I want to clear a few things up about the recent kerfluffle around Ladd Circle.
Turns out the Portland Police Bureau is anything but eager to do more enforcement. That’s what Traffic Division Sgt. Ty Engstrom shared with me in a phone conversation today.
First, let’s recap: On Tuesday, the PPB issued a statement and shared a video about the lack of stop sign compliance by people who ride and drive through Ladd Circle. The statement included a video of people blowing dangerously through the stop signs (as you can see above, one person rides through just as another person steps into the crosswalk). The behaviors were taking place at intersections where we’ve covered the exact same problem several times since 2007. The statement also said, in response to multiple complaints from nearby residents, that the PPB plans to do enforcement missions. A mention of last year’s fatality statistics and the city’s Vision Zero efforts further tied Ladd Circle to the PPB’s ongoing safety concerns.
Unfortunately, the statement didn’t fully capture the agency’s thoughts and intentions on this sensitive issue.
Not surprisingly, many people responded with anger and frustration. And with good reason. Ladd Circle is a relatively safe place. It’s not on any of the city’s Vision Zero or High Crash Network lists. And the design of this circle is terrible. The stop signs should be yield signs. In 2007 we shared a letter from City of Portland traffic engineer Scott Batson stating as much, where he explained the agency’s only reason for not doing it was the lack of recorded crashes and funding. “At this time, resources to devote to improvements where no clear safety benefit will result do not compete well with other capital improvement projects,” stated Batson.
That brings me to my conversation with PPB Traffic Division Sgt. Ty Engstrom earlier today. Sgt. Engstrom is on the Vision Zero Task Force, is a self-described “avid cyclist” who’s on a racing team, and he works with traffic safety advocates all the time.
(Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
Sgt. Engstrom didn’t write the PPB statement that our story was based on, but it did come from his notes and concerns. He told me on the phone he appreciated the BikePortland post and he was happy the issue was being talked about.
On the phone today, he shared more background and explained his perspective more clearly. Keep in mind that Sgt. Engstrom used to commute by bike himself through Ladd Circle everyday. Here’s what he said:
“Anytime someone fills out a TRACK-it or 823-SAFE request [the City’s system for filing public traffic safety concerns], I go through all of those. I triage them based on what our goals are — whether it’s Vision Zero, High Crash Network streets, fatal crashes — because we’re short-staffed and I can’t send my officers everywhere. I’m trying to do as much as I can, with the resources I have, and I’m trying to think outside the box. To be creative.
I don’t want to go down there [Ladd Circle] with a bunch of cops and make a bunch of stops. I’ve done that before. I’ve been through all that… And it’s really more of a headache than anything. We just end up with a bunch of complaints!
Advertisement
Recently I’ve gone down there on my own about three or four times. I just set my motorcycle out there with the emergency lights on and wait. A lot of people will run the stop sign and I just shout out to them, ‘Hey that’s a stop sign!’.
I know that Ladd Circle and that whole neighborhood is not where we’re having the big crashes or fatalities. However, it is a neighborhood with a lot of people that want to walk their kids to school, and to enjoy walking in their neighborhood.
The original complaint this time came from someone who lives near the corner where there’s a marked crosswalk and a bus stop and people walking kids to Abernethy School [a few blocks away]. Bicyclists and cars come up to that intersection, they look left to see if anyone’s coming, then they make the turn. That’s the kind of thing that can be dangerous.
We’ve had two recent fatalities that were at very slow speeds [he was referring to one on Burnside and 55th in December and the one at SW Salmon and Park]. Both involved pedestrians who died as a result of the secondary impact of the fall and hitting their head on the ground. If someone gets hit here, even at slow speeds, maybe they’re older and a bit more fragile, and suddenly we have a fatal crash.
What’s more telling to me is that this is an area where a lot of bicycles commute through. I used to commute through there on my bicycle. There are a lot of bikes, and the behavior they’re exercising here is indicative of the type of behavior throughout the rest of the city — in areas that may involve High Crash Corridor streets or more dangerous conditions.
My goal with putting out a statement was to get the word out to as many people as possible. I’ve been talking to The Street Trust to PBOT, to all of them, to hopefully correct some behavior. I don’t want to do another mission out there. I really don’t. But we need to make sure people change their behaviors. We had too many fatals last year.
I’m on a bike racing team. I’m out riding a lot. I know it’s aggravating to stop at all the stop signs… But I go to too many of these fatal crashes that involve all modes of transportation. If we can in anyway project messages to people to be more careful. That’s all I want to do. I’ve had to get creative with low staffing levels and I’m totally all about doing whatever we can — before enforcement.
I hope this helps clarify the intentions of the PPB around this issue. I also hope we can make some progress on this issue.
Regardless of whether there are “Stop” or “Yield” signs — we all have the responsibility to use utmost caution and good judgment as we go through these intersections. Please always ride and drive with respect for others. And pass it on!
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
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.
Follow the law or organize and change it. We’re all in this together.
Exactly. You can’t get upset if you don’t obey the rules and you are not special enough that they don’t apply to you.
Wrong. Human powered transportation and motor vehicles should abide by different rules. Next.
We do not have the same rules for people walking as we do for people who are driving motor vehicles. It seems obvious that someone riding a bike is in between those two in terms of how likely they are to injure someone else while moving about the city so obviously the rules they follow should be some sort of a middle ground between the two. In the case of a stop sign a pedestrian doesn’t have to stop at all they just walk into the intersection and have the right of way. A motor vehicle is expected to come to a stop and not proceed until they have the right of way. Idaho has shown that it is quite safe for a cyclist to treat that stop sign as a yield, where they yield to other users if someone else has the right of way but do not need to come to a complete stop if there is no one else with the right of way. Oregon should adopt Idaho’s law on this matter.
You and the person below you are just proving my point. Thanks anyway for your “expertise”..
I was intentionally agreeing with you.
I think they were intending to reply to the comment above yours.
OR Vehicle Code 814.400: “Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle…”
Oh wait, you said “should abide”.
Does that mean if a driver doesn’t think they “should” yield to bicycles in a bike lane, they can right-hook at will? Are we expecting red carpet from car drivers, but we are not willing to do the same for pedestrians?
What’s your point? The comment you responded to said, “Human powered transportation and motor vehicles should abide by different rules.”
And that’s exactly what the code section you quoted also says, if you don’t cut if off before the “except…” part that you cut off:
(1) Every person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any other vehicle concerning operating on highways, vehicle equipment and abandoned vehicles, EXCEPTt:
(a) Those provisions which by their very nature can have no application.
(b) When otherwise specifically provided under the vehicle code.
Lol, I would love to get pulled over by a cop for running a stop sign, a red light, not signaling, etc. How much can the fine possibly be, a couple hundred bucks, so my cost per infraction is a few cents, and the odds of ever being dinged in this city again is nil? There are T intersections by Sellwood middle school without stop signs, all of this discussion about enforcement and safety is lughable.
“Follow the law or organize and change it.”
I think most dumb laws have been (eventually) changed *because* people refused to follow them. Hello, Kitty notwithstanding, I’d consider that a form of organized change.
What goes around comes around. Change needs to come around about now.
an essential part of democracy is the right to challenge and violate unnecessary, discriminatory, and/or unjust laws.
No, democracy does not give you the right to violate laws you deem unjust (or just inconvenient). It gives you the right to change them.
I think Rosa Parks probably felt differently… Not to make this anything that remotely rises to that level, but the point that laws are to be followed no matter is not exactly correct…
Not everything good or necessary needs to be labeled “democracy”.
This is not an either or, Kitty.
Lunch counters? Underground Railroad? Conscientious Objectors? Idaho Stop?
Those examples are a bit all over the place, but blowing stop signs does not belong with those other items at all. Not even a little bit.
But to your larger point, sometimes people feel called upon to disobey a law they feel is unjust. Sometimes history proves them right; sometimes it doesn’t. But one of the fundamental principles of a democracy is rule of law, which does not mean rule of only the laws I want to follow. That just doesn’t work. If your view held, you’d have to accept those holing up in Malheur as fighting for democracy as well, which I do not.
So I would argue that civil disobedience falls outside of democracy, but I do not say it is never necessary.
Civil disobedience is essential to democracy.
Sometimes civil disobedience is antithetical to democracy.
I think you are thinking of un-civil disobedience.
The major part of civil disobedience was the willingness to pay the price of that disobedience. That you got you day in court. That you brought attention to the situation by being arrested. That you were righting a wrong and that it all went hand in hand.
I don’t want to stop/slowdown for a stop sign is not a major wrong to be righted.
“I don’t want to stop/slowdown for a stop sign is not a major wrong to be righted.”
I happen to agree, though it is also perfectly reasonable—as Bjorn’s activism exemplifies—to treat this as a wrong deserving to be righted. I’m not going to judge those who feel it is major enough to warrant their time and energy, and appreciate that they are leading the charge.
Intentional violation of laws is one form of direct action — protest.
Do you believe that protest is incompatible with democracy?
Protest is an important part of democracy. But not every kind of protest. But this is a theoretical discussion; the video showed nothing anyone would even remotely consider a protest.
Sometimes the stuff one can read on this site is just unbelievable. Do we all get to pick which laws we are not going to follow? So if your neighbor decides that he is just going to molest his neighbor’s daughter a little bit, you will be okay with that? If you get to decide which laws you are going to follow, then so should everybody else. And while you may have your judgments about which laws are important to follow, your fellow citizen may have a different set of judgments. Who is to say whose judgment is better?
Idaho Stop on par with Pedophilia.
That’s a good one.
you’re not in Idaho bud. the rest is lazy riding and wishful thinking.
Why?
“you’re not in Idaho bud.”
You could say the same about the Idahoans, until they got their legislators to pass the law.
Your point?
The point is that you need to follow the law 100% of the time! You do not get to pick and choose. If you don’t follow the law, then nobody else should have to either. If you are going to decide which laws are good laws and which ones are bad laws, then I should get to make the same judgment, too. So if I don’t like bike lanes, I am sure you will be fine with me driving in the bike lane at 50 mph.
People do wander in here who assert what you just did. I happen to think that is bunkum.
The history of laws reveals that those that don’t (or no longer) make sense get changed or thrown out all the time. And the process necessarily includes people refusing to follow them. Nothing controversial or difficult to understand about that in my view.
What you are describing, people randomly ignoring laws out of their private convenience strikes me indeed as a ridiculous and problematic stance. But—since we are talking about stop signs—it is convenient that we have the Idaho Stop Law we can point to to suggest a larger context within which to make sense of all of this, suggest that this isn’t at all random, or petty.
Driving 50 mph in a bike lane is a silly example. In reality, people break laws regularly, and authorities know it, and they intentionally enforce laws selectively.
People walk diagonally across or against the light at empty intersections. People don’t pay at the meter for parking for quick stops. They don’t get building permits for small projects (and inspectors will tell you they’d prefer that you didn’t get one). The police wouldn’t be able to get five blocks from the station if they stopped to cite everyone they saw breaking a law. I’ve never seen a building without an ADA or other code violation, including new buildings…
That’s not to excuse someone dangerously blowing through a stop sign in front of a pedestrian, or saying that if something bad happens to someone else because you chose to not follow a law, you shouldn’t have consequences. But the idea of 100% compliance isn’t realistic or even desirable.
>>>The history of laws reveals that those that don’t (or no longer) make sense get changed or thrown out all the time.
True; we have a body of people we elect and employ to do this work, and there is a clear path for making changes. As you note, this happens all the time.
>>> And the process necessarily includes people refusing to follow them.
The vast, vast majority of laws that are changed or discarded are done for purposes completely other than principled people refusing to follow them. In this case, people refusing to stop at stop signs in areas of high pedestrian activity is about the most counter-productive way I can think of to build the case for an Idaho stop law.
“People walk diagonally across or against the light at empty intersections.”
The horror!
But speaking of crossing diagonally, I don’t recall here on bikeportland any acknowledgement of the SW 11th & Couch upgrade to the pedestrian signals there. Wow!
Is that a first for Portland? I’d previously only seen this in Oakland.
We’re also not in Delaware or parts of Colorado bud.
http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2017/10/20/delaware-rolls-to-an-idaho-stop.aspx
“They also tout the 35-year track record in Idaho with no difference in overall bike crash trends. Bicycling injuries in Idaho actually declined 14.5 percent the year after the law was changed and there have been no negative safety impacts documented since. Many cyclists already utilize an Idaho Stop when cycling. A recent study from DePaul University observed riders in the Chicago area and found that only 1-in-25 cyclists came to a complete stop.”
I meant NW Couch.
30+ years ago Idaho legalized the Idaho stop. There are decades of data that show that injury rates were unchanged. This is the most ridiculous and frankly offensive comparison I have ever seen.
All laws are equal? Maybe all penalties should be equal too.
YOU do get to pick which laws YOU follow.
(And the cognitive dissonance that prevents you from seeing this is funny.)
For example:
* According to OR law people riding bikes are required to signal a turn for 100 feet prior to every lane change or turn.
* According to OR law people riding bikes are required to announce passes when they pass EVERY pedestrian on a shared use facility or sidewalk.
* According to OR law people riding slowly on narrow neighborhood greenways are required to pull aside and let faster moving traffic pass (e.g. people driving).
* According to OR law people riding bikes are required to come to a complete stop at every stop sign.
* According to OR law it is illegal for people riding bikes to use pedestrian leading interval signals.
All of these laws are ridiculous and most of us violate at least some of them every time we ride.
Also, there’s ORS 811.260(15) & 811.505(1), which pertain to *where* vehicles must stop: e.g., *at* a marked stop line, *before* the marked crosswalk at an intersection with a stop sign, and *before* crossing a sidewalk from a driveway.
These are all “failure to obey” offenses–i.e., no different from running a stop sign–that aren’t enforced at all as far as I can tell. At least, I’ve never heard of anyone being cited for violating any of them.
It’s rare to see these laws being followed, even though not stopping at the designated place can be just as dangerous as not stopping, but I’ve never heard anyone complain about these blatant, ongoing violations.
Where I live, people are constantly popping out of the parking garage at relatively high speed without looking or only looking one way. I’ve last track of the number of close calls and am annoyed that I have to be not just cautious but *extremely* cautious when walking on the sidewalks outside my building. /rant
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.260
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.505
Good point.
Also ORS 811.550 prohibits parking:
(16) Within 10 feet of a fire hydrant….
(17) Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection…
(18) Within 50 feet upon the approach to an official flashing signal, stop sign, yield sign or traffic control device located at the side of the roadway…
ORS 811.260(15) surprises me, because as I read it, if there is no marked stop line or marked crosswalk, then a driver can drive past the stop sign partly or even all the way across an unmarked crosswalk, if needed to have “a view of approaching traffic…”. So if I’m approaching the unmarked crosswalk on the sidewalk walking, running or biking (as the pedestrian in the video is) but I haven’t yet entered the unmarked crosswalk, the driver can zoom right into the crosswalk directly in front of me and block it.
At Ladd’s google shows a marked cross line, but many stop signs don’t have those, or marked crosswalks. It’s not a very pedestrian-friendly rule. To me, it’s a reason stop signs should always be accompanied by a marked stop line if there’s no marked crosswalk, because that stop line legally changes where a driver must stop, in the case of intersections without great visibility.
Here’s the rule:
Stop signs. A driver approaching a stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or, if there is no marked crosswalk, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the driver is moving across or within the intersection.
I’m surprised too. I would have sworn I read at some point that vehicles must stop *at* stop signs, because that makes sense and is easy to understand and enforce.
The law states that vehicles must stop “at the point *nearest* the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it” when there’s no stop line or marked crosswalk, but to me seems too close for comfort because that would be the point where the vehicle’s bumper is right next to the intersecting lane. That can’t be right, can it? Maybe there’s a different reading of that clause that makes sense, but I’ve read it several times and can’t figure out what it might be.
And while we’re on this topic, it’s illegal to run yellow lights in Oregon, but people do it constantly. Where is the outrage for and enforcement of this constant law-breaking behavior at pretty much every light in the state?
Yes, the law is written to protect people driving in the road from being impacted by person with the stop sign. But anyone approaching to cross the street in front of that person is left unprotected.
I used to run a lot, and one thing I hated was, when running on a busy street (one that had stop signs for drivers entering it from perpendicular streets), drivers would drive right past stop signs and not stop until they were totally blocking my path. And they’d never look to their right, because they were focused on oncoming traffic to the left.
According to how we’re both reading this law, unless I was already stepping off the curb, they had a right to drive right into my path without stopping if they needed to see oncoming traffic.
My unsolicited advice: If you’re moving at bicycle speeds (e.g. jogging, or on a scooter or skateboard) it’s a lot safer to travel on the right side of the street. Very few drivers are skilled enough to watch for fast-moving sidewalk traffic coming from their right-hand side.
This one is typically used for catching drunk drivers. A police officer waits across the way for a driver to exit from a parking lot and if they don’t stop before merging past the transition of the sidewalk — police officer instantly has PC based on vehicle motion. Almost all drivers do this regardless of their alcohol intake.
The essential part of democracy is being glad you don’t live in one.
I’ve spent more time trying to change oregon’s stop sign laws to mirror Idaho’s than anyone else and I can tell you that there is one hurdle that is bigger than any other. Many legislators who don’t support these enforcement actions but hail from outside Portland don’t really believe that cyclists get tickets for treating stop signs as yields and don’t view it as a problem. There is simply no other place in Oregon outside of Portland where police set up stings at extremely safe intersections to try and ticket cyclists. We tried the approach of having the city ask the cops to cease enforcement targeting cyclists in Ladds as well and were told that individual officers have discretion to do stops where they want. The city is either unwilling or unable to direct enforcement away in this manner. I continue to support changing the law, but until then enforcement should be based on actual danger not how loudly neighbors can whine.
The people have said it needs to be changed. The city has said it needs to be changed. But nobody will change it because it’s not a big enough problem.
That’s how most oppressive laws play out. Then people start violating the laws en mass and suddenly people are paying attention and changing the laws.
So yes, people are breaking the law in order to change it, just as they have throughout history.
Stopping at a stop sign is not oppression. Please.
I agree. So maybe we need to get the definition of oppression changed:
“the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control”
Really, you response is to water down the definition of oppression?
What is the definition of oppression?
Enforcement…before something bad happens!? I like the thinking, but it still doesn’t explain the prioritization of this sleepy intersection over and above the already deadly ones.
9watts:
He’s not saying “enforcement… before something happens.” He’s trying to do some PR and education BEFORE enforcement in hopes that it prevents something from happening.
And I disagree with you that this is a “sleepy intersection”. It’s a busy intersection for bicycle riders and walkers, and it has a sordid history where neighbors are very fed up with how few people respect the stop signs.
To me it’s clear that Sgt. Engstrom sees this intersection as a means to educate bicycle riders about the need to use more caution and demonstrate more respect for stop signs in general. Put yourself in his shoes. He sees all the death and carnage up close and he knows that people on foot and bikes are extremely vulnerable. He isn’t an activist and he doesn’t see everything like you and I see them. We all bring different experiences and mindsets to the table.
I think the PPB messed this up from a communications/PR standpoint (the PIO is new and obviously doesn’t appreciate the history/sensitivity around this issue)… But I think in general Sgt. Engstrom “gets it”. FWIW I shared my criticisms of how this was handled and I shared why many in the community are mad at the PPB in general for how this has been handled. He was appreciative and he took the feedback. It’s an ongoing process to get our PPB more on-board with our sensitivities and our way of thinking. There’s a lot more work to do.
“He’s not saying “enforcement… before something happens.” He’s trying to do some PR and education BEFORE enforcement in hopes that it prevents something from happening.”
I thought we just learned that they were ticketing over in Ladd’s.
I guess I didn’t read that quite right.
Engstrom wrote:
“and the behavior they’re exercising here is indicative of the type of behavior throughout the rest of the city — in areas that may involve High Crash Corridor streets or more dangerous conditions”
The logic here as I read it collapses what happens on busy streets with cars and resulting deaths with what has been observed in Ladd’s with bikes (no deaths, no injuries, but incautious and rude behavior by some on bicycles). Assuming I interpreted this correctly, his inference requires some mental gymnastics I find problematic.
How ’bout the proper response to this article being “look right as well as left, and respect pedestrians”? And nothing more.
Absolutely. As cyclists we need to be prepared to yield to more vulnerable users in the same way cars should be yield to cyclists in most circumstances.
I find all this talk about civil disobedience of unjust laws is ridiculous. If anything is unjust in this situation it is cyclists jeopardizing pedestrians’ safety. The solution is cyclists owning the problem and a lot of education and information to improve behavior not silly acts of “civil disobedience.”
Jim
“a sordid history where neighbors are very fed up with how few people respect the stop signs.”
what’s sordid is the inability of these few neighbors and the PPB to recognize that rolling cautiously through stop signs is normal cycling behavior. the complaints and the occasional sting have done nothing and will do nothing to stop people from engaging in normal cycling behavior.
one of the most striking observations in the comments was that PPB advertises in advance and posts large warning signs when they conduct similar stings on people driving. the fact that they do none of these things and literally hide in the bushes at Ladd’s indicates that these actions are more about discouraging people from cycling than engaging in legitimate enforcement activity.
Sure PPB can use enforcement to get people to cease engaging in normal cycling behavior. Sadly, the way that happens is that people get fed up with being treated like pariahs in all contexts and simply give up cycling. We’ve seen quite a few people follow that path, which is a part of our ever-increasing climate change emissions coming from transportation.
“To me it’s clear that Sgt. Engstrom sees this intersection as a means to educate bicycle riders about the need to use more caution and demonstrate more respect for stop signs in general.”
Then I think your judgement is clouded. It seems clear to the rest of your readers that this is just another way to belittle cyclists because these enforcement actions are useless and oppressive. At worst they’re dangerously taking resources away from real dangers. And you’re saying that this is OK.
Yes. My judgment is definitely clouded. And so is yours. Everyone has a different perspective on this. Thank you for sharing yours. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I’m trying to be a bridge between the community and the PPB here.
And do you realize that there have been no enforcement actions this time around? The entire post is about how Engstrom wants to avoid them and how he’s trying to be creative in tackling the issue. I strongly disagree that it’s “oppressive and useless” to have the leader of the PPB Traffic Division observe a persistent community traffic safety issue and then turn to using the media platform to share his concerns about it. That’s actually a pretty good strategy IMO.
Blowing neighborhood stop signs to get to work faster to argue behind keyboards in comments sections of blogs… “The modern activist”
I have never ever defended ‘blowing’ stop signs, and don’t know anyone here who would. You might want to follow Dan A’s advice in the concurrent thread and hang around a little before slamming folks here with I’ll-considered gotchas.
Rolling a stop sign after checking that everything is clear, and/or Idaho Stop, sign me up.
None of the people in the video even slowed down or made any attempt to see if there are people on foot trying to cross the street.
How can you be sure of that? Except for the one pedestrian there was no one attempting to cross, and those on bikes may well have ascertained this before passing the camera. The pedestrian who did approach engaged in exactly the kind of dance with the cyclist I’ve commented on here in the past. Both pass within inches of each other because (we might assume) they can judge each other’s speed and so are able to pass while barely breaking stride.
The video suggests to me that at least from what we’re seeing this is working great and the stop sign at this location serves no purpose.
The pedestrian who did approach engaged in exactly the kind of dance with the cyclist I’ve commented on here in the past. Both pass within inches of each other because (we might assume) they can judge each other’s speed and so are able to pass while barely breaking stride.
Right, exactly how it works in every Dutch city I’ve visited, and I suspect most other biking countries. My Dutch friends say that bike and pedestrian traffic `just flows`. That sure looks like what that pedestrian and cyclist are doing; it’s evident they both saw each other.
BTW, sometimes socks start to smell like dead salmon.
So the pedestrian can fend for themselves, so I’m not really gonna make any effort to do what I’m legally required to do? That same argument could very very easily be applied to cars. Hey, the bike saw me, and she could have held back and not been hit? The bike could have slowed down and given me the right of way….. but the second that a bike gets hit by a car we scream about the legality of this or that? What if that pedestrian had gotten hit? Would we be arguing that they could have moved out of the bikes way and avoided the collision?
Billyjo, If you watch the video closely you’ll notice that the pedestrian hadn’t even set foot on the street by the time he was even with the cyclist. Serious, watch the video at 1/4 speed.
Regardless of this fact, I didn’t see any moment in that video where a human was in danger of being injured. As another commenter noted, if you’ve ever cycled in a dense European city it’s a thing of beauty. The speeds are so low and the visibility on foot or cycle is so unobstructed bike and peds seem to flow naturally.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a bicycle and a car.
Amen
If a cyclist passes within inches of a pedestrian at 15+mph, I’m not sure the pedestrian would see that as a “dance”. Getting buzzed by a bike is no more fun than getting buzzed by a car, no matter how poetically you put it.
Don’t be silly.
Being buzzed is something else entirely.
We’re not talking about—the video doesn’t show—the pedestrian crossing within inches *ahead of* the cyclist; that would be cause for concern, buzzing or whatever.
Silly? Passing within inches was your description. The video is hard to judge, but that fact that so many people think blowing through a stop sign and passing so close to people walking across the street (the way you described it) tells me that maybe this enforcement action wasn’t so crazy after all. Not everyone likes to “dance”, and shouldn’t be compelled to tango just to get across the street.
If you’re arguing that the pedestrian controlled the action (because the cyclist didn’t pass behind them), then why wouldn’t that same argument hold for cars? Let cars drive through and let the pedestrians call the dance. If anything, cars have a more predictable path than cyclists.
If you really want to know what pedestrians think, maybe we could get a copy of the complaints they made to the police.
I think the video, especially the normal speed one Soren linked to where we see the pedestrian completing his crossing of the street, speaks for itself. I feel like you are trying very hard to impute something reprehensible to the situation in this video which I simply don’t see.
I’m discussing what we see in terms of body language, and as you yourself argued somewhere here in this tangle of comments, “except for the stop sign.”
I am imputing that I started from a position that the enforcement action was a ridiculous waste of resources, but, after having heard the rhetoric supposedly supporting that viewpoint, have started to become convinced I was wrong.
I’m not hearing people make reasonable arguments about making Idaho stops (arguments I am strongly predisposed to agree with, and I think are widely accepted here), but am instead hearing things like “bikes are easier to dodge” and “passing within inches is fine”. As someone who thinks I have a moral duty to not intimidate the less powerful, particularly pedestrians, even if it means occasionally stopping at a stop sign, I find this sort of rhetoric disturbing, especially when coming from people who complain frequently (often quite legitimately) about being intimidated by others.
I am feeling let down that so many members of my own community seem to think this way.
In my view, that interaction with the pedestrian in no way qualifies as an Idaho Stop. It appears to me that the cyclist didn’t reduce speed at all, and didn’t stop to allow the pedestrian to proceed. We all make judgments regarding what we think is proper, and I would not do that with a pedestrian heading towards the crosswalk. To me, that’s a great opportunity to spread goodwill that has been lost.
But really, what bothers me most about this clip is that there is a car parked right up against the stop sign. There’s a reason the state has a law against that.
One of the threads in this topic is the wastefulness of enforcing laws when there is no harm done. Following on from that, what is the harm you see from this car parked in this location? Is it preventing cylists from seeing the stop sign? Does it prevent pedestrians from seeing cyclists who might be blowing the stop sign?
Or was this a bit of satire to illustrate the larger point?
I don’t agree with the blanket notion that it’s wasteful to enforce laws when there is no harm done.
Cars parked on the corner reduce visibility and increase the likelihood of an injury.
So then you support the Ladd’s stings? Or you just want enforcement for the sake of enforcement to be applied to others and not yourself?
I think I’ve been clear. I’m not going to have a back and forth just so you can ring up more comments.
The video is pretty choppy here, but I want to know why the cyclist in yellow, when pulling up to the intersection, doesn’t stop for the pedestrian walking briskly towards the intersection. I definitely would have come to a full stop there. At a minimum, I would have slowed enough to all the pedestrian to enter and control the intersection, and then rolled through slowly behind them. I don’t think there’s anything dance-like about blasting by in front of a pedestrian. He could have very easily assumed the cyclist was going to stop, and jogged out into the crosswalk, which would have made for an exciting conclusion to their ‘dance’.
I hear you. Given that THERE IS a stop sign the cyclist should have done as you suggest.
However, if you look closely at the body language of the pedestrian, he does exactly what I would have done, do all the time at various locations, circumstances: doesn’t break stride—he is walking briskly—and co tiniest across the street. The smoothness of this exchange, dance, interaction just makes physical sense. Monderman would be proud.
and the cyclist has the time to read his “body language” isn’t that the point of a stop sign? So that there is time to read the situation?
Also, I know plenty of people who are totally clueless at reading “body language” especially when they’re riding at 10 to 15 miles an hour.
Oh, another thing. I’m going to assume eye contact played a key role here. Eye contact and the related and obviously unspoken acknowledgement that this will go smoothly because cyclist at his speed will have passed by the time I step into the street.
The tricky (policy) thing here is that this dance is not inherently legislatable, but is something Hans Monderman was onto with his—by most accounts successful—campaign to remove signage in order to produce exactly this kind of elegant, negotiated interaction.
Obviously if the pedestrian were blind this wouldn’t work.
The pedestrian may have been looking to make sure the cyclist was going to stop.
When I make eye contact with someone driving, it isn’t because I’m offering to give up my right of way, it’s because I’m checking to make sure they see me and they aren’t going to drive into me. This plays out frequently when we are stopped together at a red light or stop sign. If I look at a driver to make sure they aren’t usurping my right of way, and then they do it anyway and I enter the intersection immediately afterwards, it isn’t a dance. It’s a doofus usurping my right of way.
Yes. Because there is a stop sign, the cyclist has usurped the pedestrian’s right of way, but since this crossing goes so smoothly my takeaway isn’t that the cyclist usurped the right of way, but that the stop sign *at least for situations such as we see in the video* doesn’t serve any useful purpose.
I called it a dance because both parties interact in what I can only see as mutually satisfactory exchange, an exchange that works great where no stop signs are present.
As I’ve said in past comments under stories about Ladd’s stings, if we are talking not about separate cyclists as in this video, but about huge pelotons that stream by, causing the pedestrian to have to wait and wait and wait, a yield sign, and cyclists’ obeying the yield sign would be preferable.
Why do you think the video shows a “mutually satisfactory exchange”? Did the pedestrian tell you that?
What do you see?
I see a shaky video that’s hard to judge, filmed by an officer who was there because of complaints by people, some of whom, presumably, wanted to cross the street safely.
I dunno. As a ped in that situation I likely would have seen the cyclist coming and spent the extra .5 seconds on the sidewalk to let the cyclist keep their momentum. I’m usually waiting to make eye contact and judge intent in these situations anyway; regardless of whether it’s a cyclist or driver coming down the street.
If they slow to a stop and put their head down, you should proceed without stopping. That’s the exact same body language I use to get drivers to proceed.
You are completely wrong. I just watched the video to check and every cyclist slowed down except for the one riding in front of the pedestrian. Every other cyclist was not pedaling when they went through that stop sign, meaning they were all slowing because they were approaching the intersection with caution. The one that kept pedaling was either trying to get out of the way of the pedestrian (most likely, since they cleared the ped’s path before he stepped into the street) or they were being careless (which is unlikely due to the known peds in the area).
You can clearly see the approaching sidewalks and street from at least 60′ before the stop sign, so everybody would have already done their checks, and could have done so without moving their heads. You wouldn’t have seen any of this if they had moved their heads since this video is of after the stop sign.
This line stuck out to me: “I’m on a bike racing team. I’m out riding a lot. I know it’s aggravating to stop at all the stop signs…But I go to too many of these fatal crashes that involve all modes of transportation.”
All modes are victims, but not all modes cause fatalities. I understand the concern here, but this still seems like a very generous interpretation of the Vision Zero framework.
That’s the way I read it too, Catie.
I can appreciate that Sgt. Engstrom is a rider, but his message reads as a bunch of platitudes and generalities to me. Sure, there are a lot of traffic related deaths in Portland, but can we really use that as a blanket justification for any police action?
I feel like the message is something along the lines of this:
“We’ve had an alarming number of cougar attacks in the PNW in the last couple years, so we’re out here rounding up all the mountain goats because the cougar attacks just aren’t acceptable.”
Not a rider. An “avid cyclist too”. Typical attempt at making himself seem an expert on the subject at hand while refusing to address the actual issues.
Hear, hear! If only the folks that use that line knew how far the typical cyclist’s eyes roll into the back of their head when they hear it. I place it on equal footing with “Trust me,…”
Careful with your equivalencies here. A lot of White guys on bikes in this town seem to think of themselves part of a legitimately persecuted class, and it is beyond tone deaf. We are debating transportation and safety issues, and this article is only about rolling stops in a wealthy neighborhood.
It’s a flawed analogy anyway. Better to say I have a friend who rides bikes.
Low socioeconomic status folk and people of color have been targeted by these police stings and their experiences with our racist and classist law enforcement system can be different from those of the white “middle class”.
They’ve been targeted by the Ladd’s stings?
targeted = caught up in
Those are very different things.
tar·get /ˈtärɡət/ (verb)
1. select as an object of attention…
synonyms: select, choose
So, then, just as true to say that middle class people are being targeted.
Still no on this line of reasoning. If bicycling through Portland is the most exposed and vulnerable you have felt, your life is charmed. No one who has faced real danger and systemic predudice is going to feel anything but offense to White guys trying to tie cops asking cyclists in Ladds to stop at stop signs in Ladds Addition to the fight against racism and homophobia.
I don’t feel exposed or vulnerable at all when I cycle but I do share your disapproval of its bro culture. I agree that comparison of police “harassment” of white people to systemic homophobia is not justified.
I only posted in response to use of the word “only”.
If you were to spend half an hour watching people cycle on SE Ladd’s during rush hour, you would likely notice that many femme-appearing people and some non-white folk use this bikeway. If these police stings only targeted affluent white bike bros I would find them more amusing than problematic.
#sorrynotsorry
PS: I identify as genderqueer.
What’s the common thread in both of the recent low-speed fatalities? Motor vehicles.
Mass matters. Even at low speed, motor vehicles are thousands of times more dangerous for a pedestrian. I don’t know the vehicle type in the downtown incident, but the vehicle that killed one of my neighbors at 53rd and Burnside was a large pickup truck with a tall, flat front end. We will continue to see pedestrian fatalities in our city increase, as more people drive these types of vehicles, and the PPB continues to enforce silly things like stop sign violations in Ladd’s Addition.
A car and a bicycle require different levels of care to operate. This should not be a confusing subject to anyone. Bike on ped collisions themselves are rare, and fatalities are crazy rare.
I routinely run lights and stop signs on my bike.
I wouldn’t do it in a car if my mom was on fire.
The more common thread was that the initial impact did not kill the pedestrian, as is common with most crashes, it was the fall to the ground. An errant cyclist could cause the same outcome.
If the other crashes involved vehicles, then the fact that the the initial impact didn’t kill the pedestrians is not “the more common thread”. So that statement is not true.
Plus, bicycles are far narrower than cars or trucks, so far easier to dodge. They are also more maneuverable, and able to stop much more quickly. Visibility from them is far better. They are far lighter. There’s almost no surface area on a bike to get hit by–a tire 1″ wide, and a handlebar 1″ wide. I’d guess you’re at least as likely to be hit by the cyclist’s body, which is far softer than a steel vehicle body.
So while your statement that “An errant cyclist could cause the same outcome” may be true, it’s beside the point. A jumping dog or a banana peel could cause the same outcome, too.
The closest I have come to hitting a pedestrian was when one stepped in front of me without looking when I had a green light. I could have gone behind him no problem, but he saw me 2 paces in and leaped backwards. I corrected left again, and locked up my brakes, twisted into a slide, ended up coming to rest shoulder to shoulder with him. He and I were both apologetic.
If I had been driving a car, he would have died. Also he might have heard my engine..
A bicyclist traveling at the same speed would apply a force to the pedestrian several magnitudes lower than a motor vehicle traveling the same speed. Additionally, the contact point would likely be different, since the vehicle in the crash at 53rd and Burnside was a pickup truck with a tall, flat front end. Lower impact force and likely lower impact point means that the impact would be less likely to knock the pedestrian down to the ground. And even if the pedestrian were knocked down, they would hit the ground at a slower speed. A cyclist would also be more likely to “clip” the pedestrian, and throw them off balance, given that bicycles have about 1/20th the frontal section of your average vehicle.
This is just basic physics, and it is also supported in practice, by the fact that the number of pedestrians killed by cyclists each year is usually zero, sometimes 1, and rarely 2. Nationwide.
Using your logic, falling over on the sidewalk is just as dangerous as being hit by a dump truck. Force matters. Frontal area matters. The shape of the impact zone on the vehicle matters.
It drives me crazy when people (on bikes or in cars) don’t look both ways before crossing a sidewalk. People HAVE to learn to do this regardless of if the stop signs become yield signs or not. People are not looking and they are creating dangerous situations. People walking are frustrated and reporting it so PPB is being compelled to respond. I agree that this seems like a very low-priority intersection, but the problem is real.
I’d just like to point out that in the time between this article first being posted (Tuesday) and now, a driver struck a pedestrian at NE Sandy and 109th and fled the scene. Police statement said serious injuries.
Also worth noting that there have been multiple serious injury/deaths of pedestrians along that stretch of Sandy in the last year. Placating people who live in Ladd’s and would prefer their neighborhood be gated to eliminate non local traffic is a distraction that is leading to people getting hurt and killed. I like that the officer was only warning people when he went there last, but realistically if he has his motorcycle parked in Ladd’s it means he isn’t where the safety issues are.
Am I the only one that sees the above photo of the circle clearly shpws it’s really just a bunch of bushes in the shape of four male genitalia?
make of that what you will
If that’s what you think male genitalia look like I feel sorry for you.
They look more like moldy half-eaten doughnuts to me, the kind police get for watching two-wheeled scofflaws pass repeatedly by, like cyclocross criterium but without the mud.
“Wrong” “Should” and “Next”
Where can we all read about the world you live in?
How about some more ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the actual topic at hand.
I believe the cyclist in the video above was not required to stop for the pedestrian. The pedestrian was obligated not to enter the crosswalk until the cyclist had passed.
Aside from the stop sign, of course 🙂
Aside from the stop sign, of course.
Please enforce high-crash corridors !
Please please please…would some City leader just take some leadership on this and make some low cost design changes so that pedestrians will feel more comfortable while allowing cyclists to move through it at a safe uninterrupted pace (unless there is a pedestrian crossing)…this rotary needs to be fixed and much of it de-paved…
Every intersection is a pedestrian crossing whether marked or unmarked, and as such pedestrians have the right of way. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp.
Pedestrians are at the bottom of the food chain. They are the vulnerable user.
How many cyclists go off with “I almost got killed by a driver” nope, you got scared by a driver not respecting your place on the road. The same way pedestrians are scared by cyclists buzzing them at 15 mph.
How about giving pedestrians the same respect that you demand drivers give you. Stop at stop signs. Stop at red lights. Watch out for other road uses, particularly those more vulnerable than yourself.
Sure. No disagreement.
It is just worth noting that in the Engstrom video nothing egregious, rude, dangerous occurs. No pedestrian is strafed or endangered. Everyone gets where they are headed without breaking their stride. Maybe part of the fluidity has to do with the absence of cars?
How many pedestrians are killed by cyclists each year?
How many cyclists are killed by motorists each year?
How can you possibly draw this comparison? When a cyclist says “I was nearly killed by a driver”, that comment is entirely plausible, because it happens all of the time. When a pedestrian says “I was nearly killed by a cyclist”, that comment is laughable, because it happens less often than people getting killed by lightning (average of 51 times each year in the US). It’s over 50x more likely that you will get struck and killed by lightning, as a pedestrian.
The last time I “almost got killed by a driver” was a little over a month ago. I was side-swiped going up a blind hill. In other words, contact was made and I managed to keep the bike upright and avoid being sucked under the car.
This seems worlds away from your interpretation.
Todd,
What, specific, ‘low cost’ design changes (that increase safety)?
Seems like two changes would make sense at Ladd’s. Change the stop signs to yield AND reduce the speed limit in the circle to something very low like 10 mph. So you don’t have to literally stop but you can’t blow through at 20mph either.
Just a thought.
Why would people obey the speed limits any more than they obey the stop signs?
I think cars should have to stop, always, but cycles can yield, based on superior visibility and awareness of cyclists.
Merlin,
The lowest possible statutory speed in Oregon is 15 mph on a narrow residential road (18′) intended for 2-way traffic. If a greenway you might be able to go to statutory – 5 mph based on current law.
Ladd circle is a one-way street. Anything lower than the Portland residential speed limit of 20 mph (posted) would require an ODOT speed order…
To paraphrase:
I have limited resources, so I am spending them in an area that has not documented injuries.
Am I missing something?
Srgt. Engstrom should compare notes with Srgt Ford
https://bikeportland.org/2019/01/29/ppb-steps-up-patrols-releases-video-of-bicycle-riders-failing-to-stop-at-infamous-ladd-circle-stop-sign-294743#comment-7039631
I’d like them both to read some of the West Midlands Police blog:
Cycling is a fantastic thing, it’s benefits are well documented, traffic congestion is reduced, as is pollution, health and wellbeing are boosted for the participants and not forgetting the resultant benefits of less dependence on a stressed NHS. When it comes to playing our part in supporting cycling and cyclists it’s not a case of “why should we?” it’s a case of “why wouldn’t we?” Supporting cyclists and cycling is really a case of policing for the benefit of all, a prime case of policing for the greater good of the community.
Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our regions roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do. Yes we do get complaints of the “nuisance” variety, pavement cycling, some anti-social behaviour (usually yobs on bikes rather than “cyclists”), red light running etc. but you get the idea, most peoples interpretation of “1st world problems” or the “modern day blues”, nothing that’s a priority for a force like our own in a modern day society. Bad cycling is an “irritant” to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alieve many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an “irritant”
So what can we do to do our bit ?, to encourage along with our partnership agencies people onto bikes and get the personal and community benefits already discussed. Well as we already touched upon in the first part of this blog, people’s fear of the dangers of cycling is the largest barrier, particularly the close pass. The media plays a large part, every cycling tragedy is to the fore, not that they shouldn’t be, such incidents can be a force for change but there is very little to re-address the balance, to convince people that cycling is safe. We as a force must do our upmost to protect the vulnerable on our roads and convince them that if anyone does endanger them on the road the perpetrator will be dealt with. The flip side of this is of course that anyone endangering a vulnerable road user should expect to be identified and prosecuted; this is the key to policing the problem.
https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/category/safer-cycling/
Fantastic!
Mark the crosswalk with zebra-stripes and put in a yield sign, no?
On the question of whether it’s ever right to run a stop sign/disobey a law you disagree with…
My first thought was to point out that authorities intentionally do not enforce all laws, because they realize the laws don’t always make sense in every situation. Then I thought of this example that further muddies the waters.
When the Willamette Greenway Trail was rebuilt a couple years ago as part of the Sellwood Bridge project, the project installed stop signs requiring trail users to stop where the trail crosses a private driveway serving the few dozen Macadam Bay houseboat residents.
I objected to the Parks Bureau (it’s their trail) because I saw no need to require several hundred public trail users daily to stop for a few dozen users of a private driveway (who have their own stop signs), and because nobody on the trail EVER stops at them, making it actually more dangerous because the stop signs for the trail users give driveway users an expectation the trail users will stop. I also asked if the stop signs applied only to people biking, or also to people walking or running.
Parks replied that they don’t know if the signs apply to walkers or runners, and that they know most people will not stop, but that they will not remove them. They said the signs are a recommendation, and it’s up to the trail users to decide whether to stop or not.
In effect, Parks is teaching people that stopping at stop signs is optional.
Y’all in the comments taking sides are basically saying the same thing, but aren’t considering one important detail and thus seeing it differently. Enforcement of the stop sign rule, for cars AND bikes is (almost) never about coming to a complete and total stop. It’s enforced against people who clearly are going too fast to be able to safely stop, if a pedestrian is unexpectedly entering the crosswalk when they go through. If you’re doing this, you are riding or driving unsafe, and both equally deserve a stern talking-to, or possibly a ticket if you’re rude or a repeat offender. I really hope we can all agree on this, and simply start helping enforce basic etiquette when we see other people riding OR driving unsafe at these intersections.
Ladd’s circle enforcement actions have always been about not coming to a complete and total stop.
Following the Officers logic…..Right On Red law should be reversed.
Right on red if done properly, stop, ensure it is safe to proceed, proceed, works fine. But few actually follow that law either.
Yesterday while I was running on a residential street, a woman got into her car and drove along next to me, in the direction I was running. As we both went down a gradual incline, her car picked up speed and she suddenly braked and turned left in front of me – a classic left-hook. I shouted at her as passed in front of me, but she had no reaction. It made me think of how isolated automobile drivers can be, in their hermetically sealed compartments with the radio on, cellphone talking to them, etc. Might it be safer for all vehicles to be open-air, so that operators can follow what’s going on around them?
Cyclists are much more aware of their surroundings than automobile operators and therefore should be able to behave differently.
The problem with Ladd’s is that all traffic except pedestrian traffic is one-way traffic, so people entering the circle only look one way. The obvious solution is to make Ladd’s a two-way circle. After the first few crashes, I guarantee people would start looking both directions before entering. Whether they’d see pedestrians better after the change is anyone’s guess.
Stephen (yes, I’m joking) K.
I’m sure PBOT would be willing to install a counter-flow, parking-protected bikeway on the outer edge of the roadway. That should fix things.
The video GIF in this post and Jonathan’s tweet is significantly sped up making it seem that people cycling were travelling much faster than they actually were. This is very misleading.
https://youtu.be/E8SzUMSwGyA
Thanks for pointing that out.
And now we get to see the pedestrian continuing, completing crossing the street.
Sure doesn’t look scary or problematic to me.
Not saying that problematic behavior couldn’t or doesn’t occure here: we know that it has, but this video doesn’t capture it or make that case.
Either way, conflating the situation to make it sound like that particular pedestrian was at all threatened or at risk by that or any other cyclist is pure rubbish; the pedestrian clearly saw the cyclist and calmly walked behind him after he passed, there was absolutely nothing to suggest it was a ‘close call’ regardless of whether or not the video unrealistically represents the cyclists’ speed. I think BikePortland is doing a great disservice to push the lie that that pedestrian’s safety was at all threatened or at risk.
come on soren. i didn’t speed anything up. At least not purposely. I created a GIF from the video for the purposes of making it easier to share and I cut out the bits with no action.
Software used to create GIFs often drops frames (to make the GIF file smaller) resulting in an apparent speed increase. I didn’t mean to imply that this was done purposefully. Regardless, the GIF gives the false impression that people were cycling through the stop sign at relatively high speeds.
I felt it was important to make this point because a number of commentators appeared to assume high speeds:
https://bikeportland.org/2019/01/31/ppb-traffic-division-sgt-on-ladd-circle-we-dont-want-to-do-more-enforcement-294884#comment-7041014
thanks Soren. But FWIW I think people were cycling too fast here for conditions. They look to be blowing through IMO.
“But FWIW I think people were cycling too fast here for conditions”
IMO, riding too fast for conditions is ubiquitous on Portland’s bikeways. I occasionally do this myself and I suspect that you do too.
I have no problem with enforcement that specifically targets this behavior*. Howeover, when I stopped to watch a Ladd’s sting years ago, the behavior that was targeted was almost entirely “people proceeding cautiously through a stop sign”. Thus, I don’t think these stings do anything to deter “riding too fast for conditions” but do reinforce negative stereotypes (e.g. that cycling is antisocial and dangerous) and discourage less enthusiastic people from cycling.
*still don’t think this is a priority but I certainly would be vehemently opposed.
… and stereotypes of police officers.
Is confirmation with your own eyes and ears of what you’ve learned the same as a stereotype? Somehow I think you are selling us all short with that comment.
Every day is a new day.
Cops wield immense power, are a very privileged class, and as such have the opportunity every day to demonstrate their integrity, their character, their usefulness to the many publics they are supposed to serve. To the extent that we instead see and hear a stereotype confirmed I’m not going to be inclined to kill the messenger.
What you see and hear is a very biased sample, and is probably not a representational cross section of what actually happens.
One abuse is, of course, too many, but we also need the complete context to understand the extent of the problem.
I actually appreciated this article. It is really easy to race through here, and the ridiculous amount of weight I cart around could legitimately hurt a pedestrian.
FYI
At Ladd Circle, PBOT measured about 35% of drivers complying with the stop signs, and up to 3% of cyclists.
It takes far fewer than 97% of drivers to ignore, e.g., the speed limit for ODOT cheeses to invoke the 85th oercentile rule and…accommodate the scofflaws.
A statistic I would like to see is how many people come to a full “unforced” stop; that is, actually stop when there is no vehicle or cyclist coming that obligates them to stop. I’ve done some observation of intersections around the circle, and my conclusion is 0% of anyone.
Doesn’t that tell you something?
That is surprisingly high motorist compliance. Usually it is about half of that.
Engstrom seems pleasant and competent.
Also, he rides a nice motorcycle.
That’s always been one of my favorite intersections in Portland, for its urban feeling.
When the new signals went in, everyone (all modes) seemed confused. Now, a year or whatever later, people seem either confused, and pedestrians just ignore the signals.
Seattle has a similar signal at the entrance to Pike Place Market. Lights turn so people can cross all directions at once, including diagonally (as I recall). It makes sense there to me.
Here, as I recall, while the lights allow you to cross in all directions, in between that period you’re not allowed to cross in ANY direction. That’s frustrating, and most people seem to just cross when it’s clear. When the walk light isn’t in your favor, you expect the next signal change will allow you to cross, but that’s not true with this design, so it feels like the lights are broken.
So I was happy with the old signals. I’m happy with the new ones because people walking generally ignore them. If it got enforcement, I’d dislike it, due to all the waiting to cross.
Now I want to go back to see if I’m remembering it all correctly.
I’m a runner and I’m almost more concerned for my safety as a pedestrian when running that I am as a cyclist. I’m always looking for cars and I never expect a car to stop at a stop sign. Even being very defensive I’ve had many close encounters. Times where I’ve been into the intersection (that has a stop sign for the car), and a car will fly up with no intention of stopping and suddenly realize there’s a pedestrian in the way. Cars that only look for traffic and not people. Drivers looking at their phones and almost running me over.
Why the rant? Because before any dollars are spent tackling cyclist, fix the big problem first – distracted, negligent, speeding drivers who routinely injure and often kill people.
As far as that video and cyclists going through the intersection, who cares? Film your neighborhood intersection and watch 1 ton cars and trucks flying through the stop signs. Happens all the time everywhere.
And yes I also drive. As little as possible, but I think most people are cyclists and drivers.
While enforcement at this location is not a good use of resources and rolling through stop signs is something I and most cyclists do all the time, stopping for Peds should be something cyclists should be doing and for the most part are…
I am one of those “fast” people but I stop on a dime if anyone wants to walk across the street.
It costs me 10 seconds and I am rewarded with pleasant smiles and greetings about 99% of the time.
Well worth it.
Same.
Sadly, I also often see expression of shock that someone biking would stop for a pedestrian.
I don’t care about people rolling through stop signs but I’d happily support some crosswalk stings on busy bikeways during rush hour.
Wow, there are about a million comments on this. I’ve read none of them. Here’s my takeaway:
“Anytime someone fills out a TRACK-it or 823-SAFE request [the City’s system for filing public traffic safety concerns], I go through all of those. ”
I intend to use this to the full extent of the law. That is all.
This posture would be reasonable if we also enforced the law about parking too close to the corners. At least on Greenways please.
You improve traffic safety through three mechanisms: engineering, enforcement, education.
–Engineering sucks on the Ladd Circle, I don’t understand why you don’t enter in on a yield sign.
— Enforcement seems to be so-so if all the police are doing is given out warnings. The dilemma seems to be how the Traffic Division is prioritizing their time to enforce Ladd Circle, when there’s more pressing traffic safety matters elsewhere in the city.
— Education, Jonathan has reported a couple times on how he thinks the PPB has dropped the ball on public relations regarding this matter.
This who thing is reminiscent of the silly bicycle tax…
*whole
Given that the police are on record as admitting that these efforts in Ladd’s Circle are more about livability than safety, it is worth pointing out that such a low bar violates basic principles of fairness never mind justice. Residents in other, less privileged, parts of our city have little bandwidth to complain about, much less expect prompt response to, livability concerns when living in those census tracts involves so much actual danger to life and limb, which, as many have reported here for years, continues to go un-addressed by the same branches of our city government that time and again lavish time and energy on Ladd’s.
Past enforcement actions resulted in tickets. I believe these would be $265 today.
>>> Residents in other, less privileged, parts of our city have little bandwidth to complain <<<
We all "know" this is true, but it's there any actual evidence that people in Ladd's have more time on their hands than others? Or do you suppose they are asking their butlers to Lodge complaints on their behalf?
You truncated the quoted passage. I hope it makes more sense if you include the rest of the sentence.
The party I quoted suggested an asymmetrical ability to voice an opinion. The second part cited a lack of efficacy. I was digging into the lack of opportunity, and asking if you have evidence for that.
“The party I quoted suggested an asymmetrical ability to voice an opinion.”
But that isn’t what I wrote; I said nothing about an asymmetrical ability to voice anything. What I wrote was:
Residents […] have little bandwidth to complain about, much less expect prompt response to, livability concerns when living in those census tracts involves so much actual danger to life and limb […]
If your kids, boyfriends, dads are being murdered by cops, or mowed down by people piloting autos semi-regularly don’t you think it likely that your focus would be on those weightier matters than on livability concerns (so understood)?
I must have misunderstood. The world outside Ladd’s sounds like a Mad Max set, with all its murder and semi-regular mowings down.
I concede you do not claim unequal ability to voice opinion to city leaders. But when it comes to bandwidth, I could find no evidence to support your statement. I did find these discussions of the topic about how free time (perhaps a reasonable proxy for “bandwidth”) tends to correlate with income, which you might be interesting:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2018/02/19/free-time/#107966c579e0
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/the-free-time-paradox-in-america/499826/
https://www.valuewalk.com/2012/04/who-has-more-leisure-time-high-or-low-income-earners/
1) Those articles are interesting, thanks!
2) 9watts didn’t claim a lack of free time; he claimed a lack of bandwidth for ‘livability’ concerns, and he specifically cited weightier matters. The way he cited weightier matters may have included hyperbole, but it is also true in my experience that lower-income folk DO spend a higher proportion of their activism time on police brutality and literal, physical traffic safety on streets that are known to kill people on a regular basis.
Anyway, there are a bunch of other matters that generally come with being low-income that probably trump these kinds of ‘livability’ concerns for a lot of people. Worse schools, higher violent & property crime, local economic development, etc. It seems entirely credible to me, and in fact prima facie true, that if there were an intersection like Ladd’s Circle in a low-income neighborhood, it would get a lot fewer calls from residents because most people inclined to do such things would have higher-priority activism to do.
I also think that educational and cultural factors are probably involved as well.
I just don’t feel comfortable guessing what people prioritize based on where they live or what they earn. It perpetuates a very stereotypical view of the world that I think is highly inaccurate.
The bottom line for me is please stop for pedestrians. That’s really what this is about.
“I just don’t feel comfortable guessing what people prioritize based on where they live or what they earn.”
My post doesn’t require you or anyone to do that.
The point is that not everyone in this town seeks, never mind gets, the cops’ attention regarding livability concerns. That is all I was driving at.
So since drivers do not follow 100% of the laws 100% of the time, then nobody has to follow any laws? Is that your point?
Because mine would be “nobody is perfect, so let’s focus our limited resources on the lawbreaking that hurts people.”
That’s good advice. Even for walking, given that lots of right turners just don’t look at all to their right.
Reminds me, the only time I’ve got hit while driving was when I was crossing a one-way street, and someone at the stop sign across the street from me suddenly shot out and turned left right into my driver’s side. He was looking left because the traffic was all coming from his left (due to one-way street). If I’d been walking across instead of driving I might be dead.
There are very few crash incidents at these roundabouts right? Many of us bike through there daily right? Are bikers getting tickets at an especially high rate? I really don’t see what the problem is here. Does their design prevent the flow of bikes through the area? We’d all love to have yield signs at these roundabouts, but there isn’t much of a precedent for that in Portland. From what I’ve read here in the article and in the comments, it seems like the old timey Ladd’s Addition roundabouts are working quite well. I think it’s neat to see a 100+ year old design functioning so well in the modern age.
Have always been confused how Americans don’t know how to legislate a traffic circle properly. The whole point is to keep everything flowing with yield and merge. Stop signs are counter intuitive.
Perhaps safer behavior by people in motor vehicles and on bikes could be encouraged by narrowing the streets as they enter/exit the circle? Turns onto/off the circle would be sharper, so require lower speeds, and extra sidewalk kick outs (or whatever they are called) would make pedestrians more visible to road users and give them less road to cross. Some mighty wide streets there that take a long time to cross, with smooth speedy turns for the road user if they so choose (and most do; it is so, so tempting at Ladd’s because of the way it is laid out).
(questions of lack of actual accidents and cost of making these changes vs. making higher-impact changes elsewhere with the same funds notwithstanding)