— A guest article by northeast Portland resident Missy LeDoux.
I live in the Kerns neighborhood of inner Northeast Portland, which is usually a lovely place to live, walk, and bike. One of the reasons I chose to live here is because it has access to three bus lines: the 12, 19, and 20. That makes life much easier for me as a car-free person who gets around primarily via biking and public transit.
And walking. A lot of walking. Rain or shine, I walk. One of my personal mantras is “anywhere is walking distance.”
But recently, someone in my neighborhood has been loudly declaring: “Cars reign here. You are secondary.”
That declaration has come in the form of an unknown person installing (non-PBOT approved) street signs along NE 24th Ave. They state in big bold letters: LOOK! MAKE EYE CONTACT BEFORE CROSSING, and they proudly display a depiction of a pedestrian making eye contact with a driver.
I first noticed one of these signs back in August of 2024. My husband and I were walking home from hanging out with friends and spotted the sign attached to a telephone pole at the NW corner of NE Sandy and 24th. We posted about it in the BikeLoud PDX slack channel to raise awareness, and were met with frustration that mirrored our own. A group member reported the clearly non-approved signage using PDX reporter, and it was removed within a few days (whether by the city or by a citizen, we don’t know).
The signage clearly comes from the perspective of a driver who wants pedestrians to take on more responsibility for their own safety.
Some of you reading this might understand immediately why we were frustrated by this signage. But in case you’re wondering “What’s wrong with that? Seems like good advice,” let me explain the issue.
Let’s ignore the legality of the signage for a second and focus on its content. The messaging is clearly giving a directive to pedestrians. In high-vis yellow, made to look like an official street sign, it makes up a new law: pedestrians must make eye contact with drivers before they cross the road. The implication is that if they don’t, their life and safety are at risk. I’d even go so far as to say this signage implies that if you don’t make eye contact with a driver before crossing, the driver cannot be held responsible for hitting you. And I don’t think this interpretation is a stretch; the signage clearly comes from the perspective of a driver who wants pedestrians to take on more responsibility for their own safety in their interactions with cars. This naturally implies that car drivers should have less responsibility.
Fast-forward to today. I was walking through the neighborhood and spotted one of the signs again. I’d mostly forgotten about the sign from last summer, but here it was again, screwed into a stop sign pole at NE 24th and Oregon.
And it wasn’t alone. I looked around and spotted more signs, on nearly every corner of the intersection. I also spotted bright flashes of yellow at nearby intersections along the street.
My nemesis was back, and more prolific than ever.
But let me address the more gracious interpretation. What if this person isn’t my nemesis? What if they actually just want me to be safe and not get hit by a car? Maybe they think they’re doing a public service by providing unsolicited advice about how not to get hit.
But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it should not have to be the responsibility of vulnerable road users to not get hit. It should be the responsibility of car drivers to look out for vulnerable road users who are not protected by metal cages. Should pedestrians be careful? Of course. While walking and biking around Portland, I’ve had numerous near misses with cars that almost hit me. In every instance, my own awareness and ability to quickly stop or swerve saved my life.
But does this mean car drivers should drive however they want, clinging to made-up rules about responsibility? No.
Additionally, what these signs advertise is simply not the law. According to ODOT, every intersection is a crosswalk, whether marked with zebra stripes or not. That means that legally, it’s the job of car drivers to look out for people walking and rolling at every intersection.
Finally, let’s look at the root of this sign’s advice: making eye contact with car drivers.
Should pedestrians have to do this? The short answer is, no. This is not listed anywhere in Oregon traffic law. Personally, I try to do it anyways when possible, simply because I feel marginally safer crossing if I know a driver has seen me. But should I have to? No. My presence at the intersection should be all it takes to make a car driver follow the law and yield to me.
“Should” aside, the more pressing question is: can pedestrians always make eye contact with car drivers? The answer to this is also no. Reasons include but are not limited to:
- Some cars have tinted windows (often tinted above the legal threshold, but this law is rarely enforced).
- Sometimes drivers and pedestrians wear sunglasses.
- Weather conditions can make it difficult to see someone’s eyes.
- And let’s not forget, as my nemesis did, that blind people exist, and their safety matters. 8% of Americans are blind or visually impaired, which translates to 20 million Americans.
But even for pedestrians who could make eye contact, it would have to be a two-way exchange. In my experience standing on street corners trying to cross, most drivers are not looking for me, and certainly not trying to make eye contact. My nemesis’s “rule” gives an out to any driver who doesn’t want to stop for pedestrians. It says, “Don’t want to stop? Just don’t look at their faces!” And unfortunately, that’s already what many drivers do.
At the end of the day, these signs are simply yet another instance of drivers shifting the responsibility of safety off of themselves, and onto pedestrians and cyclists. I love my neighborhood, but just like anywhere else in Portland, it’s also a place where drivers regularly speed on residential streets, ignore stop signs, and treat Sandy like the Autobahn. In light of these safety issues, we need more accountability for drivers, not less.
For now, I’ve reported these signs to the city using PDX reporter, and I hold out hope that they’ll be taken down soon. But I can’t singlehandedly protect Kerns, and Portland broadly, from this kind of insidious rhetoric. I hope others join me in this fight. I hope pedestrians can feel more safe and empowered in our city. And I hope drivers learn how to drive more safely, or not drive at all.
Update: A city of Portland employee responded to my report, stating: “It is true that un-permitted signs are not allowed to be posted on utility poles according to City Code 17.64.040, however the City does not have resources to enforce this code and the power utility companies own and maintain most utility poles in the City of Portland. You can contact the PGE Team to request their removal.”
Looks like my nemesis wins this round, thanks to the city’s lack of resources. But you’d better believe I’ll be contacting PGE and continuing to fight the good fight.
— Missy LeDoux lives and writes in Northeast Portland. She loves biking in dresses, walking everywhere, and convincing friends to take the bus with her. Find her ice cream and travel-related writing on Substack @withcherriesontop.
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.
One thing I’ve noticed as a cyclist and pedestrian is that it is getting harder and harder to make any eye contact at all with motorists, since more and more cars have such deeply tinted windows that you cannot see into the car AT ALL – not even thru the front windshield, in some cases.
I hope some expert will comment here and let us know what the law says about window tinting, but it is a very dangerous trend, certainly born of motorists’ desire to hide what they are doing inside the car – texting while driving and god knows what else.
I’ve noticed that cars with deeply tinted windows also often have tinted covers over the license plates, to hide the numbers from cameras. Makes me wish Portland had a functioning police dep’t.
Hi Fred,
Dark window tint on driver windows is one of my big pet peeves. I am very focused on scanning driver faces and behaviors when I am out and about — so when I can’t see inside the window I get mad and frustrated. Oregon law says, “The total light transmittance through the window with the tint installed must be 35% or more. Any motorist who operates a vehicle that does not comply with Oregon’s window tint law may be subject to a $360 fine.” But of course it’s widely known that you will never be stopped for this, so folks have really dark tint. If we really cared about safety and vision zero, police and elected officials would talk a lot more about window tint.
Also, obviously folks with stronger tint are more likely to be doing illegal shit! Like using phones, drinking, and whatever else. Let’s do window tint enforcement actions! Let’s have a public awareness campaign about window tint law! Yes I’m that guy.
You/I never have to look too hard to find some tinted fool doing sketchy driving, you can often pick them out of traffic before you even see them and their cloaking.
It’s kind of funny that an opinion piece decrying signs that urge peds to look drivers in the face/eyes is accompanied by people cycling lamenting difficulties in being able to look drivers in the face/eyes.
I don’t think that’s funny at all. What logic makes it funny to you?
“Don’t tell me to make eye contact with drivers”
Vs
“I hate it went I can’t make eye contact with drivers”
Both of these stances are perfectly valid, and they’re coming from different people, but their proximity in the conversation is funny.
Some folks posting here in the comments aren’t differentiating between behaviors they may observe, may try to observe–like making eye contact with someone behind a windshield–and commands that, as a class of unmotorized people, you must observe these behaviors. I sympathize with those who differentiate between those two things.
like wearing high viz.
maybe I choose to do that, because I have a vest hanging in my bike storage locker anyway. But as a campaign directed at the class of folks who use a bicycle I reject it out of hand. Simply, as has already been stated here in this thread, because it shifts responsibility, responsibility that lies squarely with those inside the relatively dangerous, fast, powerful mode who are able, disproportionately, to inflict harm on others.
These signs shift nothing. They change nothing. They mean nothing.
you’ll get no argument from me on any of that (but that’s not what my comment was about).
It does not shift the responsibility. Wearing high viz makes it easier for drivers to take responsibility, it does not take it from them. Same with attempting to make eye contact, it in no way shifts the responsibility, it just a way to help them take the responsibility of stopping for pedestrians. Drivers are not being told to wear High Viz and the signs for making eye contact are not directed at them. Nothing is changing for the drivers.
Don’t point out the irony…Are these people new to Portland?
The essay itself describes several ways in which making eye contact with drivers is often difficult. That’s kind of the point.
The essay itself points out several ways in which making eye contact can be difficult. That’s kind of the point.
Jonathan,
Forgive me but will a public awareness campaign really stop any of the miscreants that drive around with pitch black car windows? And you’re promoting “enforcement” of a law in Portland. You know “enforcement” is a dirty word in this city, right?
Seems to me the they need to come down really hard on the installers. I don’t know what the law says about the businesses that install illegal tint, but I would hope there are serious penalties and you could make a dent in this problem with fewer resources by stinging tint installation businesses and their owners.
Kinda like how the government has treated emission defeat devices. It’s a lot of work to go after every instance, but shutting down businesses that perform the work does quite a bit.
They can’t tint the windshield though. Which is where people should be making eye contact with the driver when crossing their path. There’s not much point making eye contact through their side windows where tint is allowed. If a driver is looking at me through their side window I’d be worried about them hitting someone else.
There is an allowance for a tint strip at the top of the windshield, but it’s highly transparent at 70% VLT. It also wouldn’t cover the driver’s face from a pedestrian or cyclist perspective.
Geometrically, let’s think this through. Imagine you’re at a crosswalk at small 4-way intersection in a neighborhood.
Where is your line of sight to their eyes? (hint: it’s not through the windshield
What point are you trying to make? Should you walk in front of the car and just assume they notice you? Who is responsible does not change whether you are hit or not.
The point I’m making is that tinted windows absolutely impact a pedestrian’s or cyclist’s ability to make eye contact with a driver (should they feel inclined to do so).
It’s not even just tinted windows- try seeing through the windshield’s reflective glare emanating from a car made in, say, the past 10 years on a sunny day. I can’t even tell if a human is driving anymore.
This is BS. Keep asking and ask to speak to a supervisor. The city can and will find the resources. I’ve gotten stuff removed from streets in my neighborhood by pestering the city repeatedly.
Easier and faster to just do it yourself. I’ve removed many illegal signs and advertisements in my neighborhood.
Totally agree. Take action, throw a Visegrip and your bike multi tool in your pack and help us all. I ride this way and will be making stops to fix this.
If the City says they are illegal signs as per code, perhaps you want to simply take them down yourself. I could imagine some interesting repurposing ideas such as a camping coffee table.
On a possibly more serious note – if someone is offering up what appears to the average person as legal advice they could possibly be liable for damages if a driver mistakenly believes they have the right of way and injures someone.
Same thing applies to signage we like, then. Like all of those “slow down” signs.
Middle,
it is interesting to me that after all these years you still love, more than anything, to post false equivalencies. It is almost as if that was your thing.
“Same thing applies to signage we like, then. Like all of those “slow down” signs.”
These two are of course not the same thing.
Let me explain.
‘slow down’ is as most of us know a reasonable, prudent exhortation. It doesn’t shift responsibility, misconstrue danger, reinforce motorist biases; it simply commands a reduction in speed. Furthermore if people did slow down our streets would objectively, be safer and more pleasant places to be.
None of the above is true for the bright yellow ‘make eye contact’ signs.
‘make eye contact’ shifts responsibility from the person behind the windshield to the person on foot. It does nothing to improve safety as folks here have shown because the source of danger isn’t the person walking (blind, old, infirm, hard to see) but the person who might kill-them-with-their-auto. And finally if people did obey the ‘make eye contact’ exhortation, as we have also learned here, the world would not in any across the board way be safer. Safety on our streets *always* improves when folks behind the wheel take responsibility. Full stop.
The road that he’s in the middle of goes from approximately Reagan on one side to Trump on the other, haha
In order to shift responsibility, responsibility must be shifted.
These signs do not shift responsibility.
Years ago, I got a similar response about the ubiquitous “Got Junk” and “We Buy Houses” signs. I talked to actual humans on the phone and it was clear they genuinely had no plan for signage. I started taking them down myself after that. Admittedly, those were simply nailed on but I would encourage you to grab a tool and remove these yourself.
Just add new official-looking signs to the same post 12 inches higher up, directed at the road instead, giving some friendly advice to those driving. We’ll see if there are resources for removal then.
I’ve reported unofficial “Speed Limit 5mph” signs posted in my neighborhood. PBOT did not remove.
And I wonder how many of you would defend that. Probably most of you, because it aligns with the general bias of this comment section.
Rarely do a driver’s eyes signal anything other than disdain for the world outside their cage; the front wheels of their car show their true intentions.
PBOT doesn’t have the resources to deal with the signs that are the object of the article; sure would be a shame is someone decided to fight fire with fire and put up “Every intersection is a crosswalk, drivers pay attention” signs.
This.
The real problem with ped and cyclist “eye contact” mythology is that it is terrible advice.
Most pedestrian’s eye contact is on their device as they cross the street.
Must. Objectify. Walk-People. Scary. Outside. Car.
Is the device in the room with us now?
Yes.
“I have a nemesis in my neighborhood.”
A nemesis or someone who is putting up a reasonable public service announcement?
Granted we don’t need a bunch of unauthorized signs but I can’t tell you how many pedestrians I see crossing the street looking at their phones oblivious to life around them. Making eye contact with a driver is never a bad idea.
We don’t need them or anyone else to remind us that they think we should watch out for them, we already know they take no responsibility for their actions and will do anything to blame us.
Do you have a problem with the Vision 20 signs? It should be obvious to not drive fast, yet signs are posted. I’m always telling people a proper pdxtrian looks both ways before crossing the street, even if it’s a one way because drivers go the wrong way downtown quite often. This does not take the responsibility of of the driver.
Surely you can understand the massive difference in social responsibility between someone walking and someone driving a heavy, fast, and dangerous vehicle. If you think people playing on their phones and walking is a big deal, just wait til you find out how many drivers are playing on their phones behind the wheel.
Surely you can understand the common sense in paying attention when crossing a road populated by the drivers you describe.
COTW
This is all I need to know that you don’t walk often or bike through intersections where “eye contact” would be possible.
The “eye contact” demand is really the worst most out of touch utterance a sitter can grunt.
That’s such a weird comment. I bike and walk through intersections on a daily basis (multiple times/day). And yes I drive a car as well…so shoot me.
I don’t believe you.
If you did, you would know how rare it is to be able to make eye contact with drivers.
If you actually do bike and walk through intersections where you interact with drivers like this, then keep a record of how often you actually make eye contact.
SD, Calling some a liar…so unhelpful, but it’s the typical “new Portland” illiberal retort so I’m not surprised ..I never said what you said I said “it’s never a bad idea to make contact”. Of course it doesn’t always happen.
You may not be a liar, you may just be as delusional as the person who put up these signs.
I don’t believe you. It’s quite easy. Are you doing something wrong or not trying?
You taking it as a demand is more at issue than the sign itself. It’s something worth shooting for even if it isn’t always possible.
Someone didn’t read the article, I guess
So now when they walk past these signs without seeing them because they’re looking at their phones and get hit or almost hit by a driver who doesn’t properly yield to them, the driver can point to the signs as proof they’re good drivers.
The signs are not for the drivers, you are making a logical fallacy. It’s a completely twisted version of the truth.
I’ve seen a better sign in this city directly addressing that issue. It said something like “Look up! Be aware of your surroundings.”
Thanks for the update, Missy!
I think I will add another wrench to my biking toolkit & start collecting illegal signs!!
Standard nuts. A socket set and about 30 seconds per sign should do it. If they come back, just keep removing them. It’s a lot more expensive to buy them over and over again than it is to take them down.
In addition to the issues you note, I have had several incidents where it appeared that a driver was looking right at me, and they either intended to hit me, or didn’t actually hit me. I don’t bother making eye contact at this point. I just respond to the movement of the vehicle. I don’t cross until they are stopped or nearly stopped.
A full face view of a motor vehicle operator is not complete information. Humans are pretty good at eye communication but you only need one instance of somebody looking but not seeing to change your ideas forever. Very often drivers focus behind a person and scan for large shiny fast moving things.
I sometimes choose to enhance my visibility but it’s a screw up in ORS that we have not established that the responsibility is on the operator of the bigger, more powerful machine to protect other people.
Looks like the work of some unnamed heroic urban guerilla who’s fighting back by putting up their own signage. I sure hope they start putting up their own diverters wherever they want too.
Oh wait, its only good if its our side putting up stuff?
A bit of sarcasm here, but this is pretty much the expected result when “doing your own thing” is continuously championed.
I remember when some BikeLouder person plastered “PBOT made me beg!” stickers all over our fancy new HAWK crossings. I did not hesitate in tearing them off. It’s an incredibly spoiled and entitled attitude and one that makes me avoid any bike “community” event when it involves those people.
Like it or not, you might have to press a button every once in a while to get a signal to change. That’s not a huge ask for a person using a mode of transit that currently comprises something like 2% of the total.
It’s not “begging”; it’s commanding traffic to stop with the press of a button.
It’s power.
Looks like self-driving cars are often immune to commands. I’m sure that won’t be a problem when robotaxis take over the roads.
And yet their pedestrian and bicycle collision rate is much much lower than that of human drivers, as reported here a few weeks ago.
PS: That article presents no data and didn’t talk about crossings where you have access to a command button, so doesn’t even support your point, whatever it is.
Weird that such incredible power can still fail to stop drivers from running down pedestrians legally crossing the street.
This is a great example of the “hasty generalization” fallacy. If you need to support your view by objectifying a group of people as monolithic, it’s likely you’re overgeneralizing and stereotyping a group based on insufficient evidence. Remember, once you group a bunch of people together, you can say pretty much anything you want to rationalize your own view.
Like we do with drivers?
Also “eye contact” isn’t a real thing.
Do you have a tenuous relationship with reality?
I walk and bike every day. Eye contact is huge. No, it doesn’t guarantee that someone reacts to your presence on a roadway, but it’s generally pretty damned effective IMO.
I don’t understand the need to shut down objective truth with gaslighting / othering statements like this. It truly rots discourse and promotes division.
I made “eye contact” with a driver behind the wheel of a F350 tow truck before I walked my dog into the zebra crossing with the lighted walk sign on a bright sunny day.
I found out that day that I can yell louder than an F350. Good thing too, because Elsa and I were right in front of the hood when he started to hit the gas. If he had gunned the engine right then, at least one of us would be dead because we were not visible over the hood.
Realistically I can make eye contact with a driver maybe 30% of the time, and if they’re wearing sunglasses I’m betting my life on whether or not they actually looked at me.
If a pedestrian death happens once, it’s an accident. If it’s happens thousands of times per year across the country, it’s a pattern. Patterns are predictable, and therefore they are not accidents.
I’m glad that you regularly make eye contact with drivers and feel safe because of it. The objective truth is that eye contact isn’t an effective solution to pedestrian fatalities. Humans make mistakes quite often, and humans cross the road quite often. None of those humans deserve death as a punishment for their mistake.
Those drivers with whom you made eye contact likely did not see the gorilla (e.g. a ped or cyclist).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9378609/
The classic inattentional blindness study with the gorilla:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10694957/
An example of highly trained experts failing to “see the gorilla”:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3964612/
Wow! This is SUCH a well-written piece.
Where I live, we have a lot of drivers who stop for me when I’m walking before I have indicated that I want to cross. I’m still on the sidewalk, and they’re slowing to a crawl. . . .
The classic and most important “why not to do this” is when there are two lanes and the driver in one lane stops and the other one . . . creams the peds. But, just: follow the rules of the road, please. There are semi-regular rants on my town’s subReddit about the problem.
Between the sun, tinted windows, my own multi-focal prescription sunglasses, and this very annoying driver behavior, I often pointedly DON’T make eye contact. I just follow the rules of the road as best I can.
Best wishes getting those ridiculous signs eliminated.
Although most of my multiple disabilities are not readily visible, they do make it harder for me to navigate streets and sidewalks as quickly or as confidently as I used to. They include increased fatigue, balance issues and slightly impaired vision.
While I can still ride a bike short distances on my best days, I do so with much greater caution than before.
I am older and slower now, and I do not trust that city officials and law enforcement will advocate for me in a collision, even one that is not my fault.
Between the heavy bias for cars that is baked into our urban landscape, and the lack of resources to enforce the laws — including those passed in the name of public safety — I may give up riding a little sooner than I’d hoped to.
I share your umbrage with that sign. I really dislike people making hand gestures at me from inside a car. For one, they really seem entitled to be instructing me on what to do, even if it is to cross a multi-lane road with other cars coming. And, for 2, they do not seem to understand that I cannot hear them and I can barely see them- even without tinting, there is almost always glare that prevents a clear shot. To any drivers reading this, if you want to communicate with a pedestrian or cyclist, roll down your window or get out of your car and talk (not shout!) to them… and NEVER honk.
YES. So many drivers waving impatiently and flashing their lights for me to “just cross already” while oblivious to the fast-moving cars in the other lane or the car about to turn across the crosswalk I’m planning to use.
If you are going to stop for people crossing the street, come to a complete stop and wait for them to cross. Give them the agency to decide when it is safe to cross. Sometimes otherwise able-bodied looking people can’t move very fast (nor should they feel compelled to) so you just have to be patient. Otherwise, just go ahead and blow through the crosswalk. That feels a lot better to me than Mr. Congeniality in the Subaru tactical edition putting on a whole performance to show how much of an inconvenience I am.
Where you see “drivers waving impatiently and flashing their lights for me to just cross already” I see someone signaling that they see me and are going to stop and wait for me to cross, which I regard as wholly positive.
You conveniently failed to extend the quote for the context. It’s clear the author added “while oblivious” to reference the other lane not stopping.
If anyone walks or bikes regularly in Portland, this is a common occurrence. The first driver can “wave” and “flash their lights” all they like; you’ve still got to wait to see if the other lane stops before proceeding.
Not at all; I’ll advance to edge of the next unprotected lane, and stand there, protected by the stopped vehicle until the drivers in the next lane stop (which is usually quite quickly). Repeat as many times as is necessary to cross.
Good thing nobody has yet rear ended any of those stopped cars protecting you, because in such situations those cars might not protect you.
If someone rolls down their window, address them as a liberal. It freezes their brain.
LOL
Yeah. I was honked at the other day, crossing Cully on Klickitat I think, with my kid on a bike. A car stopped (they did not have a stop sign), waited roughly 2 seconds and gave me a beep which startled me. I was looking the other way because as it turns out, the road is two way and cars were coming. I gestured widely at the oncoming traffic in the other direction.
Kerns has a population of about 7,000 that means there are 500+ visually impaired people living there and walking its streets.
Who gave you the right to speak for them?
What the hell do you mean by this response? Please describe. I took the 8% stat about visually impaired people and did the math.
What do you mean that I’m speaking for them?
Based on all your other absurd comments I assume you’re a troll but please defend your comment.
Seems to me this is what spray paint is for but the city should be taking them down as well as figuring out who’s doing it and make a cease and desist and/or more.
Yes I realize spray paint may be graffiti but would be covering up the offense without the time and effort to take them down.
The city’s dodge is BS and they are condoning unlawful signage with it.
Lets take the next crash/collision where this could be in play and name the city as a codefendant and see how they react.
shaking up a spray can until it’s thoroughly mixed will take a lot longer than removed two nuts from short bolts.
One person’s eye contact sign is another’s blank slate for important messages. Those look to be a perfect size for “CARS RUIN CITIES” stickers or other more appropriate urban messages.
Seems like we could easily just take these down ourselves?
Someone could take all the new signs down and put up a trail cam to find out who this is and let them know they have been identified.
Most of these sort don’t like to be outed and are mainly emboldened by their anonymity, once that is gone they often show their true colors and can be seen for what they are, entitled, pita, bully, prats.
“Most of these sort don’t like to be outed and are mainly emboldened by their anonymity, once that is gone they often show their true colors and can be seen for what they are, entitled, pita, bully, prats.“
Like the local black bloc?
Woah is it really necessary to bend this all the way to “black bloc”?! I mean, really?
This whole conversation is pretty ridiculous. These signs have exactly the same impact as the “Slow the Flock Down” signs distributed a while back; that is to say absolutely zero. They change nothing legally, and are just another piece of urban clutter among many.
I honestly don’t know why people are so bent about this.
Yeah it’s crazy how PBOT’s patronizing PR campaigns get oohs and ahhs, “guerrilla” bike activist projects get cheered, but when one person decides that someone else’s message is bad, all these folks just fall in line.
It smacks of petty jealousy and entitlement. Like so much of what’s published here. Most ridiculous blog in town. And while I’d simply be content to laugh it off, the real world consequences are very much real.
The toxicity continues unchecked.
Sure seems like the reaction to this particular guerilla action has struck a nerve with you. Do you happen to know the person who put up the signs?
If you had tried riding a bike for transportation you would STOP PROJECTING and understand that the vacant stares of drivers in no way mean that they have seen you.
Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.
Article was great and well written, just surprised at the enthusiastic response and kind of expecting people to be showing up at next BHH wearing sign necklaces as trophy’s 🙂
Amazing how fast this blog turns to doxxing and calls for vigilante action against well meaning Portlanders. And then we wonder why people consider cyclists insufferable?
Tell me, why are cyclists insufferable? You seem like you must be an avid cyclist, yourself.
Also, those signs are the real deal and not cheap unless you have a source and even then probably not.
This project is well funded so whoever it is thinks their $$$ and manifesto are the way it really is and should be.
Don’t we all?
i think ur first problem is living in portland
Maybe I’m naive, but it seems to me unlikely that these signs were put up by a malicious driver who’s looking to escape blame for running down pedestrians.
I’m not sure that such a person would be sufficiently devious to put up signs appearing to be pedestrian-friendly when their intent was otherwise.
It seems more likely that the signs were put up by someone genuinely interested in pedestrian safety – perhaps someone who suffered an injury or lost a loved one and wants to spare others from the same.
Perhaps such a person is misguided, but maybe not a enemy.
The problem is that, while pedestrians should not have to make eye contact or perform similar measures to cross safely, the reality in our city is that those things may help in certain situations. We each of us have to strike our own balance.
(I remember friends in college who found that they could cross busy Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge only by refusing to make eye contact with any driver. 🙂 )
Exactly…the disdain here is crazy. This is coming from a bicyclist/motorcycle rider of over 20 years in PDX. SO many people concentrating on the eye “contact”, like we are falling love with each other.
It’s a simple look in the direction of the stopped car acknowledging they see you and you see them. It’s “safe” to cross. Some of the other commenters are even more wild; I’ll cross when I’m ready, don’t tell me when I can cross.
Of all the innocuous things to complain about, BikePDX went out of their way with this one. Crumbling bike infrastructure, zero traffic enforcement and roads in disrepair. Let’s talk about eye contact. The world needs more eye contact…
Do you read people’s minds often, Z?
The chance that this is a well-meaning, well-informed safety advocate are close to zero. It is also unlikely that they are purely malicious. The most likely, is that they’re a crank that was radicalized by some dimwitted Next Door thread. They think that the best approach to managing a vulnerable minority is too make extra rules to restrict their behavior and cure them of their ignorance and immorality. Importantly, it reinforces the power dynamic of who makes the rules for whom.
These signs are just a tedious extension of the anti-pedestrian laws and rhetoric that began with car clubs one hundred years ago. It is obvious that this thread has brought out blame for pedestrians “always looking at their phones.” The idea that people walking need signs to instruct them to “look” for anything is absurd. It is ridiculously patronizing. It implies that people don’t already know how to walk around their neighborhood.
Here is a sign for the comment section “Don’t be Naive”
Pretty good advice, right? What’s the harm? Surely, I have good intentions. It is a rough world out there and naive people are taken advantage of all the time.
I could post this on a few streets, and you could look at it and think about my message instead of boring stuff like flowers, or trees or birds or a sunset. I could also post a sign telling you how to dress. “Wear Bright Reflective Clothing.” That’s good advice right? “Look both Ways Before Crossing.” another good one. “Don’t Wear a Short Skirt” also important when you are out walking, someone may get the wrong idea.
Does it matter that we have decades of studies that prove messaging like this is worthless and when on highways leads to higher crash rates? Obviously, not. We just need the right message. Perhaps the sign would be more effective if it got to the point.
“Get out of my f-ing way or else you carless plebe!”
“Don’t inconvenience me, loser! Did we make eye contact? No we didn’t, so stay on the god damned sidewalk where you belong.”
SD for mayor! I’m glad you’re still posting here, man!
Looks like I have to get my power drill wrench out and head down to Kerns. May just install my own to make sure drivers simply just obey the law.
Also: as someone who has done some ‘citizen-led’ signage in my neighborhood: PBOT/someone from City of Portland had the resources to remove signs on the utility poles, so that irks me they suddenly don’t have the resources here.
If the city wont do it’s job, it looks like a simple multitool should do the job.
PDX Reporter link: https://pdxreporter.org
It would be interesting to hear the sign poster’s perspective. Maybe they were fed up with stopping for people standing on the corner staring at their phone and then one time decided to ignore a person staring at their phone and that person was waiting to cross. I understand the point being made here but as a pedestrian, my approach is to state my intention through body language in the very least and not to passively try to cross a street. ♀️
Why should pedestrians be careful? That only shifts responsibility away from drivers. Or so the argument goes.
I’ve always disagreed with the safety advice to cyclists about “making eye contact with drivers”. If everyone thinks eye contact means it’s their turn to go, we’ll all crash into each other.
I’ve found eye contact works about 95% of the time. That’s not enough to depend on, but it’s more than enough to be helpful.
I mean, that sounds at least as effective as no eye contact at all.
Sometimes; depends on the situation. We primates are very, very good at interpreting eye contact, lack of eye contact, intentional avoidance of eye contact, and so on.
Exactly. Why is “Missy” so desperate to claim it doesn’t? It’s weird terminally online gaslighting from a community of increasingly narrow-minded hysterics.
Just because the City doesn’t have the resources, doesn’t mean you can’t go to a hardware store and grab a tool to remove the signs
This city needs more tactical urbanists putting signs up, as well as more tactical urbanists taking signs down.
Tactical urbanism like these signs are a symptom of a City not responding to the needs of the public. Kerns has a lot of walkers and bikers mixed with a lot of car-favoring thoroughfares. Just mixing transportation modes by adding some marked crossing signs, painting some sharrows, and adding one bike triggered signal (Glisan/22nd and Sandy) isn’t enough. If it were, these signs wouldn’t be posted. True separation and demarcation with physical infrastructure is the sorely needed the next step.
One lovely thing about Portland is the grid of streets. It is beyond time to eliminate through movements for drivers on some residential streets in favor of creating safer biking and walking streets. If Portland can’t (or won’t) do it, how can the rest of Oregon?
NE 24th between Burnside and Sandy really needs at least one modal filter. Drivers use this short stretch of street as a high speed cut through to get from Glisan or Sandy to Burnside. It’s also the most logical bike route from the Lloyd District/Sullivan’s Gulch/Kerns/Irvington to the Ankeny and 34th greenways. It’s already a sketchy ride crossing Burnside and Glisan on 24th that adding in dangerous drivers does not make it feel like a ‘bike friendly’ route. It is a 5 block stretch of a residential street with parallel collectors on both sides (20th and 28th). This is extremely low hanging fruit that PBOT can, and should, modify ASAP.
I hope that the City uses their dwindling resources to put a modal filter on this stretch. Flipping one stop sign on 24th did little to calm traffic. A modal filter would be much more useful and have a much greater impact on the bikeability and walkability of that neighborhood than any other intervention would. And it would signal to drivers not that they aren’t welcome in the neighborhood, but that they have streets designated for them already. It would be a kind gesture for PBOT to help these drivers find the streets that are already designed to best serve their needs, while creating streets to better serve the needs of non-drivers.
It’s an official campaign elsewhere:
https://www.ffxnow.com/2023/10/10/new-signs-encourage-vienna-pedestrians-and-drivers-to-see-eye-to-eye/
They’re all over, and you can buy the signs:
https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=c28d7f4a7239b712&rlz=1C1PQHB_enUS966US971&sxsrf=AE3TifP20N0ykTyLswmeN3qtKQ0oUhRG7Q:1748455562481&q=make+eye+contact+before+crossing+sign&udm=2&fbs=AIIjpHxU7SXXniUZfeShr2fp4giZ1Y6MJ25_tmWITc7uy4KIeoJTKjrFjVxydQWqI2NcOhZVmrJB8DQUK5IzxA2fZbQF4YL5sNSRJGgx0e9Z9AxExzjE4_ynshmXB4KOs3cwRUeqSxtyEph1-LMoYoz7AgsxiAlRbfQlh62fpf4TvoMmLeIHIDQBlO9bBf83uliUCcabaD8ejPu9aoigNJtiQ30WOIRP0w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTgdTF4MaNAxXVDDQIHc2SAGAQtKgLegQIGBAB&biw=1600&bih=773&dpr=1#vhid=p7jiuiZjN8JVoM&vssid=mosaic
Yikes.
In Britain the various transport agencies actually put on the busier pedestrian crossings “Look Left” or “Look Right”.
They have to do that because they drive wrong.
We have some history here, too.
The BTA launched their Eye-to-Eye campaign in Portland in 2008, together with Trimet, PBOT, Portland Water Bureau, and multiple non-profits.
https://bikeportland.org/2008/08/13/eye-to-eye-campaign-launches-in-downtown-portland-8405
The Eye-to-Eye campaign was so-named for one of the specific actions it advised road users to take: making eye contact. Many of our top bike and pedestrian-safety city staff and non-profit staff organized and supported it:
Steph Noll, Bicycle Transportation Alliance (now The Street Trust) Education and Outreach Coordinator, headed up the campaign
Steph Routh Executive Director of Willamette Pedestrian Coalition (now Oregon Walks)
Scott Bricker ED of the BTA
Michelle Poyourow and Carl Larson BTA advocacy and outreach
Greg Raisman PBOT Greenway development
Roger Geller PBOT Bicycle Coordinator
Fred Hansen Trimet GM
PWB’s safety staff Jeff Guard and Peter Nierengarten
and more.
It was funded by the Brett Jarolimek Memorial Fund.
I do get what you are saying, Missy, about the signs appearing to shift responsibility from drivers to pedestrians for establishing right-of-way at crosswalks. But until I hear someone from this illustrious cast of local characters say, “We were wrong about Portland’s Eye-to-Eye campaign advocating making eye contact.” I think I will go with them.
I also don’t want to be “dead right”. Years ago, I was struck by a car while in a crosswalk with the pedestrian crossing signal on. The driver was looking to his left to make a right on red and did not glance back to his right before accelerating. Of course, he was in the wrong legally, but I wish I would have waited to make eye contact and avoided that trauma.
Too many pedestrians do not understand the details of our crosswalk laws, particularly: 1. You must break the plane of the curb – the ‘dip-a-toe law’ – to signal your intent to cross, and 2. Only vehicles at >X distance from the crosswalk as a function of Y posted speed limit are required to stop for you. In other words, the crosswalk law does not put a force field around a pedestrian who enters the crosswalk without adequate time and distance for the driver (or bike, scooter or skateboard rider) to safely stop. I have multiple times fishtailed, or almost gone over my handlebars, breaking hard when a pedestrian darted in front of me on my bike, only to be told by them that I was the one who wasn’t obeying the crosswalk law.
Not only is it intuitive from a safety standpoint for road users to exchange acknowledgement of each other at crossings, it can promote goodwill, too. Give ’em the nod, or the wave, when they stop for you. They’ll feel so proud and happy they’ll want to keep doing it for others.
Thank you! Some common sense from an authoritative source, finally. I detest our modern “everything is an affront to my existence!” pageant, it’s completely rotted any chance of having an honest conversation about how we interact with each other.
(I miss the BTA and cringe every time the Street Trust account tweets)
Slow the flock down.
They were wrong. Safety campaigns like that, even at the level of being supported by local transportation agencies, don’t work. Randos posting signs with their favorite safety advice isn’t going to make a difference either.
It’s so ridiculously misguided to think that if you put a sign up, behavior will change in a meaningful way.
Sign, sign
Everywhere a sign
Blockin’ out the scenery
Breakin’ my mind
Do this, don’t do that
Can’t you read the sign?
–Tesla covering somebody from even further back when Portland was REAL man, real. Wish I could go back there.
A lot of transplants don’t get it, just chill when driving here. In Portland you have to go an appropriate speed to stop for anyone or anything randomly entering the lane of traffic.
I don’t even get mad, I leave early, you do you, I’m not in a rush. People don’t give a crap about looking both ways, but I’d rather not run over them and spoil my vibe.
The Tesla (great band, BTW) song appeared on the album Five Man Acoustical Jam the title of which is a reference to the original popularizers of “Signs”: The Five Man Electrical Band. The song was written by their lead singer Les Emmerson.
I dig your driving philosophy.
“Safety is a shared responsibility”, said the driver behind the wheel of a three-ton metal death machine capable of reaching 60 mph in under 3 seconds, as insolent pedestrians darted out of their way.
Will other people please help remove the plastic “Roof cleaning” signs around the Portland metro area? The man behind those signs is a 40 or so year old white man with a trashed white van. He uses roof nails to nail his plastic signs to PGE poles all around the Portland area. I have removed dozens of his signs over the last several years. He lists a phone number to call for his roofing company.
Found where you can buy them. $16 to $19 a piece plus shipping. Take them down post them on ebay for $10 a piece and start selling them back to the person over and over again 🙂
Good find. They also sell turkey signs. We need more turkey signs!
https://www.americansignandsignal.com/products/turkey-crossing-warning-sign
Maybe we need more turkeys!
Funny, I saw the picture and assumed this was directed at the drivers! That you (driver) should make sure the pedestrian sees that you’re coming before crossing the intersection.
I’m guessing you know it’s directed at pedestrians because it’s placed in a way that drivers can’t see it?
Maybe just move the signs to face the driver?
I mean, not really, I personally don’t want to be stared at by every single driver. Eye contact with my shoes or pedals is just fine sometimes, thank you.
It is directed at the drivers– eye contact takes two to tango.
When I drive, and when I walk and when I bike, I look. It’s how humans acknowledge one another. This is not some weird anti-pedestrian campaign like the author’s tortured logic is trying to make it out to be.
Look at the photo and tell me that sign is aimed at drivers. I realize you replied to a comment that already told you the same thing.
The FACT that the sign is aimed at pedestrians only is a reason people (author and many commenters) are being critical of it.
Unless they are a psychic there is no way that a pedestrian knows whether the driver in their mega-SUV 15-20 feet away is actually making eye contact. But, please, keep on making dumb rules that pedestrians must follow so that you can feel OK about thousands of people being slaughtered by inattentive drivers.
I think we found the person who posted the signs.
Huh. Gonna be in Kerns next week.
I can’t actually see into vehicles due to my visiual impairmentIt’s the *MOTORIST’S* responsibility to not hit pedestrians.Wheels are a surer sign of a driver’s intentions.
So from the picture above that sign is mounted on a 3″ diameter pipe. This screams street sign not utility pole to me and would be under PBOT jurisdiction. The fact that he had to drill through the pole to use a bolt and nut seems ballsey to me. Looks like you will need two 7/16″ wrenches to remove the signs.
I’ve seen many cities use a metal band around the pole with a square bolt with the head facing the pole and the threads facing outwards, a lot like the band that holds your typical road bike brake levers in place. It’s pretty easy to install, no drilling involved.
Dig the hypocrisy from BikePortland / BikeLoud (is there a difference?), an outlet that’s previously celebrated:
But erecting a sign advocating that people use common sense while crossing the street? Why that’s just beyond the pale!
Being street smart will help me stay alive. Wishing the other person will follow the rules is an accident waiting to happen.
It’s important to say all of them are all the same. Here are some more ways to do that:
1) Focus on their physical appearance. They all look alike so they believe the same things.
2) You can also define them as the role they play. So All of them are just “comment posters,” and that’s all they do.
3) Remember to ignore individual agency. So they can’t make their own decisions, for example, because they’re brainwashed or something. They all believe the same thing if they disagree with you.
4) Pretend everyone here and on bikeloud are interchangeable and inanimate, just mindless cogs in the wheel.
Remember, when you objectify an entire group in order to rationalize your beliefs, it essentially reduces the conversation to playground name calling. A lot of us are here to learn and share what we’ve learned, not objectify people to win silly online points.
That’s how a lot of people here are about drivers (despite many of them being themselves drivers, ironically).
> painting “guerrilla” crosswalks wherever activists wanted them
I believe those were painted where people already regularly crossed the street. Basically letting drivers know what pedestrians are doing. What’s your issue with that?
Very few of the comments focus on the illegality of the signs. They criticize that the safety message is aimed at pedestrians rather than drivers. All the actions you listed were aimed at drivers.
Where’s the hypocrisy?
Those were all 100% legal crosswalks where drivers are required by LAW to stop immediately when a pedestrian or cyclist indicates they want to cross.
It’s pathetic how so many drivers are either ignorant of basic traffic law or choose to ignore traffic law for their convenience.
Am I the only one wondering how those bolts are installed? Completely through the pole or how did they get the bolt head attached to the pole? In any case, the nuts are easily removed…
What a baby. I teach my kids this about crossing roads. Maybe it has nothing to do with deflecting fault and everything to do with advice in how to stay safe. You need a new hobby.
Your key word is “maybe”, and you’ve hung your name calling and perception of the author’s hobby status on that word. You sure have a lot of confidence given that uncertainty.
This is an incredibly poorly written essay on so many levels. It’s comparable to some of the persecution-complex tripe I read on conservative sites for how selfish and lacking in accountability it is.
Yet it’s generated over 150 comments, many supporting what it expressed, and many thoughtful ones from all perspectives.
People seem to be living in a dream world where drivers can easily spot all cyclists and pedestrians unobscured, as though street visibility is not an issue. A short drive around town proves otherwise. It’s particularly an issue on residential streets, where nearly every crossing has cars parked illegally all the up to the sidewalk or intersection. To even see oncoming traffic of any kind, you need to enter the intersection to SEE AROUND parked vehicles. I’ve even seen trees planted BY THE CITY blocking the view of oncoming traffic between curbs and sidewalks. I agree that drivers by default have the greater responsibility to drive safely and give peds and cyclists the right of way. But the ability to do so is made increasingly difficult by poorly constructed intersections and parking laws rarely to never being enforced. Going through the hassle of creating this sign is rather silly. But playing the victim as a result is outrageous. I wonder if the same people would tell their children, instead of “look both ways”, to “just go, it’s the driver’s job to look”.
Who’s playing the victim?
At the very least, the author of the article, who wrote a 10,000 word essay about how she felt personally attacked by the advice on a sign.
That’s a stretch. Is every complaint a claim of being “personally attacked” and being a victim? Is the sign poster claiming to be “personally attacked” by people who don’t look into their eyes?
If you have trouble seeing pedestrians when you drive, you may want to 1) drive at a slow speed consistent with conditions or 2) use a different transportation mode. I’ve found that when I drive 15-20 mph I have little problem seeing those pesky invisible pedestrians that are supposed to make eye contact with me (LOL).
Sorta similar to this, someone’s been putting up ped flags at all the crosswalks on Fremont in Beaumont
I like bricks better than flags:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/granville-island-pedestrian-safety-crosswalk-1.7160751
Sorry, this is basic common sense and really a Portland way of letting people know their intentions. The amount of doom scrolling people standing on corners-lost-is ridiculous since Covid. I can’t actually believe this was published to be honest.
As the author points out, “8% of Americans are blind or visually impaired”. Please explain how this bit of “common sense” helps those people.
As the essay points out, 8% of Americans are blind or visually impaired. Do they simply lack “common sense” if they are unable to make eye contact with drivers?
I can picture “Z” beaming his thoughts at a pedestrian via “eye contact” and then being upset when they fail to understand their intention…
This is the inverse of Hans Monderman’s approach.
Is this really a story that deserves content on this platform? As a professional driver for over 30 years this is one of the first rules to observe when driving through any intersection or area with multiple forms of traffic, residential or commercial. Asking people to make eye- contact helps you judge what a person/driver is about to do that impacts you. Why are people so upset someone is trying to help? Isn’t this common sense?? I guess not in Portland, it’s definitely not the Portland Ive lived in for over 50 years.
Make eye contact, except when it’s dark, except when there is glare, except when the windows are tinted, except when the car is too far away, except when the driver looks right at you but doesn’t see you, except when the driver doesn’t clean their windshield, except when it is raining, except when the driver is looking at something else.
It is 100 times easier to see out of a windshield than into a windshield. The people who think this makes sense are thinking of the view from the inside of a car.
Why is it ok to post your superstitious rules for other people on obnoxious yellow signs where people have to look at them?
The article isn’t stating that eye contact is a bad idea. It’s stating that it is blame shifting to put the responsibility on the pedestrian. If a driver hits a pedestrian, they weren’t looking for pedestrians.
I’ve always made it a point to make eye contact with drivers ever since a car ran into me pulling out of a 7 eleven when I was a teenager, thirty some years ago. I haven’t been hit since, though I have avoided some close calls. I highly recommend this practice. I walk everywhere too.
I try to make eye contact with people in vehicles, but I’ve had multiple experiences where people that I thought we looking at me were really just looking past me. Assuming that eye contact will save you is a good way to get run over.
Found the gorilla!
Has anyone been seriously injured or killed BECAUSE of these signs? Is any message that encourages more interaction between drivers and pedestrians really THAT bad.
Even if the signs encourage one person to look up to avoid getting run over by some idiot behind the wheel who is speeding I would think that is worth it.
Stop being so ideological and get grip…
How many signs with helpful advice have you posted around your house, office, car for yourself? It couldn’t hurt? Get a grip. Or, do the signs only work if they are posted by strangers? Maybe you should invite people to come post helpful signs for you.
I think many of us agree these are useless clutter. Why get so bent about them in a city full of useless clutter?
This comment thread is hilarious, most cyclist ignore common sense and any road sign because they dont feel like it applies to them, somebody was trying to help you and the Karens start some bs about car window tint. This is why nobody likes you.
I think this comment thread is hilarious because quite a few folks are getting hot under the collar, shouting at those of us who are just pointing out how short-sighted the fluorescent exhortation is; how it misconstrues the situation from the perspective of someone not in a car.
*Most drivers ignore common sense and any road sign because they don’t feel like it applies to them.
There, fixed it for you.
*Most drivers ignore common sense and any road sign because they don’t feel like it applies to them.
There, fixed it for you.
If you spend any time in this city you already know that you are lying when you pretend that anything nearing 50% of drivers obey the big white signs with the giant black numbers on them as well as the red octagonal ones with white print.
To say nothing about the lines painted on the road.
I think what those signs are saying is just don’t expect people to see you before crossing. It’s the same idea as not trusting drivers while your driving to always be aware. Long story short. Don’t trust drivers
To anyone upset that this article exists – do you not understand that everyone already knows this? The only people not already looking at drivers when they try to cross (as mentioned in this article) either have a good reason (many have already been listed) or because they are truly not paying attention. And these signs aren’t going to change that. It would be like putting out another yellow sign under a stop sign that says “stop at stop signs”. No shit, we all know that, the people running stop signs or walking into traffic without looking aren’t the people who are going to be helped by a passive aggressive “take personal responsibility” sign.
This stupid sign campaign is misguided AT BEST. More likely, it’s your typical “pedestrians keep darting out in front of me [while I’m looking at my cars LCD], all cyclists are irresponsible because they do an Idaho stop 3 blocks in front of me” reactionary driver. You know that’s who it is. You’ve overheard their conversations.
These signs are simply pointless and annoying. No big harm, just annoying. I’ll be taking them down if I see them.
Should I also take down signs I find annoying?
Nice strawman fallacy.
You posted the definition of “strawman”, but I’m not sure if you read it. Asking who gets to decide which signs are allowed or not is directly relevant to this thread.
Pretty sure Portland City Code has already decided that question. So no, it’s not relevant.
Whose job is it to enforce the law and city code? I’ll give you a clue… it’s not you.
Feel free to quote the City Code when the topic of tactical urbanism resurfaces in a pro cyclist way.
Go right ahead if they are illegal.
I pay no attention to drivers because I gave up magically interpreting their intentions via ESP decades ago. I pay attention to where their death-mobile is in space and where its wheels are pointing.
Just look at the person who is stopping for you, give a nod or a wave, don’t be a dick
Fact is, PEDESTRIANS have the right-of-way in ALL 50 states. Signage such as this gives drivers an incorrect pass for their behavior. They are in a 2 ton killing machine on wheels and they’re the ones who should be alert and looking at the road, including when they’re pulling out from a store and there’s a SIDEWALK between the store and the road. Often they’ll be looking for oncoming cars and waiting to pull out and oblivious to the HUMAN BEINGS walking in front of them. More enforcement in all 50 states is needed badly. This is also why we desperately need more public transportation, so people realize that walking is transporting people between modes and nodes, not just a thing done to get to and from the private auto. NEARLY ALL PEDESTRIAN DEATHS ARE PREVENTABLE AND VEHICULAR VIOLENCE SHOULD BE PROSECUTED THOROUGHLY.
This looks like an invitation for a competing “grab a brick” installation.