LFT article in Sunday Sun Times

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by dav on August 8, 2009 at 9:16pm

This article further illustrates that only me, my wife, and attractive sunbathers should be allowed to use the lakefront path.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 8, 2009 at 9:17pm

Interesting article Joe. Nice to see the Sun Times still pumps out sensationalist trash.

Is it a path to danger? Hell no!
Is it true that "The beauty of the path is also its danger"? Hell no!

Here's an idea: put up signs that say something like: LOOK BEFORE CROSSING (Not that it shouldn't be obvious to anyone at least one working eye)

Storytime/rant:

I made it 470 miles across Iowa in late July and did a century August 1(half on the North Branch) both with no accidents. Then I go 12 miles roundtrip August 2 from Rogers Park to Lincoln Park via the LFT and wind up hitting a woman northbound around the Waveland tennis courts on the way home. (We were both ok.)

Sorry, can't stop within 2 inches even going 10MPH when someone steps right into my path without looking. (FYI, I looked at them(group of 6 looking across the path at the lot, hit 1) while approaching. Feet not moving, heads not turning)

So, no, it's not a PATH TO DANGER; it's a path with too many users who are oblivious to the activities going on around them. Surprised some of them don't play in traffic. Oh wait, they basically do with their behavior on the LFT.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on August 8, 2009 at 11:14pm

Soooo... okay, i gotta ask just what the HELL was he thinking training and drafting along the LFT???

i'm really very sorry that he was kayoed for a week, that sucks, no doubt, but c'mon kids, it's a multi-use path, not a country road!

You don't drive hell-for-leather on a residential street (i would fervently hope!) so why oh why would you ride at speed on a recreational trail?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 9, 2009 at 12:33am

He was also drafting a stranger.

mike w. said:

Soooo... okay, i gotta ask just what the HELL was he thinking training and drafting along the LFT???

i'm really very sorry that he was kayoed for a week, that sucks, no doubt, but c'mon kids, it's a multi-use path, not a country road!

You don't drive hell-for-leather on a residential street (i would fervently hope!) so why oh why would you ride at speed on a recreational trail?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by millenial removing Bernie tattoo on August 9, 2009 at 4:40am

...and he was "training" for a Triathlon, which bans drafting!

(...on the Chicago Bridge, the last place on the entire trail you'd ever want to do that!)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by millenial removing Bernie tattoo on August 9, 2009 at 4:54am

Riding the LFP on summer afternoons and weekends is a deathwish. Just don't do it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on August 9, 2009 at 10:05am

I'm straight back from the trail. At 7:30 it was ridable. By 9:00 on the northside it was nuts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on August 9, 2009 at 5:57pm

The article isn't sensationalist, but the headline is. PATH TO DANGER! DUN DUN DUN!

And I don't need an article to put me off of using the LFP. The massive amount of activity and clueless users already does that well enough. (Except for the rare need to get to an early ride that meets on the path)

Brian Kennedy said:

I'm glad he admitted his fault in going 30 mph on the trail. We have a treasure here in Chicago in the LFP. Of course people of all kinds are going to be attracted to it. I think the poor design is most to blame but doing something about that is not a quick fix. The LFP needs to be seen as a recreational use path with casual speed biking. I'm actually glad that the Times ran this article and I don't see it as sensationalist. I hope it does not serve to deter anybody from using the path, rather I hope it increases awareness for those who continue to use it. I think the best thing about the article is that it is the first time I've heard of any type of plan to remedy the path around Navy Pier.

• ▶ Reply