinking more at national level. I’m not current on crime stats around the city. I’d still be happy to give communities more input on policing strategies, policies, and priorities. If they want fewer police, that’s great; there’s plenty of places that people want more.

I still think the better solution is to address the underlying issues of bias in policing so no one would suggest reducing law enforcement.

Adam
Subscriber

Violent crime is down nation-wide as well.

JeffS
Guest
JeffS

Yes, Treat sounds like she’s fully on-board with the cynicism of low expectations, like many here.

Are so many in this town really incapable of taking care of themselves and doing the right thing, or do some just really want to believe it to be the case.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

I suppose this is due to the fact that no one in PDX has ever lived where traffic laws are actually enforced, but it isn’t onerous and the fines don’t have to be “excessive” in order for it to change the driving culture. From both experience and game theory, the key is the perception on the part of the driver that s/he will be caught, not the penalty for being caught.

Portland could probably get very close to zero traffic deaths by simply:
1. making traffic enforcement job one for the PPB, with only crimes in progress and investigations of (other) crimes of violence getting higher priority.

1a. No warnings and no exceptions. Enforce with zero tolerance. I guess there’s one sort-of exception: look the other way for trivial crimes (drug possession and such) that show up as a result of the traffic stop. Focus on the moving violation.

2. Impounding the cars of all drunk drivers and unlicensed drivers. The impound yard should only be open once per week and the fees should be attention getting but not onerous.

Mr. Impossible
Guest
Mr. Impossible

Meh. You cannot expect the police to enforce traffic. They are busy trying to scoop up homeless and peppering spraying students.

soren
Guest
soren

and kicking unarmed people to death.

Kelly Francois
Guest
Kelly Francois

And holding a young black man on a $250,000 bail for vandalizing during a demonstration. A bail higher than most bails for killing someone with a car.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

You’re not allowed to protest if you’re black in America.

Kristi Finney Dunn
Guest

I don’t remember who it was now, but someone during the hearing specifically said that immediate and consistent consequences are more effective than extreme consequences.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

We really should have a traffic court that runs 24/7/365 and works via remote video conferencing, so motorists can be assessed their fines during the traffic stop. Alternatively, motorists who are cited should get one hour to show up at court and dispute the charge or pay the fine.

Time to enter the 21st century.

Alan Kessler
Guest
Alan Kessler

We could more realistically create the same situation by having automated speed and traffic control device enforcement (every stop sign could be self-enforcing). This could be equipped with either a visible flash, or a directed audio announcement to alert the driver that they had been fined. To make it more effective, we should change the traffic laws to make both the driver and the owner of a vehicle culpable for any violations. Finally, the fines need to be proportional to income/wealth.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

“2. Impounding the cars of all drunk drivers and unlicensed drivers. The impound yard should only be open once per week and the fees should be attention getting but not onerous.”

I would say, “2. crushing the cars…

Or perhaps sell them at auction, if that nets more enforcement $$.

Also, I would limit the severe consequences to revoked drivers, as in “had a license and lost it for cause”, rather than someone who has never had a license in the first place. But DUII should result in immediate suspension, driving while suspended should result in immediate revocation, and driving while revoked should result in car crushing (or auctioning). Certain egregious offenses, e.g., reckless driving resulting in death, should go directly to crushing. Auctioned cars should not be sold to the original offender or anyone with any relationship to them.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Right, driving with a suspended/revoked license is essentially going against a judge’s orders. I liken it to violating parole. The consequences should be severe.

Todd Hudson
Guest
Todd Hudson

Amanda Fritz invokes Godwin’s Law, then explains that we should be carrying flashlights (my keys, phone, wallet, and glasses are quite enough).

Anyone else hear circus music?

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Not even close to Godwin’s Law. Not even close.

Todd Hudson
Guest
Todd Hudson

If what she said isn’t Reductio Ad Hitlerum, I don’t know what is.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Apparently you don’t.

>>> Reductio ad Hitlerum (pseudo-Latin for “reduction to Hitler”;[1] sometimes argumentum ad Hitlerum, “argument to Hitler”, or ad Nazium, “to Nazism”) is the attempt to invalidate someone else’s position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party,[2] for example: “Hitler believed in eugenics, X believes in eugenics, therefore X is a Nazi”. <<<

This bears not even a vague and passing resemblance to anything Fritz said.

Your statement is absurd.

Catie
Guest
Catie

No one would have to jaywalk if the city would install more crosswalks and pedestrian infrastructure where people naturally WANT TO CROSS.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Assuming you don’t want to cross at the corner (in which case it isn’t jaywalking)… I think crossing mid-block can often be safer than at a corner, but I think marked crosswalks in those locations can be more dangerous. (I’m thinking of urban locations — crossings out in the sticks are a different issue altogether.)

I, for one, would like to see “safe jaywalking” become a non-offence. There’d probably need to be a bit more definition around that, but there are plenty of occasions where it is perfectly safe and undisruptive.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Except that, according to Fritz, if you’re jaywalking you’re JUST AS CULPABLE as the driver who runs you over.

emerson
Subscriber

Part of how we make traffic systems safe is that everyone follows a common set of rules.

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Sure, but I don’t put the blame at 50/50. Saying ‘everyone is responsible’ when a driver runs over a jaywalker implies 50/50. Drivers in an urban environment are responsible for operating a dangerous machine in unpredictable conditions, and should be expected to plan for jaywalkers by driving cautiously and scanning the sides of the road too. I’m talking about crossing mid-block, not ‘suddenly jumping out in front of a car’.

emerson
Subscriber

I agree it’s facts and circumstances.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

So do we all agree that blanket statements about who is responsible for any particular crash should wait for some actual facts?

Dan A
Subscriber
Dan A

Assuming we would EVER get a news report that includes all of the relevant facts, which we won’t.

Adam
Subscriber

What are these “facts” you speak of?

Buzz
Guest
Buzz

Anyone who knows the real history of jaywalking laws knows this is a red herring, hyperbole and just plain BS.

just one of many sources:
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/20/the_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban/

soren
Guest
soren

jaywalking* and jaybiking# are legal (to some extent) neighboring states and have been for decades. imo, oregon’s jaywalking and jaybiking laws are not intended to promote safety, but rather to paint active transportation as abnormal and unsafe. moreover, by putting the safety onus on vulnerable traffic these laws encourage a callous societal attitude.

*jaywalking is legal in california and idaho and drivers must yield. jaywalking is legal in washington but pedestrians must yield.

#idaho allows people cycling to run stop signs and yield signals. idaho, washington, and california do not have a mandatory sidepath law.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

A friend sat in court one fine day as a judge verbally ripped a new orifice in a cop who had given someone a jaywalking citation in CA a couple of decades ago. At the time, jaywalking was legal but the pedestrian had to yield. Since there was no traffic to yield to, there was no violation and the judge was very unhappy the cop wrote the citation. Methinks that judge walked a bit.

X
Guest
X

Besides the radical lameness of bringing up the Holocaust in this context, Fritz’ comment makes no sense. Either there were about five words missing or it was a fractured thought. Is the p-e running around biting people?

We have enough traffic laws if they were enforced and actually prosecuted. The VRU law only seems to come up if a person has died in a car vs. _______ crash. Careless and imprudent driving? It’s rife.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

“…we still support people’s right to drive because they ‘have to get to work’…”

Hear, hear. I certainly hope Commissioner Saltzman was being facetious when he referred to the “right” to drive. If not, even this statement in favor of more vigorous enforcement mis-characterizes the driving privilege as a de facto “right”. Plus, why would we want a city where paying to own and operate a car is a prerequisite for having a job? Shouldn’t we be able to “get to work” in a timely fashion without a car?

“If someone is repeatedly putting someone else at risk, why the hell are they still driving a car?!”

Crush the car. Revoke the license. Make crushing the car the penalty for driving with a revoked license. Buy another car? Fine, we’ll crush that one, too.

We might be out of room in jails, but I haven’t yet heard we’re running out of space in junkyards.

“If I’m a pedestrian who’s jaywalking, I’m just as culpable as the person who might hit me. The fact is we’re all responsible…Actually, it’s my responsibility as a pedestrian to wear something bright or carry a flashlight in my pocket… It’s a matter of life and death.”

This is deplorable. It might be in your own best interest to take goofy measures to protect yourself from drivers that, I guess, we just now assume are going to speed and not pay attention—and continue to do so with no consequences—but it is not a pedestrian’s responsibility to society to dress in reflective garb and buy a “jacket flashlight” to keep in their walking coat so it is available at all times should they find themselves needing to cross a street. I don’t know about other folks, but I usually hang up my “walking coat” about May; what will I do for the rest of the Spring and Summer? Be home by 9 so I don’t have to cross a street after dark? I know, I’ll just keep a flashlight in my “walking cargo shorts”. Hope I don’t go anywhere fancy…

It’s only a “matter of life and death” because of speeding and incompetent drivers.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Driving has most of the hallmarks of a right. Yes, we require a license, but the state has no discretion over granting one. It would probably be most accurately described as a quasi-right.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Well, I suppose one has just as much right to drive as one has to practice medicine or law. If only we required one to obtain a driving school diploma before being admitted to the Society of American Drivers. Then if we had stiffer penalties for driving without a license—it’s at least as deadly as practicing medicine without a license—we’d be golden, right?

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

I’m not defending the system, just reporting on what it is. I am definitely in favor of impounding vehicles of people driving without insurance or a valid license. I don’t see how the police can let someone drive home who isn’t a legal driver.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

It happens all the time. The girlfriend of a neighbor got cited four times for driving without a license. When one of the cops had finally had enough, he allowed her to drive to his home and spend an hour unloading all her possessions from the van she was driving and only then did he finally impound the nearly worthless van.

Of course she felt she had been treated unfairly and ranted about it for months.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Sorry, I didn’t think you were defending anything; plus, you’re correct. We do treat driving as a “right”. I was merely attempting to compare to some other things that require licenses and alluding to how much more strict we are with some license-holders.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

Another example is my license to ill.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

And don’t forget to fight for your right to party.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

What’s that noise?

Mr. Impossible
Guest
Mr. Impossible

When I met her at a government function, I suggested that parking should not be free. She literally laughed in my face.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

“Fish said he was shocked to learn that 56 percent of all fatal crashes involve drugs or alcohol. He asked whether Council should support new laws to address it. PBOT Director Treat warned against that, saying the alcoholism and drug addiction problems in our society are on such a large scale they should be dealt with by social service agencies.”

I’m sure I’m missing some context, here, but I find this exchange a bit unsettling. I wouldn’t think Comm. Fish would be suggesting “new laws” that would encroach onto the domain of social services, but rather “new laws” that would help curtail driving by those affected by addictions that make their driving extremely dangerous. I would also think Ms. Treat should be fully supportive of Council’s support for any such “new laws”, rather than “warning against it”.

Also, I want to be sensitive to our current concerns about unequal enforcement among our different racial/ethnic/income-level populations, but it seems to me that if we target enforcement at areas where we know higher numbers of crashes or traffic violations happen, it shouldn’t matter what neighborhood it’s in. Cameras especially aren’t going to stop you for a broken tail light and try to search your car—they’d only take your picture if you’re speeding or running a red light. I would love to see more automated enforcement in locations selected by actual crash or violation data. I would also support lower “presumptive fines” for violations caught by cameras; as I and others have noted here and in the past, consistent enforcement/penalty is more effective than random, extreme penalties.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

You don’t actually know if the cameras only record miscreants, or if they have other, less publicized functions, like feeding data into police license plate databases. I would really like to see some clear legislation on this front.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

As would I, but I suspect we want different legislation. I would like for all cars’ locations to be recorded at all times so as to make getting away with hit-and-run nearly impossible. I would also like all cars to require some sort of log-in so identifying the car is sufficient for identification of the driver.

Don’t want to be tracked while driving? Then don’t drive, or at least don’t drive into people in such a way that someone has to pull up the data on where/when your car was.

Adam
Subscriber

Surveillance state? No thank you.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

You think those same cameras can’t track pedestrians out cyclists? It’s done today in the UK.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

It doesn’t have to be cameras. I said the cars should be tracked, not that they should be put on video. Your phone can be tracked without recording any pictures of you or your phone.

Tracking =/= surveillance.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

Tracking where everyone goes, and when most certainly is surveillance.

Adam
Subscriber

I agree we need to combat dangerous driving and hit-and-runs, but we should not sacrifice people’s privacy to do so. Tracking everyone because a few of them could be criminals are the actions of an authoritarian surveillance state.

chris
Guest
chris

Jaywalkers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I have witnessed several accidents outside my window at work, in the middle of a block with a marked crosswalk at one end and a stoplight at the other, where some driver slams on their brakes for a jaywalker and gets rear ended because some fool was too lazy to walk 15 more feet to the designated crossing area.
The holier than thou, we can do no wrong, Bike Loud pdx attitude kinda makes the whole bike “community” off putting. Screaming “every intersection is a crosswalk” while ignoring “every stop sign means stop” is just as hypocritical as “christians” who pick and choose which parts of the bible they think everyone around them has to follow.

soren
Guest
soren

angry personal anecdotes (e.g. “holier than thou”) are not evidence.

to my knowledge, there is no direct evidence that jaywalking increases risk. however, a recent vision zero study in NYC indirectly suggests that jaywalking may be safer than crossing at legal crosswalks.

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/30411/careful-jaywalking-saves-lives/

i think a direct comparison between portland (jaywalking essentially illegal) and san francisco (jaywalking legal) would be very interesting. (san francisco is, in general, a safer city for pedestrians but this may be due to other variables.)

running stop signs and yielding signals (e.g. jaybiking) has been legal in idaho for 30+ years. the only two studies conducted suggest that this law improves safety with one reporting a ~14% decline in serious crashes and another finding statistically significant reductions in intersection crashes (but not other types of crashes).

https://cp298pedbiketranspo.wikispaces.com/file/view/jmeggs-idaho-cp298-5-final-project.pdf/34128437/jmeggs-idaho-cp298-5-final-project.pdf

http://brandonwhyte.businesscatalyst.com/assets/mastersprojectbrandonwhyteprintquality.pdf

bjorn
Guest
bjorn

Jaywalking (which is a derogatory slur for pedestrians who cross midblock) isn’t illegal in Oregon so they already are being prosecuted to the full extent of the law which is to say no penalty.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

I think “jay” has lost some of its sting. It feels neither derogatory nor particularly slurlike.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

“Bumpkinwalking” or “Redneckwalking” don’t quite have the right ring, either…

soren
Guest
soren

jaywalking is almost always illegal in portland. the law allows legal midblock crossings when someone is 150 feet from a legal crosswalk or signalized intersection. most of portland’s city blocks are 200 feet.

soren
Guest
soren

200-300 feet.

highrider
Guest
highrider

It is the driver’s responsibility not to tailgate so as not to rear end anyone. If the road is icy you’ve got to give lots of distance to the person driving in front of you, or just not drive. The streets aren’t a NASCAR race. It doesn’t matter what stupid crap anyone else is doing- don’t tailgate and you won’t rear end anyone.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Do you think the results would be any different crossing at a crosswalk? Half the time anyone stops for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, they nearly get rear-ended. We also have to make a distinction between “jaywalking”, as in, “not crossing at a crosswalk”, and “suddenly leaving the curb or a place of safety and moving into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard”. Of course pedestrians have a responsibility not to jump onto moving cars, but merely crossing mid-block when no traffic is “so close” should not be an offense at all. In fact, according to the State of Oregon, it isn’t. You only get fined for jaywalking in the City of Portland (and any other city that has such an ordinance).

Lenny Anderson
Guest
Lenny Anderson

Jaywalking is the safest way across a street, no question, especially at mid block where one has to be aware of just two directions. At corners it is much safer to go when the coast is clear than to trust a Walk signal, that some motorist will turn thru and take your life or limb.
Fitz makes the fatal mistake of equating a person on foot with one powering a 3K pound cage…not a fair fight at all. Jaywalk and live!

SD
Guest
SD

One of the more disturbing aspects of her comments is that she sees walking as a planned recreational activity.

Adam
Subscriber

In her neighborhood, it likely is. Commissioner Fritz lives two blocks from the Lake Oswego border, her street lacks sidewalks, and I imagine is quite dark at night. There is not much to walk to, save for a few parks and PCC. So for her, walking is a deliberate action, and not simply how one gets places. Though, she is within walking distance of a few bus lines, so one wonders if she had ever considered bus-commuting to work.

SD
Guest
SD

You would think that being on the city council would expand her perspective. Unfortunately, it seems like she is constantly making an effort to maintain and base policy on her very narrow view.

JeffS
Guest
JeffS

Yes and no.
Your point that some locations are not really walkable is valid. That said, the choice to live in such a location is an intentional one. The decision to live there typically shows, at the very least, that walkability was not very high on the priority list of the person.

There are a few exceptions, but her public comments make it pretty clear that she is not one of them. The quotes above are very much in line with all of her previous ones.

Adam
Subscriber

For people wealthy enough to choose where they want to live — Fritz is likely one of them — I agree with your statement.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Ain’t that the truth. I’d like to see only the license plates of offenders entered into any kind of “system”, and again, have cameras only placed (or placed with first priority) at locations that are demonstrably “high-incident”. Although, if someone is caught in a violation by a camera, I’d like law enforcement to have some ability to tack on fines for secondary offenses like using a phone, if it can be clearly seen happening.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Rats. Lost the reply thread. The above is a response to Hello, Kitty above.

Hello, Kitty
Guest
Hello, Kitty

Impound and crush the phone.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Well, it was obsolete anyway, and all my data’s in the cloud, so….

SE
Guest
SE

Portland Adopts Plan To End Traffic Fatalities — But Doesn’t Fund It

http://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-traffic-fatalities-funding-vision-zero/

Andy
Guest
Andy

Here’s my question: Does anybody believe that this plan will result in a major, say order of magnitude, reduction in fatalities?

still riding after all that
Guest
still riding after all that

Not me. People who drink and drive will continue to get drunk and get behind the wheel. Same for stoners, and the don’t-give-a-damn people with suspended licenses, and people who just go as fast as they want without caring if they hit or kill somebody.

As for increased enforcement, as long as the understaffed police are working heaps of overtime trying to keep the protest-riots under control, they won’t have much time for traffic-law enforcement.

B. Carfree
Guest
B. Carfree

I’d love to make a small wager with Leah Treat. If PDX can knock its road violence down by 10% more than the nation’s falls over the next five years (or 10% below current levels, whichever is lower), I’ll buy her family dinner at their favorite restaurant. If it drops by less or fails to drop (I suspect it will continue to increase), she buys Jonathan’s family dinner at his favorite restaurant.

Now, if she seriously believed that this plan will make much difference, she’d place her career on the line such that if it fails, she hits the unemployment line along with all of PBoT’s senior staff. I don’t think they believe in this plan, so I don’t expect this.

Eric Leifsdad
Guest
Eric Leifsdad

bollards

Roger Averbeck
Guest
Roger Averbeck

“Commissioner Nick Fish said he and his colleagues are forced to make hard decisions come budget time, so he challenged PBOT Director Treat to tell them what the single highest priority is. “I would recommend to council that our investments focus on road diets and re-engineering roadways,” Treat responded, “That will have the most impact on slowing people down.”

I am surprised that the 160 plus comments above did not mention Director Treat’s response. I personally support PBOT’s priority on road reorganizations of the 4 lane arterials that are the high crash corridors.

Road diets have multiple benefits – slowing traffic, reducing turning conflicts, improving access management for businesses, creating the space in the right of way for protected bike ways, providing opportunities for safer crossings, better access to transit and a more comfortable walking environment.

As we saw from the Foster Road planning effort, road reorganizations are a a heavy lift and PBOT will need a lot of support from the Active Transportation community.

Disclosure: I served on the Vision Zero Task Force, as a volunteer, representing Portland’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Unfortunately my day job prevented me from attending the Council Hearing on Thursday. I watched the entire video (thanks to Jonathan for posting the link).

Tim
Guest
Tim

“Enforcement was on nearly everyone’s mind yesterday — despite the fact that the City’s Vision Zero Task Force recommended de-emphasizing it due to concerns of how it can disproportionately impact people of color.”

Illegal driving disproportionately impacts people of color. How does not enforcing laws protect the social justice of minority children being disproportionately killed by drivers.

Minorities get tickets more often because of increased police activity in minority neighborhoods. The police are there because families request increased patrols and protection in their neighborhoods.

Adam
Subscriber

What really bothers me about this whole situation is that PBOT did the work to make sure all communities were involved in coming up with this plan; and after 18 months of listening to minority, POC, and other marginalized groups, determined that increased police enforcement is not the right approach. Then, with one fell swoop, our overtly privileged, all-white City Council decided to ignore all that research by stating “but enforcement”. It’s incredibly disrespectful to all the work that PBOT put into this plan and unbelievably dismissive of our communities that are most affected by police brutality. City Council should be listening to their constituents, rather than just saying whatever comes to their mind in these hearings! It’s beyond infuriating.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

I just realized that parsing “Vision Zero Action” must be done carefully…

Jim Lee
Guest
Jim Lee

I was on Maui and missed the whole thing.