New state law makes it a crime to drive close to bicyclists

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on March 20, 2010 at 6:25pm

Sorry Craig, you can't shut me down that easily . . . nice try though.
At the risk of just repeating what Heather wrote, I don't understand why this is an "either/or" scenario.
Why can't we have laws on the books that criminalize behavior threatening to cyclists, and at the same time encourage cyclists to ride defensively and do their best to stay out of harm's way?
I agree that education of drivers and riders should be a priority, and am frustrated that there's not more of it. But do you not see the benefit of being able to use this and the 3-foot law as a basis for a driver education campaign?

Craig S. said:

Excellent, H3N3, an internet argument and ad hominem attack. Didn't I read you in a discussion not long ago decrying the lack of civility displayed towards others with differing opinions? I seem to recall it in a discussion about the last North Side Critical Mass which I thought was kind of fun.
I don't believe I cited anywhere what you're claiming I might believe, it's interesting you can divine all that info from your computer screen. Nor did I mention anything demeaning towards cyclists rights or cycling advocacy, I was berating our wonderful state government and musing on the enforcement of the 3 foot ruling. More laws are not going to protect any of us from the douche-tastic drunk Cubs fans who try to run riders off the road with their Hummers (I speak from personal experience). It's up to the individual rider through their riding skillset and situational awareness to protect themselves and be the best cycling ambassador to any motorists we encounter. Education of drivers and riders seems to me to be more important than another law that brings us closer to a nanny state, however, this is an exercise in futility as there are just as many dim-witted douchebags on two wheels as there are driving 4 wheels.

Just my opinion and again, your mileage may vary.

H3N3 said:

If Craig finds the strength to enjoy his cycling by pretending cyclists never die on Illinois roads, and that he is immune from ending up under a car because he wears a little helmet mirror or carries a rabbit's foot blessed by Lance, I say let him.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian on March 21, 2010 at 12:10pm

This law is more subjective than the 3-foot law - it addresses "unnecessarily close to", providing the defense of swerving to avoid a (pothole, car, object in road...) and although amendment 4 slightly increased the penalty range for an offender who recklessly drives toward or near a cyclist and seriously injures him, it also removed the language criminalizing throwing a missile or object at the cyclist. Of course all of this was already criminal behavior under Illinois assault and battery and vehicle laws, but Sen. Silverstein has done what so many lawmakers before him have done - proposed politically safe legislation which, however redundant, is both popular and cumbersome.

All this law may do is:
1. Expand the mens rea (guilty intent) requirement for this behavior to recklessly from knowingly (assault and battery standards); and
2. Allow someone who may otherwise endanger his license with a reckless driving or vehicular homicide charge to negotiate a charge down to the Class A misdemeanor (or class 3 felony) proposed by this legislation. I will wager the only time we will ever see this new law get press (if it passes) is when it is part of a negotiated plea as a charge reduction when a cyclist is maimed or killed. I hope I am wrong.

If someone intentionally/knowingly tries to hit you with a car, it is at least an (class A misdemeanor) aggravated assault (places you in reasonable apprehension of receiving a battery)

If someone intentionally/knowingly hits you with a car, it is at least an (class 3 felony) aggravated battery, if they hit you with something thrown at you, it is at least a (class A misdemeanor) Battery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian on March 21, 2010 at 12:15pm

Perhaps Craig and Howard would be more comfortable fighting in a private forum away from the kids, and stop wasting our time. Just open a new thread "Howard v Craig" and people who think this is interesting can follow you boys there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dav on March 21, 2010 at 4:13pm

BURN!

Ian said:

Perhaps Craig and Howard would be more comfortable fighting in a private forum away from the kids, and stop wasting our time. Just open a new thread "Howard v Craig" and people who think this is interesting can follow you boys there.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on March 21, 2010 at 4:19pm

I think Craig and I have said all we wanted to say.
If the concern here is truly for the quality of this forum rather than just "getting one in there" and trying to make others look trivial because you don't agree with them or because they dared to disagree with you sometime in the past, it would probably be better to stick to the discussion instead of fanning (imaginary) flames.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Duppie on March 21, 2010 at 9:19pm

Thank you Chicago Bicycling Advocate, Heather, and Ian for better explaining to me what this law accomplishes and the differences between this and the 3-foot law!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page