Portland City Councilor Jamie Dunphy is “furious.” In a video just uploaded to his official city council social media accounts, Dunphy addresses the tragic and senseless traffic violence that killed three people in the Hazelwood Neighborhood last night.
Dunphy is calling on the mayor, city administrator, the Portland Police Bureau, and the Portland Bureau of Transportation to “put together an immediate response for this stretch of East Portland.” “We need to protect pedestrians and bicyclists,” Dunphy says in the video.
Dunphy’s statement is also notable for how he directly calls out drivers for the, “dangerous and negligent behavior,” he sees every day. It’s a rare and powerful bit of blaming-and-shaming directed squarely at car users. At one point he addresses drivers directly and implores them to “do better.”
Here’s more from Dunphy’s video:
“Three families are grieving today because their family members were stolen from them by drivers of vehicles. This didn’t have to happen. Every day I see dangerous and negligent behavior by drivers who are texting while driving, speeding, running red lights, ignoring crosswalks and bike lanes, clipping corners and failing to signal. I hope that wasn’t the case in these three deaths, but I’m furious about this.
To the families whose family members were stolen from them last night: I am so sorry. I pledged my support to Vision Zero, recognizing that one pedestrian death is too many. Three in one night is too much to bear. It is unacceptable, and it cannot happen again.
I’m calling on the mayor, the city administrator, the Portland Police Bureau and the Bureau of Transportation put together an immediate response for this stretch of East Portland. We need to protect pedestrians and bicyclists, and we need to hold drivers accountable for their criminal behavior.
And you, if you’re watching this, fix your driving, slow down, you’re not special. You’re not so talented of a driver that you can text while driving and ignore these rules, and you’re not doing enough. Do better keep your neighbors alive.”
That’s one of the most direct and heartfelt responses to a fatal traffic crash I can recall ever seeing from City Hall. Then again, I also can’t remember ever having three deaths in separate collisions like this in such a small geographic area (they all occurred less than one mile from each other).
As for what PBOT is likely to do; the good news is they’ve already studied and analyzed NE Glisan and 122nd. And their data is relevant, given that they’ve either recently completed safety projects or are still in the process of doing so. The bad news is that the type of changes they’re making in East Portland aren’t nearly robust enough to protect bicycle riders, walkers, and wheelchair users.
PBOT is no longer guilty of ignoring East Portland, but they haven’t had the courage and/or political support (those two things are directly related) to build the type of projects that would actually live up to their “Safe Systems” ideals. Even after millions are spent on these corridors, it remains far too easy to drive fast and kill.
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.
Wow. Actually impressed with this statement. Good to see a message from a council member not pulling punches when it comes to dangerous driving behavior.
I agree! It should be okay to be in favor of safe street design, and in favor of increased enforcement, and in favor of a culture of safer driving, all at the same time. Vision Zero advocates often act as if there is a zero sum game here, where talking about one of those precludes the other. We need an all of the above strategy.
Hi Marvin – I agree that we can be for a few things at the same time. However it’s important to acknowledge that some approaches are a lot more impactful than others. The concern – from me anyway – is not that this is a zero sum game but rather that focusing on behavior comes at the expense of other, more impactful, approaches. It also (as I’ve been saying so many times…..) gives elected leaders such an easy escape/out from doing the hard political work that they should be doing. Hope that makes sense
In terms of bang for the buck, lives saved per dollar spent, I would bet enforcement and other behavioral interventions actually are a more cost-effective way to address traffic safety. For the cost of one single roadway redesign project, you could fund behavioral interventions citywide for many years. The disadvantage is that it requires ongoing funding commitments and political commitments, whereas a project to redesign a street has a permanent effect. But it’s a much cheaper and faster way to improve safety, and there are some permanent effects if you manage to change driving culture. Look at seatbelts. There was an initial, massive push consistenting of billboards, signs, PSAs, etc combined with a ton of enforcement and strict penalties, and 50 years later nearly everyone uses seatbelts despite there being virtually no education or enforcement anymore.
I think you are underestimating the cost of behavioral interventions, overestimating effectiveness and overestimating durability of effect. Not that they are 100% worthless, but compared to road design, they are inferior particularly for pedestrian safety. But most importantly, these campaigns do nothing to activate and increase the usefulness of transportation spaces. They do nothing to improve the experience of all of the people that live near or use the roads without cars.
To learn more, you could look at this summary of different behavioral interventions. https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2023-12/countermeasures-that-work-11th-2023-tag_0.pdf
Vision Zero in Portland minimizes the role of enforcement. There are good, historic reasons for that. However, it’s hard to rein in egregious behaviors–often done repeatedly by the same people–without robust enforcement. Don’t know what happened in these cases–other than tragedies–but impaired driving, using phones while driving, speeding are the types of things that would be reduced through obvious enforcement and strong penalties.
Amen. And therein lies the conundrum.
that might have been true for a few years in 2020, but it’s not really true today. The PPB relationship is back, Traffic Division is back, and there’s automated enforcement, etc. The entire public and political discourse around the issue has shifted back into enforcement favor in the past year or so.
Jonathan,
That’s misleading. The Traffic division is a shadow of what it was before it was dissolved entirely in 2020. The “restoration” in 2023 was nowhere near a full revival of the unit.
**PPB Traffic Division was a 20-person team working 24 hours a day prior to 2020
**In 2008 there were : ~35 motorcycle officers + ~10-12 car patrol officers.
**As of May 2023, PPB announced the reinstatement of the Traffic Division on a limited basis: 2 sergeants, 10 motorcycle officers and 2 patrol-car officers (14 total) working daily from about 5 p.m. to 3 a.m
“…before it was dissolved entirely in 2020” by the Portland Police Bureau itself in a profoundly narcissistic attempt to blackmail city council in violation of their sworn oaths
Really? I haven’t seen ONE car pulled over by police in Portland in the past couple of years, and I’m out on the streets a lot. Yet I see the same levels of speeding, racing, aggressive tailgating, and other bad driving behavior that I’ve seen for years.
If there is more enforcement, I’m not seeing it.
I agree. And all the automatic traffic cameras are currently off line. The dysfunction in Portland continues….
https://www.opb.org/article/2025/09/18/portland-speed-enforcement-cameras-offline/
I would say just the opposite. Enforcement is 1/5 of the widely adopted safe systems approach, but gets 95% of the funding and airtime on the news. Can you guess why?
Yes, we need automated cameras on all major thoroughfares and near schools, DUI and traffic stops, crash investigations etc. But US culture often thinks a lack of enforcement and “strong penalties” is the single reason we are a massive outlier in road deaths. Other developed countries are horrified by our complacency and narrow-mindedness. See if you can find a “good” year where enforcement was adequate enough in the US to make any significant dent in road deaths. For 100+ years we have been missing 4/5 of the pie and talk about the one piece we do actually have (manned enforcement) as if that’s the only solution if only we had more of it.
In many countries, automated enforcement is so widespread, and the penalties so harsh, that speeding and reckless driving has largely been tackled through enforcement. Good road design is obviously a great thing that makes roads somewhat “self-enforcing” (though some enforcement will always be needed as a supplement)–but good road design comes through large, expensive, slow projects that can’t really happen fast enough to make much progress. So in the meantime, I think automated enforcement and harsher penalties are the way to go.
Yeah Marvin I’d like to see some cost comparison (or at least a case study), but you might be on to something. Reluctantly, I’d take your point that investment in street design vs traffic cameras might favor the latter with respect to immediate effect on crashes.
Road design can encourage unsafe driving and mix modes with a high discrepancy of mass/speed, where just basic movement within that system causes death/injury. But the effect of a largely automated, behviorism-based enforcement model can’t be understated. The data on the effect of traffic cameras in NYC has been so robust, it’s hard to argue against.
My gripe with that is that we do indeed have the vast sums of money to invest in rebuilding streets. We simply choose to use it as blood sacrifice to appease the car gods (Ahem, not that… there’s… anything wrong with that of course. May they forever be sated and pleased).
When the solution is a suggestion like a speed limit sign then you have to have constant enforcement to make sure the suggestions are being followed. If a physical rule is implemented, like a diverter or round-a-bout then enforcement is not needed.
Key to safe systems approach followed by DOTs across the developed world is the most basic and effective way to reduce deaths/injuries: reducing speed. The second most basic and effective way to reduce deaths/injuries is redesigning roads. These two basic requirements are overlooked consistently by representatives and are the primary reason the US is an outlier by orders of magnitude in road deaths.
While it is nice to see one of my representatives in D1 finally give some support to safe systems, Dunphy mentioned neither of the above in any meaningful way. I urge him and other D1 council members to explicitly voice their support for those central parts of VZ, and not limit themselves to the most common admonition of behaviors.
It’s clear he’s saying “more enforcement”, which is fair, but is he willing to risk re-election to advocate for the necessary infrastructure changes?
Enforcement can mean more than having a donut-eating cop sitting in a car pretending to care about people speeding. We could have more automated speed and red-light monitoring. We could a civil traffic division that does not have a bloody record of violent and homicidal civil rights violations and bad-faith blackmailing of government/society.
You should ask to do a ride-along with PPB. I did, and not once did the officer eat a donut. I’d say they are pretty hardworking, though of course there are probably a few lazy officers, as there are lazy employees in every profession.
If Soren did a ride-along, his biggest shock would be realizing the only thing glazed that night was his worldview.
I invited my mom over for dinner and not once did I eat dinner on the couch and watch TV.
A ride along is PR.
No – it can get pretty hairy. You should do one and then tell us what you think. Yes, they send you out with their best officers but I defy anyone to do a harder job. The Great American Public ain’t very great to deal with.
Pretty hairy like being withing 200 yards of some class of people that scare you white?
Sometimes I think people don’t want to learn more for fear it might complicate their simple world view.
Yeah I totally agree with you here. I am a big fan of red light and speed cameras. They are a hell of a lot cheaper than having an army of cops too. Those donuts can get expensive! Speed cameras also don’t shoot people. One could also argue that having cops do traffic stops is more dangerous for the police themselves as well.
The rub for a lot of people is that cameras are more objective. “Well, I don’t speed, but when I do it’s only a little bit and for good reason. But I’m a safe driver I swear!” You can’t get a “cool camera” that lets your smooth talk your way out of a ticket. Actual infrastructure (what SD called “hard limits” in their comment) is even harder to advocate for because at best, it creates a consequence for reckless driving in the form of damaging one’s car, and at worst, it is perceived as “punishing” “””good””” drivers by “creating traffic”. The solution for all of these roads is staring us in the face – take away driving space and repurpose it for safe walking, biking, and transit. Those who still need to or choose to drive may have to endure marginal increases in traffic during peak hours.
So, that’s what I mean – is Councilor Dunphy willing to push for things that will really make a difference in the grand scheme, even if it means Fox News-rotted boomers and car dealership owners won’t re-elect him? Is he willing to have difficult conversations with constituents who feel that their mobility is being infringed upon? Is he willing to listen to people screeching about how bikes aren’t practical for hauling a ton of gravel 36 miles in the freezing rain or whatever? If not – then he just needs to shut the fuck up and let the car deaths continue.
He got something like 8000 votes, all in his vote bank/social media network. All he has to do is repeat that performance. The new system creates winners out of someone with a glorified clique of friends.
So tragic…..
And now Oscar Burrell seems to be back at it.
Portland….the city of very few consequences.
https://katu.com/news/local/arrest-warrant-issued-for-portland-man-violating-parole-with-reckless-driving-videos-oscar-burell-jr-nathan-vasquez-multnomah-county-district-attorney-judge-von-ter-stegge-crime-tiktok
bingo. It is one reason why businesses have left Portland.
Soft limits that control behavior, like advocating for self-control and behavior modification through police enforcement or education are very appealing, because most people believe themselves to be good… or good enough. I would wager that most drivers that have killed pedestrians or cyclists believed and still believe that they were good drivers and good people. Likewise, they also feel that the problems are caused by bad people or bad drivers. However, people are horrible judges of their own behavior, their ability to drive safely, and the overall risk they create. On top of that, cars are specifically designed to eliminate external stimuli and any sense of danger. People feel perfectly safe and in control up until the moment they crash or kill.
Soft limits are appealing because everyone imagines that the limits will affect the bad people, which is not them. They will continue on, as usual, but the baddies will be taken care of. Soft limits are popular for elected officials, because they resonate. Elected officials like Dunphy, or Mapps, or Eudaly can speak very passionately about the things we good people all care deeply about. We feel more connected over this message that we all agree on regardless if it ever changes anything.
Hard limits, like narrow roads, lane reduction, speed limiters on vehicles, licensing requirements that have the intention of eliminating high risk drivers, bollards and other hard infrastructure are repulsive to many, because they affect everyone, good and bad. People believe themselves to be good or at least justified, so this feels unfair.
Many developed countries, other than the US, were fortunate enough to have hard infrastructure fully in place before cars and trucks. And they didn’t go through with the idiotic demolition of their cities to make way for cars to the extent that the US did. Drivers have to navigate many hard limits. The US, and Portland in this case, are stuck in an area where there are very few hard limits, but honest transportation experts know that hard limits are really the most effective way to change behavior and reduce death and destruction. In fact, they are also the most effective way to change culture and behavior to advance soft limits. Once people are used to driving in a constrained, careful way, they expect that same care from others and lose tolerance for carelessness.
Elected officials find it very difficult to advocate for hard limits, because they also are deluded by presuming it’s just the bad people, hard limits take time to deliver, and it is a hard message to tell people that you are taking something tangible away from them to achieve a less tangible benefit- people they don’t know get to live. It is especially hard when there are political opportunists waiting in the wings to promise to give people the bad things they want, and a chorus of early stage dementia on social media willing to type out the same misinformed opinions 100 times a day. Hard limits are also not supported by the same consumer machinery that concentrates wealth.
The solution is to strongly promote what hard limits give to people, not what they take away. And, the first step is to not use bike riders and bike lanes as a scapegoat. Be honest, putting a safeguard on the giant spinning saw blade that is our transportation system, creates opportunities for the things that many people want. This is different for every street, every neighborhood, but figure out what cars have taken away and promise for that to come back. It could be quiet, a safe walk to the store, more trees, increasing property values, less cut-through traffic. Get people selfishly invested in every inch of space that should be more than a car shit-yard.
Americans have failed their driver’s test for the one-millionth time. They need to be removed from the racetrack and put into a driving environment that constantly forces them to drive within a range of options that are relatively safe.
COTW
Yep – great comment.
Every American driver should be required to spend a month driving in Scotland, where many roads are single lanes that require patience, savvy, and give-and-take with other drivers. I’m convinced that one of the worst things our American road infrastructure does is create an expectation in drivers that their trip will be easy and predictable every time – that all they need to do is steer between the lines. I’m convinced that this expectation of predictability is one reason American drivers kill so many people outside of cars: American drivers just aren’t expecting a bike or ped to be on the road, so when one inevitably appears, they are more prone to hit it than to avoid it.
In many other countries, like Scotland, you know that EVERY TIME you drive, you are going to encounter all manner of anomalies – dropped lanes, cars parked in your driving lane, crosswalks with blinking lights, people biking and walking who have NO dedicated space etc. You have to be extremely alert or else you will hit something or somebody. Not so in the USA, where streets and lanes are wide and you can zone out with your tunes and even text on your cellphone.
SD, A large percentage of pedestrian traffic deaths in Portland are homeless individuals. The low hanging fruit to reduce Portland traffic deaths is to end the cruelty of unsanctioned streetside camping.
https://www.opb.org/article/2022/02/03/70-percent-pedestrians-hit-cars-portland-were-experiencing-homelessness/
This looks like a motion in favor of treating the symptom, rousting campers, instead of addressing the economic ills that push them out where they offend your eyes. I agree, cruelty is involved, but I’m not feeling that your heart is with the homeless.
Am I wrong? How many campers have you talked to, and what help have you offered?
Not rousting, sheltering, and, hopefully, helping them get the help they need to address their economic (and medical and mental health and drug addiction) ills, which they probably aren’t getting (and can’t get) in a tent.
Our transportation system should be safe enough that it doesn’t kill people that use it frequently without a car. Removing homeless people from the harsh, loud, repulsive areas created by failed road designs will not make transportation or transportation spaces safer. Despite appearances, getting rid of the canaries does not make the coal mine safer.
“getting rid of the canaries does not make the coal mine safer”
Unless you are a canary, and it’s disproportionately canaries getting hurt.
No. Whether a canary, a canard or a capybara, the coal mine remains dangerous. And if you are looking for a nice place to walk, I’m sorry, but you’re too late in asking. Mr. Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away.
Absolutely, make the roads safer — no one is suggesting otherwise. But until we do, let’s not have people camping alongside them.
I can’t even believe that’s controversial. Even you seem to agree it would be a horrid place to live.
Meanwhile, we’re still at the point where PBOT’s employees (ironically, a sidewalk inspector of all people in this example, I believe) still don’t understand they shouldn’t park their VISON ZERO-adorned cars on sidewalks, as this one did the day before I read about these three deaths. It’s not a horrible example, but on the other hand…c’mon PBOT (and he was only 5′ past a driveway into the parking lot of the business whose sidewalks he was inspecting).
This is not remotely a Vision Zero safety issue. At worst it is mildly annoying.
No, it IS a Vision Zero Safety issue, and it’s more than “mildly annoying”.
Of all people in all bureaus, PBOT inspectors should know not to park like that. Their doing that IS a Vision Zero problem. When they do–in their City cars with their City-issued orange Vision Zero bumper sticker, they’re telling the public “Even we don’t believe in Vision Zero”.
That’s a real problem, even when their illegal parking isn’t extremely dangerous. They’re saying, “I know I shouldn’t park like that, but it wasn’t convenient for me to park even a few feet away legally, plus I wasn’t going to be there very long”–EXACTLY the same excuse other people use for blocking sidewalks or bike lanes. PBOT very visibly doing that tells all those people that’s a valid excuse.
Plus, even if you don’t know anything about the situation other than what the photo shows, they clearly show it’s more than “mildly annoying”:
First, besides partly blocking the sidewalk, you can see the car is blocking almost the entire travel lane. And it’s doing that right at the intersection. That means cars passing it need to move into the oncoming traffic lane–right where cars will be turning right directly into them.
Second, the white X is a railroad crossing warning, so they’re blocking visibility a few feet from a rail crossing.
Third, under the car, you can just make out a portion of a signal activation marking for bicycles. That was just put in a couple months ago, and probably cost thousands of dollars to install. This illegal parking makes it inaccessible, so worthless.
That’s plenty to make this more than “mildly annoying” even without adding information that’s not evident in the photo–like that this is a main bicycle and pedestrian route into a major park, that the City recently spent a few hundred thousand dollars to make that crossing safe and legal, that the car is directly in the path that dozens of bikes use every day to enter and exit the park, that the car is also directly in the way of the several trucks that drive through that exact spot every day to and from the adjacent large business (and that maneuvering space for trucks there is so tight that PBOT just spent thousands of dollars installing a steel barrier I was standing next to when I took the photo, because trucks were hitting the ADA handrail at the sidewalk, etc.
I realize people park much more dangerously than this all the time. But I also see dozens of City vehicles with Vision Zero stickers doing this every year, just while walking my dog near my home. Unless I live in some weird zone of bad City-vehicle parking, that means City employees are doing this thousands of times per year all over Portland.
That’s a real issue for Vision Zero, not just for PR’s sake, but for actual safety. Calling it “mildly annoying” is clueless.
Hilarious – but also sad. The employee should be written up.
I asked PBOT about this and they said their parking enforcement folks are supposed to park blocking crosswalks, though I did not receive an explanation why.
This is not a parking enforcement vehicle,. And it’s not blocking the crosswalk that’s right in front of it, either, so it would apparently be doing it wrong if it were parking enforcement, and if what PBOT told you is true (which does sound really suspect anyway).
I’ve seen hundreds of parking enforcement vehicles, and can’t remember ever seeing one blocking a crosswalk.
Maybe I’m not following you perfectly but it seems like you are promoting two contradictory things. On the one hand, you are celebrating and glorifying a statement–from an elected leader in a position to muster real courage and political will to actually build things or legislate–that merely shames and blames driver behavior. Yet, you conclude this article with: “PBOT is no longer guilty of ignoring East Portland, but they haven’t had the courage and/or political support (those two things are directly related) to build the type of projects that would actually live up to their “Safe Systems” ideals. Even after millions are spent on these corridors, it remains far too easy to drive fast and kill.”
So you think Dunphy is on the right track focusing primarily on driver behavior and should not be expected to do the hard work that can only get done with courage and political will? That’s only PBOT’s responsibility?
Sincerely confused. And concerned
Hi Sarah,
First. I disagree that this post is equal to “celebrating and glorifying” Dunphy’s statement. I’m a news reporter and just because something is covered does not mean I agree or endorse it. I say he’s being “direct and heartfelt.” Those are facts, not my opinion and they certainly don’t equate to “celebrating and glorifying.”
And like I’ve said before, I believe it’s possible to want multiple things at once. Just because I personally agree with what Dunphy is doing here and I believe it’s effective in this one instance, does not mean I do no also want him to use his position to make systemic change. In fact, he does that by calling out the mayor, city admin, PBOT and PPB and telling them to make a plan for these streets that will prevent collisions.
Let’s give Dunphy more than a day before saying what he believes on this topic. He has shared an emotional and important video about people dying in his district. I believe he has the capability to make statements like this and also work to push forward actual policy and projects. And if he fails to do that, you know full well you will read about it here first.
That’s fair. I may have exaggerated your response. However, you have said a number of times that you think we need more shaming and blaming which could be interpreted as celebrating this approach and even possibly glorifying (in that you feel it is particularly effective and needed). But I agree my language sounded extreme. Please accept my apology. I’ll try to be more careful in how I express myself going forward.
Again, my concern is that focusing praise on an elected shaming and blaming *de-incentivizes* their obligation to use the power they have – that unelected citizens do not – to legislate, exert political will. It hands them a very easy out/escape from doing what is controversial work.
It is possible that Dunphy will step up to do more. It is also possible that he will step back from taking real action and continue to blame drivers as we have seen so many in positions of power do, time and again.
I hope he does both with a greater emphasis on using his elected power to address systemic issues and a lesser emphasis on blaming those who use our terribly designed and managed transportation system.
Here’s my take:
This tragic evening fired up Dunphy. At the moment, he’s passionate about getting something done, even if he doesn’t have the specifics worked out in his mind.
This is an opportunity to the community that is passionate about transportation safety to get a receptive ear of the commissioner and share their vision of what could/should be.
Strike while the iron is hot*, as they say.
* Note: It viscerally feels gross to me view this tragedy as an “opportunity”. I think the reality of city politics and transportation policy necessitates this, unfortunately.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/10/a-top-portland-political-aide-took-in-a-homeless-woman-he-abandoned-her-at-a-state-park-days-later.html
Councilor Dunphy has some issues to deal with this morning like finding a new Senior aide with some better judgement.
That’s a wild story that leaves very many questions unanswered. The two paragraphs are so thinly reported that their publication seems like wilful malpractice, and a cheap shot.
Among the many scenarios that a person could imagine is the possibility that the person left at the park requested just that. We don’t know what gear and goods they had at 2:00 AM, or what the weather was at the time. We don’t know how dog friendly the house was and it could be they chose being close to their dog over other society.
It’s a very odd thing for any normie person to decide at midnight to ditch a guest in the outer burbs before dawn. I think that kind of person would have shown a lot of flags well before the event. This is not a reflection on either party. I know some people who might well decide that camping was better and even safer than being in a house on any given night.
Since I posted the article was paywalled. The entire story is crazy and will come out. I won’t attempt to tell it.
This person that Dunphy hired and we pay $130,000 a year has some real issues and a lot of explaining to do.
Thanks for linking to that story- it is so crazy! I think it is an excellent example of what a huge struggle it is to help people with mental health challenges, trauma, a history of homelessness and who knows what other challenges. It sounds like some very dedicated outreach professionals from Milwaukie had spent hours and hours trying to connect her with resources, then Kelekele got involved. Despite being super connected and seemingly well-intentioned, he appears to have been overwhelmed and resorted to the terrible decision of leaving her at the State Park. After the cops get her out of the park, she calls Schlosser, and attorney, from a hospital because her dog ran away during the fracas involved with getting her to leave the park, so Schlosser pays for her to taken back to the Park!! Sort of a nice gesture, and I don’t doubt that is what she was begging for, but she shows back up at the park in a wheel chair with no resources, no shoes, sitting in the rain waiting for dog to come back?! Plenty of bad decisions, but also a compelling story about a sick, troubled, destitute woman who desperately needs help and is asking for it, but is unwilling or unable to accept what is offered.
A traffic light is just a suggestion to stop. A speed limit sign is also a suggestion. A round-a-bout, on the other hand, is a physical rule. Relying on suggestions for safety means drivers that ignore them or are to impaired to follow them will continue to be grave dangers for everyone else.
Do you support reducing the number of lanes, narrowing roads, and installing traffic calming? Those are all physical rules in the same way roundabouts are.
“reducing the number of lanes” is never a physical rule unless there is a curbed median between each lane (which I’ve seen at some foreign border crossings), purely a suggestion, and if fact police often cite motorists not staying in their lane as a leading cause of crashes.
“narrowing roads” may or may not be a physical rule. All roads must be at a minimum wide enough for a fire engine to pass (18 feet is often cited).
“installing traffic calming” may or may not be a physical rule; often it’s just paint, like a painted bike lane, and plenty of people park in the bike lane.
“roundabouts” are usually physical, but the Dutch of all people actually install a lot of painted roundabouts and traffic circles.