The Chainlink

Sun Times: "Rogue bikers ignore Rules of the Road"

Rogue bikers ignore Rules of the Road

BY MARK KONKOL  mkonkol@suntimes.com July 20, 2012 7:32PM

Story Image

What part of “STOP” do bicyclists not undertand? A River North resident says they endanger pedestrians: “All I have to do is stand on Kinzie for five minutes in the morning and 20 bicyclists blow through stop signs.” | Mark Konkol

 

===

Last summer, I dared to point out the obvious: Protected bike lanes are bunk.

They’re a giant waste of money that probably don’t protect anybody. Not bicyclists. Not drivers. Not pedestrians. And spending millions of dollars on those ugly white pylons certainly doesn’t protect taxpayers during tough financial times.

Of course, that really ticked off the bicycling crazies, who dismissed my opinion with high-minded logic: Don’t believe a lazy, ugly, fat and stupid guy who drives a Korean station wagon.

“Looks like he’d start sweating in 60 degrees,” some knucklehead wrote on a blog that nobody reads.

Another bike activist kept asking me to join him on a protected bike ride, hoping I might see the light. I declined. I’ve been riding unprotected on Chicago streets for years, thank you very much.

But the way rabid cyclists reacted did help me consider why they got so worked up over my point of view. They must be smarter, skinnier and just better people than guys like me. In fact, they are more evolved urban creatures. They don’t just ride their bikes to work. They are saving lives, reducing the carbon footprint and traffic congestion. They might even be curing cancer, ending hunger and homelessness one pedal at a time. As a superior race of Chicagoans, cyclists deserve the extra protection provided by plastic poles.

But just before I completely changed my tune on bike lanes, a levelheaded River North woman talked me out of it.

Rogue bicyclists emboldened by their special lanes have become a threat to pedestrian safety, she told me. They must be taught manners or, at the very least, the Rules of the Road, such as obeying traffic signals, sharing the street and — I’m paraphrasing here — don’t be a jerk.

“All I have to do is stand on Kinzie for five minutes in the morning and 20 bicyclists blow through stop signs. They’re all wearing ear buds listening to music. They’re in a zone, a bubble, and they don’t stop. It’s scary. I hate driving on that street. It’s scary,” the River North gal said on the condition that I keep her anonymous to avoid attacks from bicycle-riding anarchists.

Cyclists might not like hearing it, but she’s right. I’ve almost been run over by a woman on a vintage 10-speed and a klutzy fellow riding in flip-flops who apparently believes stop signs are optional for cyclists, particularly if they’re riding in a protected lane.

But don’t take our word for it, militant bicycle people of Chicago.

Here’s what Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd) wrote to Chicago Transportation commissioner Gabe Klein: “I have received chronic residential reports that bicyclists frequently ignore posted stop signs, leading to several ‘near misses’ on a daily basis.”

Reilly “respectfully requested” that the city install signs that state: “Bicyclists MUST Stop at Intersection” signs next to stop signs on Kinzie. In a separate letter, the alderman asked that speed humps or other bicycle traffic-calming measures be added to what he called the “Kinzie Cycle Track.”

That seemed like an ironic request because Klein once told me that a goal of protected bike lanes is to slow down auto traffic in Chicago. His faithful bike-riding followers either didn’t get that part of his message or figured that goal doesn’t apply to pedal power.

Since Reilly sent those letters in March, the city has installed reminders on stop signs and painted “STOP” on the street as a reminder.

As a rule, Reilly said he was told, the city doesn’t put speed humps downtown. Instead, Chicago cops and transportation department “ambassadors” have conducted “educational” traffic stops. Officers read cyclists the riot act — and the Rules of the Road — for blowing through stop signs, and they hand out warnings.

More of those education days are scheduled for the next few weeks.

Reilly says bike lanes are a “nice amenity” geared at making streets safer, but it won’t work if cyclists don’t slow down, stop at stop signs and watch out for pedestrians.

And if warnings don’t work, the next step, Reilly said, will be ticketing law-breaking bicyclists for moving violations.

I still don’t think extra signs, written warnings, traffic tickets or anything you put in front of a guy going downhill on a bike will keep him from blowing a stop sign.

On Thursday, I stopped on Kinzie to snap a picture of the “stop for peds” sign. Just as I hit the button, a guy on a bike zoomed downhill through the stop sign and swerved to avoid a woman crossing the street while picking up speed — stop sign be damned.

There’s no point debating the need for these bike lanes, though I could argue the pylon-lined path linking Garfield Park to Douglas Park should include bulletproof vests, and there are no protected lanes where you really need them — Halsted Street, Elston Avenue and, of course, Milwaukee Avenue through Bucktown and Wicker Park, where hipsters on Huffys are constantly crashing into open car doors.

I won’t push it anymore.

But it is time for a cyclist culture change.

Go ahead, enjoy your fancy bike lines.

But obey the signs. Slow down. Watch out for pedestrians.

And try not to be a jerk while you share the road with chubby guys driving station wagons.

We are people, too.

Link:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/13894027-452/rogue-bikers-i...

(Please click frequently and give the Sun Times lots of hits, because they certainly deserve lots of hits for posting such wonderful bicycle-specific content, and don't forget to feed the comment section to assure that such wonderful informative inclusions continue to be a frequent feature of our daily news feed!)

Views: 1502

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by O on July 21, 2012 at 5:05pm

Some additional statistical information (the motherlode for Illinois) can be found here:

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/bike-ped/pedestrian-and-bicycle-safety

Scroll down for the pedestrian and bicycle crash maps. Fascinating stuff...

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on July 21, 2012 at 5:16pm

Since suburban traffic speeds tend to be higher, it makes sense that fatality rates would be higher.  Read more here on speed vs. fatality rate.  This and related issues have been discussed in relation to multiple topics on the Grid Chicago blog.  While traffic congestion may be a pain in the butt to drivers, it works to the advantage of cyclists and pedestrians by reducing traffic speeds, thus reducing speed of impact and improving the odds of survival.


O said:

I tried to deal with what I termed The Myth of Urban Cycling Difficulty (http://www.beezodogsplace.com/2012/07/20/a-bicycle-is-not-a-nose-ring/) by doing a bit of research on the percentage of fatalities in both the city limits and suburban areas. Some of the data there are from the tables listed in the DOT summaries. It turns out that suburban fatalities appear to be higher as a percentage per number of crashes

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on July 21, 2012 at 7:32pm

I'm pretty sure "zero" is wrong, but I took spencewine's post to be in reference to local incidents.

S/he was certainly clear about "this year" regardless of other imprecision.  It's interesting that someone has felt it important to compile those videos, but a random bunch of ped vs. bike crashes from the whole globe over a several year period doesn't really relate regardless of how one interprets the post.

O said:

Spencewine was making the assertion that the cyclist versus pedestrian data would show 0 collisions. Obviously the rate of occurrence is higher than zero based on the cursory compilation of videos I was able to assemble in under 15 minutes.

There are additional analysis of crashes that have occurred in our area here:

http://www.dot.il.gov/trafficsafety/summaries.html

The data might not answer your specific questions regarding bikes vs. pedestrians but it will give you idea of how frequently collisions of various types occur and where.

I tried to deal with what I termed The Myth of Urban Cycling Difficulty (http://www.beezodogsplace.com/2012/07/20/a-bicycle-is-not-a-nose-ring/) by doing a bit of research on the percentage of fatalities in both the city limits and suburban areas. Some of the data there are from the tables listed in the DOT summaries. It turns out that suburban fatalities appear to be higher as a percentage per number of crashes.


h' said:

What is the point of offering this here? Nobody is saying that bikes and pedestrians don't collide.

How many of these were recent, local, and resulted in serious injury or death to the pedestrian?

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 21, 2012 at 9:19pm

I have decided that 'O' stands for obtuse.

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on July 21, 2012 at 9:52pm

Play nice :-)

Permalink Reply by O on July 21, 2012 at 11:30pm

I'm trying to parse your response below. Since you did not quote anyone specifically I suppose you are responding generally. What has me confused is the second sentence in the first paragraph. What exactly does this mean? I assume too that the second paragraph is referring to the author of the original article?

notoriousDUG said:

the fact that cars do not follow the rules is not a justification for bikes not following the rules.  I am not an advocate is following the rules to the letter but I am an advocate of riding politely when it comes to pedestrians and other road users.

The second he was called fat and picked on the argument on the previous article was lost.

Permalink Reply by O on July 21, 2012 at 11:36pm

Spencewine did not (so far as I can find) mention anything about either local or current statistical information in the paragraph I quoted. That was why it surprised me when he spoke about the pedestrian vs. cyclist situation in that manner. I can understand that you might have taken his reference to be about local incidents, but parse the sentence again.

It is a bit like the claim (made with Venn Diagrams) that urban cyclists face steeper challenges than do professional cyclists participating in the Tour de France. That too is pretty farfetched.

h' said:

I'm pretty sure "zero" is wrong, but I took spencewine's post to be in reference to local incidents.

S/he was certainly clear about "this year" regardless of other imprecision.  It's interesting that someone has felt it important to compile those videos, but a random bunch of ped vs. bike crashes from the whole globe over a several year period doesn't really relate regardless of how one interprets the post.

Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on July 21, 2012 at 11:59pm
Motorists... Bankers... Politicians... and Football coaches!!!... if there is one thing we can agree on?... Everyone loves rules!
Permalink Reply by Gerry G on July 22, 2012 at 1:02am

Only laws of nature will be adhered to 100% of the time by every human.  Thinking gravity/Newtons 3 laws of motion and so on.  Expecting greater participation in human law is poop.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on July 22, 2012 at 1:50am

It means exactly what it says, I do not think I could have made in any simpler.  Read the words and interpret them literally.  I'll try and dumb it down for you: Rules not perfect!  No follow rules exactly! Be nice to others on road! Og ride bike!

Yes I was referring to the author of the original article I think that was pretty obvious.

You know I am really starting to question your reading comprehension skills...

O said:

I'm trying to parse your response below. Since you did not quote anyone specifically I suppose you are responding generally. What has me confused is the second sentence in the first paragraph. What exactly does this mean? I assume too that the second paragraph is referring to the author of the original article?

notoriousDUG said:

the fact that cars do not follow the rules is not a justification for bikes not following the rules.  I am not an advocate is following the rules to the letter but I am an advocate of riding politely when it comes to pedestrians and other road users.

The second he was called fat and picked on the argument on the previous article was lost.

Permalink Reply by Charlie Short 2.9 on July 22, 2012 at 11:12am

Unfortunately, regarding ped/bike crashes, until IDOT (and NHTSA) decide that ped/bike numbers are important, we won't have true picture of what's happening. CDOT does work with CPD to gather any serious (hospital injury/death) crash information, as these are the two agencies that deal with the aftermath of a crash. The downside of this approach is that CDOT is not legally the keeper of this info (that should be IDOT,) and therefor we can't really make these numbers officially public. Additionally, because even in the best circumstances, there's many layers to the investigative process at CPD; the Police don't really have a mechanism for collecting this data either. They release the serious stuff to CDOT as a courtesy. So far this year, I have not seen or heard any reports of any "serious" bike/ped crashes.

Just a little note. I don't make these decisions about reporting, and I'm not saying all of this so you can tell me that CDOT doesn't do enough. Citizens need to advocate to their state reps and the governors office that IDOT needs to increase it's reporting scope. Members of CDOT staff battled for years about dooring, and it wasn't until real folks got involved that IDOT changed their policy. Email me if you have questions. Howard will tell you that I do respond.

One more thing. If you are willing, I believe that all closed CPD reports are viewable through FOIA, but you must be willing to sift through the info yourself. I know that because of ongoing investigations (and law suits) many reports are not always filed until years later, but I think (I don't know for sure) you can have access to them at some point. Someone who's willing to do the work could probably come up with a pretty good picture of all bike/ped crashes in the city.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on July 22, 2012 at 11:16am

The Venn diagram is meant to show the overlap in challenges, not the comparative difficulty of all elements combined in one set v. the other set. Michelle meant to say that riding in the city does not prepare you to ride the TdF and vice versa, not which one is harder.

O said:.

It is a bit like the claim (made with Venn Diagrams) that urban cyclists face steeper challenges than do professional cyclists participating in the Tour de France. That too is pretty farfetched.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service