Make that the religionS of bike and rail.

The city of Portland (CoP) is governed by juveniles posing as Mayor and Commissioners. Witness the Occupy XXX'rs and the Portland Marathon. The latter was grown up enough to get a permit but the former says effectively "we don't need no stink'n permit." And instead the Occupy XXX'rs say "we are willing to share your space you paid months ago to occupy." And whose rights get respected by city hall? That's right the juvenile Occupy XXX'rs are praised for their lazy occupation of parks and streets.

And what's infuriating is the next crop of Mayor and Commissioners are the same juvenile type imposters.

The only solution to CoP is to flee from it, forcing the juveniles left behind to actually grow up and fend for themselves through productive endeavors.

In parts of the city it's more like a cult with fetishes.

Alas, a recommendation that runs afoul of bicycle dogma. The high priests preach sign removal when the faithful can't be bothered to obey.

http://www.arlnow.com/2011/09/06/stop-removed-from-bike-trail-at-lee-hwy-and-lynn-street/

It actually seems like a good idea. Bicyclists are often looking down at the pavement, looking for the tacks that the bike haters (some of whom love to comment here) have thrown down, so they would see the stop signs more easily.

Gordon, you have now passed over into the troll zone. See you later.

I drove around Portland the other day, first time in a couple of years, and it was so dangerous. Bikes blowing signs, splitting traffic, not signaling. JESuS! I only found one of those green things and had totally forgotten what they were. So I just pulled right into it. Luckily no one was around. If I had killed someone in that green zone I wonder if there would be a lack of notice defense? I also wonder at why those things are there? Safer?

Well I answered my own question. The green boxes are for safety when turning right and increased awareness for bikes...that idea has my vote. Those streets are dangerous.

I think it's an excellent idea. As Gordon suggests, a cyclist is more likely to see it first, especially in lower light conditions. Just makes sense if you are going to paint traffic control signs on the pavement for cyclists and motorists, why not stop and yield signs too. It won't stop those with no intention of obeying the law, but for most of us it would be an additional visual safety aid. I'm surprised no one paid to do this stuff has thought of it before.

Drewbob - the people making the decisions for all of us aren't the ones doing the thinking.

One better.

Why not just paint the damn stop signs on the ground ourselves.

It'll be REALLY hard for the bicyclists to actually argue to remove them!!! And if the city actually spends the money to remove them, the city will have to justify why it's spending money it allegedly doesn't have, to remove them (when they are hardly a traffic hazard at all).

To quote Nixon, "But it would be wrong."

I lived for two decades without a car and have walked and cycled many (thousands of) miles in this state. I did not "blow through" stop signs but it does not always make sense for a bicycle to come to a full stop at a stop sign. A bicycle can slow to a crawl and the exposure and position of the rider on a bike, in contrast to a driver in a vehicle, allows complete appraisal of traffic without a dismount unless necessary. It's too bad something akin to a "basic rule" cannot be accepted and adopted because identical rules for significantly different transport does not make perfect sense. A stop sign for vehicles would often better be a yield sign for a bike.

My comments are regarding single cyclists, not mass, critical or otherwise, and may make no sense in today's Portland, a city I last rode a bike in in the mid-90s.