Portland Police doing "warning" stings
Posted by: MichelleJul 23 2008, 12:48 pm
Yesterday Portland Police handed out dozens of warnings to bicyclists at Ladd's Circle in SE Portland; today they did the same at N Flint and Broadway. The former action was in response to numerous neighbor complaints; the latter is a high-crash location. And Friday they'll set up at one more (undisclosed) intersection.
The BTA is developing our relationship, lines of communication and future plans for education, outreach and enforcement with the Portland Police and the new leadership in charge of the Traffic Division (that's the division that runs enforcement and educational missions). In fact, in the next few weeks we expect to release, along with the Portland Department of Transportation, a three-party community policing agreement that includes guidelines for cooperatively addressing bike safety concerns.
The BTA is generally supportive of traffic safety enforcement and education of all road users, including bicyclists. But as we work with PDOT and the Police on strategies for the future, we'll be interested in focusing on the most dangerous locations and the most dangerous behaviors. We'll keep you updated as that process moves forward over the next few months.
Other activities upcoming this summer are the BTA's soon to be launched multi-city Eye-to-Eye campaign, which will include media, outreach, activities and safety equipment give-aways directed at all road users. To get involved in that campaign, contact Stephanie Noll.
Seriously, the BTA is supportive of bicyclist stings at Ladd's Addition? I just plain don't believe that this is an enforcement priority. In fact, I bet this is one of the safest spots in the city (as measured by crash rate, Peter Jacobsen's "safety in numbers" principle, or observation of close calls). I think some grouchy neighbors don't like bicyclists and are abusing the complaint system, and I think the BTA should oppose efforts like these that are basically harassing cyclists and wasting precious enforcement resources.
Now, lest you think I want all bicyclists to get a free pass, I would be very supportive of enforcement against cyclists who run red lights or who don't have lights at night, because crash statistics show that these are some of the behaviors most likely to cause a crash. But rolling through a stop sign at a residential traffic circle (which by all engineering principles should be yield-controlled)? No way.
I agree with Jessica's comments on the Ladd's Circle stings. While I am fully supportive of bikes following motor vehicle rules in areas that have real traffic, but there are places such as the Ladd's Circle where they just don't make sense. I have been bike commuting through that residential neighborhood for 12 years and know it well. At the low volume one way traffic circle in question, there is what amounts to an empty lane on the outside edge of the road allowing for a right hand turn by bikes that is completely outside of the vehicular flow and thus not a remotely dangerous situation for rolling through a stop sign. It is as Jessica notes a 'Yield' situation. While I think the warning system is a good idea in comparison to giving out tickets and may truly raise safety awareness, there are many more relevant places to put our resources at work that might actually prevent accidents instead of just alienating riders.
Thanks for these comments. I will bring them to the Traffic Division as an example of what we hear, overwhelmingly, from our members.
Dear thoughtful and caring bicycle people,
How many of my neighbors do you think should be hit while walking to the coffee shop before something's done? I only know one person that's been hit by a biker at the circle. How many more do you think should be hit before you think we're worthy of a safe walk down the street?
warm regards,
someone who doesn't like it when my friends and neighbors are hit and no one seems to care.
Huh.
Maybe the issue is more failure-to-yield-to-pedestrian-in-crosswalk than failure-to-stop-at-stop-sign? What's your sense, Neighbor?
If it's the latter more than the former, perhaps some "decoy" pedestrian stings would be appropriate. After all, at that location one could easily not yield to a pedestrian and then come to a stop at the stop sign. I'd rather people did the opposite, if I had to choose.
How can we trust the police when you see stuff like this from US law enforcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ
In the arrest report the cop claimed the cyclist intentionally hit him. Thankfully a 3rd party happened to be filming the event so we can see what really happened.
A very similar incident occured in our city recently where a cyclist was tackled off his bike without warning by an officer who did not identify himself. Then he was tased all because he was not using a light at dusk. The officer in the portland case is still on the street, and has not been disciplined. There were eye witnesses to the incident. As a cyclist when I see a cop all I am is scared and I just try to go the other way. Where is the BTA on trying to protect us from the Police.
How many pedestrians have been hit by cyclists in Ladd's Addition?
To pedestrian "Neighbor" —
I agree that cyclists ought to consider the perspective of pedestrians, who sometimes feel they've had a "near miss" with a cyclist when the cyclist thinks he or she has allowed plenty of room. (Much like a driver who thinks he's being generous in giving a cyclist 30 inches of space in passing.) But I think you're trying too hard to find a problem in the wrong place.
The real issue is use of public space: automobiles have been allowed primacy for too long by public policy makers, aggravated by a police force in Portland that worships traffic flow over everything else (including law-given rights). Pedestrians and cyclists both scamper through the few areas not dominated by automobiles and sometimes "compete" for safe use of those spaces. The solution is to remember that streets are an extension of our living spaces, where peds and cyclists should be able to co-exist in safety. Emphasizing a false divide between peds and cyclists — who have common interests — doesn't improve things, it only impedes progress. Your point is well taken, but we cyclists are not your enemy.
By the way, if you wish any further response, use your real name hereafter.
Public space is certainly an issue, and our city is still far too car-centric. However, I think we need to keep focus on another important issue: Cyclists are required to observe traffic laws.
At various times, while walking, riding my bike, and driving my car, I've been placed at risk by cyclists doing stupid, illegal things like blowing through stop signs. Not only do they put themselves and others at risk, but they add fuel to the bike-hostile drivers out there. Cyclists have a role to play in keeping things safe.
I agree that cyclist have a responsibility to follow the laws of the road. But I wonder about the stop sign issue. I agree that maybe this should be a yeild rather than a stop on low traffic streets. If I came to a full 3 second stop at every stop sign on my route it would make my 10 – 15 mile one way commute through back roads and bike blvds too long to be realistic.
I always yeild to peds, motor vehichle of all shapes and sizes, and other cyclist (cause I am usually a bit slower). I always stop at stop lights. However, at stop signs on back roads, I slow down, but come to a full stop only if there is car, cycle, or ped traffic. Even then, the car frequently waves me on and I do not stop.
I really think we, as a bike friendly city, need to rethink the stop vs yeild issues on low traffic streets.
At the 4-way stop intersections in my neighborhood I see Trimet busses, police cars, and numerous motorists fail to completely stop every day. When are the police going to set up a sting operation on the death trap on the east-bound Hawthorne Bridge viaduct where cars exit to MLK, or the I-5 northbound exit to Weidler. Both places have "Yield to Bikes" signs that are ignored all the time.
Besides being a cyclist, I'm frequently a pedestrian and continually witness motorists ignoring the law. The Portland Police could be proactive in this enforcement if they wanted to. Their talk of not enough funds is crap.
Has there ever been any talk of removing the stop sign on the SE Salmon St. bike route (intersection at 21st or so?) that is way too dangerous to ask cyclists to stop at when heading down hill going west? I worry about cyclist-to-cyclist accidents and injuries at that spot when some are slowing down, some stopping and most continuing through…. I believe that stop sign should go!
I was caught in this sting at 5:30 AM this Monday morning for rolling through the stop sign at N Flint and Broadway. 5:30 AM! Traffic was very light, and as anyone who's ridden this route knows, a right turn off of Flint onto Broadway puts you in a bike lane so a rolling "Yield" is perfectly OK in my mind. Well, it wasn't to the two officers who stopped me, and they slapped me with more than a warning — a $240 ticket. How can BTA support these unjust traffic traps, with such heavy-handed fines? I agree with many of the other writers here that cyclists must follow traffic laws, and that blowing stop signs/lights at 4-ways is not OK, but this is ridiculous.