Mayor wants to increase fines for reckless cyclists, motorists
Mayor wants to increase fines for reckless cyclists, motorists
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter fspielman@suntimes.com May 7, 2013 6:32PM
On Wednesday, Mayor Rahm Emanuel plans to do both.
The even-handed ordinance Emanuel plans to introduce at a City Council meeting would raise fines for cyclists who disobey the city’s traffic laws — from $25 for all offenses to $50-to-$200, depending on the severity of the violation.
The mayor’s plan also would double — to $1,000 — the fine imposed against motorists who open their doors without looking into the path of cyclists. The fine for leaving a car door open in traffic would also double — to $300.
Last year, there were 1,675 bicycle crashes in Chicago, 250 of them so-called “dooring” accidents.
In an attempt to reduce those bone-crunching accidents that send cyclists flying, City Hall is launching an awareness campaign to remind taxicab passengers of the need to look before they open passenger doors.
Stickers to be placed on the rear passenger windows of all 7,000 Chicago taxicabs were designed by MINIMAL design studios.
Neill Townshend, a 32-year-old MINIMAL employee, was killed last fall while biking to work on the Near North Side. He was hit by a semi-trailer after swerving to avoid an open car door.
Ron Burke, executive director of the Active Transportation Alliance, applauded the mayor for his even-handed approach to making Chicago streets safer and his particular emphasis on preventing “dooring” accidents.
“With more and more people cycling in Chicago [and bike-sharing on the way], it’s imperative that motorists look for cyclists before opening car doors. This needs to become second nature,” he said.
Burke acknowledged that the city currently issues few tickets and mostly warnings against cyclists who text while riding and blow through red lights and that the higher penalties likely mean more tickets.
“We support that 100 percent. One of our over-arching goals is to see fewer crashes and injuries. One important way to do that is to issue tickets. Enforcement is crucial,” Burke said.
Emanuel’s decision to create a ground-breaking network of protected bike lanes in Chicago has increased tensions between cyclists, motorists and pedestrians.
But Burke said, “It’s not so much bikes vs. cars vs. pedestrians. Unfortunately, there’s a percentage of the population that travels recklessly — whether it’s on foot, on bike or driving a car. The Active Transportation Alliance supports increased traffic fines [across the board] as an important way to improve safety.”
In a news release, Emanuel argued that “everyone is safer” when traffic laws are obeyed.
“If they are sharing the roadway with vehicles, cyclists must obey all traffic laws, including yielding to pedestrians, stopping at traffic signals and indicating when they are making turns,” he said.
“By increasing the fines for failing to obey the law, cyclists will behave more responsibly, increasing safety and encouraging others to ride bikes.”
Like Daley, Emanuel is an avid cyclist who campaigned on a promise to make Chicago the nation’s most “bike-friendly” city.
Emanuel installed Chicago’s first, of what he promised would be 100 miles of protected bike lanes over four years less than a month after taking office.
The city now has 204.1 miles of on-street bike ways. That includes: 18.6 miles of protected or buffered bike lanes; 134.2 miles of standard bike lanes and 39.8 miles of marked shared lanes.
Protected bike lanes are expected to be installed this summer on Milwaukee and on Clybourn.
More than 20,000 people bike to work each day to jobs in downtown Chicago. That’s a 200 percent increase since 2005, according to City Hall.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/19960894-418/mayor-wants-to-incr...
Views: 7724
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Green Machine Cycles on
-
It's possible the author or editor decided to put the phrase "so-called dooring" into quotation because the word "dooring" might not connote to general readership the potentially horrific consequences it often causes. I have been doored twice, each instance resulting in recuperation costs over $1,000 and about a week's time lost from work.
If cycling advocates wish to increase the visibility of dooring's seriousness a concerted effort might be made to gather testimonials, create a PSA or similar video, compile statistics in a graphically powerful format, etc. Whether that's ATA's job or League of American Bicyclists or whoever, I don't know.
Potentially injurious behavior surely should be brought to the attention of the general (motoring) public, although a certain amount of interpretation and translation may be necessary before "dooring," with all its attendant risks and costs, finds its way into the vernacular.
Davo said:"so called dooring"? When are the so called "writers" going to validate dooring as a legitimate thing/ This should be part of ATA's message. Whenever one of these "journalists" dismiss dooring accidents, there should be an immediate response about it. I appreciate the work that ATA is doing and hope they take this into concideration.
-
-
The saddest issue distinctly avoided in nearly every post is that of the ego. If cyclists think they are better citizens than motorists, they all need to prove it by every means necessary.
If you want to blast through intersections without lights, wearing all black, at 2 am, on a fixie without brakes, when the streets are full of swerving taxis trying to pick up the swerving drunks, then I think you're assuming a substantial risk for your own behavior. Does a motorist behaving the same way put others at a greater risk? Absolutely. But the issue still lies with you and what you CAN control: yourself.
This discussion wouldn't even happen if everyone assumed a higher level of individual responsibility. An ordinance to fine errant cyclists in a legally compliant environment wouldn't generate one measly cent.
Next time you're in a rush, think about how you could have avoided it by leaving ten minutes earlier.
-
Permalink Reply by bk (aka: Dr. Mambohead) on
-
Go CPD! It's about time they got off their duffs and went after serious crime... I mean what with the NATO protesters patchouli finally hosed away.. what other thing do we have?
Let's see how many city resources I can tie up in my first hot pursuit!
... And how far they're willing to go. I have nothing to lose.
Bring it.
Let's go after other annoying things like maybe... I dunno... our murder rate that should make Boston blush?
Too hard and no revenue. A money pit that one is.
I forget. Do we shut down the city when two people get killed? Well... Not so much.. because?... Some animals are more photogenic than other animals...
-
-
Sounds like $200 for a CPD LARP?
that my friend is a bargain!!!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Julie Aberman (Hochstadter) on
-
A friend just sent me these two articles when the subject comes up of cyclists running red lights :
http://washcycle.typepad.com/home/2008/07/the-myth-of-the.html
and
http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2012/12/5/Confronting-the-...
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on
-
I read the bill and it's an understated way of saying we're cracking down on you dangerous cyclists.
A red light ticket in a vehicle is $100 if we're traffic and supposed to obey the laws then give us a ticket that is already in place why make a new set of rules for cyclists? Are we profiling cyclists now?
Or he's doing to it to protect us from ourselves from the dangers we already know of? Please hold my hand as I try to make it in this big bad dangerous city.
Mr. Ray Joe Hall said:I don't know who is more anal and reactionary: John Kass and Mark Konkot or the people who act as though stating a desire for cyclists to stop riding like assholes and yield to people who have the right of way is akin to demanding bikes come to a complete stop at signs or wait at empty red lights.
READ THE BILL. It says nothing of the sort.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr. Ray Joe Hall on
-
Actually, you're more reactionary than Kass. As someone earlier wrote, not many tickets are going to result from this law, least of all to cyclists who look both ways at a red light before proceeding through and who roll through a stop sign while respecting someone else's right of way
They're right. This ordinance is lip service - needed lip service - in order to continue to the implementation of new bike infrastructure and Divvy. And if you think bike lanes and bikeshare are "handholding," sorry. But there are no iconoclasts in protected bike lanes.
The core of the "scofflaw cyclist" is not reckless endangerment of oneself, requiring protection by some nanny-mayor to keep you from killing yourself. It's the selfish, dickish rudeness of those who ride through stop signs like Mr. Magoo at the expense of people in all directions - other cyclists, people in the cross walk, and drivers who are waiting their turn -that makes it very hard for the people doling out the cash for the bike lanes and bike share to quiet the critics: http://commuterage.com/2012/03/stop-bike-on-bike-crime/
Mike Zumwalt said:I read the bill and it's an understated way of saying we're cracking down on you dangerous cyclists.
A red light ticket in a vehicle is $100 if we're traffic and supposed to obey the laws then give us a ticket that is already in place why make a new set of rules for cyclists? Are we profiling cyclists now?
Or he's doing to it to protect us from ourselves from the dangers we already know of? Please hold my hand as I try to make it in this big bad dangerous city.
Mr. Ray Joe Hall said:I don't know who is more anal and reactionary: John Kass and Mark Konkot or the people who act as though stating a desire for cyclists to stop riding like assholes and yield to people who have the right of way is akin to demanding bikes come to a complete stop at signs or wait at empty red lights.
READ THE BILL. It says nothing of the sort.
-
Permalink Reply by John C. Wilson on
-
ChiLowe
If you think your stats are gathered and compiled in some fashion that gives an accurate view of reality then cycling is just about as dangerous as playing Russian roulette. Really, orders of magnitude worse than skydiving? Ten to fourteen percent chance of death or incapacitating injury? No sane person would engage in the activity you are describing with those stats. No reasonable person would encourage others to engage in that activity.
If you ride a bike in Chicago you will get hit by a car. Only way that statement becomes untrue is if you call yourself a rider but are careful not to do very many miles or if you haven't yet been hit by a car you quit now while you're ahead. I have been hit by cars. Everyone I've ever known who rode much has been hit by a car or cars. We are not a bunch of cripples or corpses. Those I know who have died on their bikes did it without the assistance of a motor vehicle. If you think in terms of being a traffic fatality you badly mess up your chances of pulling through your next collision unscathed. If you ride with your head up in most cases there is a lot you can do to affect the outcome of a collision. And there is far more that can be done to avoid collisions than I ever see discussed in these forums. The constant drumbeat of we are targets, we are clay pigeons lined up waiting to be shot is just wrong.
If cycling were as dangerous as you want it to be I would be a callous and irresponsible person to donate my bikes to Working Bikes. You would be a dangerous person for making such a suggestion. But cycling is safe. It really is. Instead of punchlists involving infinite chains of events that may someday end up in a safer environment what we need is first to take a deep breath and relax. Then anyone who rides a bike should take a look in the mirror and start figuring out how to ride safer. If all you come up with is bigger helmets and body armor and City Hall should take care of it for me you need to keep on looking in the mirror.
-
-
THe last serious injury I sustained was not from cycling, but from slipping on black ice when I was walking home. I wound up getting a plate surgically inserted into my left forearm. I still can't bike at least till June 1.
-
-
Two collisions in two months. See previous remarks about Russian roulette and mirrors. Quitting while ahead might also apply in this case. Running a bike into the back of a car is not an infrastructure problem.
Stats happen when reports get written and recorded. More severe accidents are far more likely to generate reports. I wish one and all good luck when the police compose their version of your accident.
My experience matches up with Barry's. I've done hundreds of thousands of miles in 54 years of riding and walking has given me real injuries. Cycling hasn't.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
These stats show what % of bike crashes result in injury or death, but do not indicate what number or % of bike rides involve a crash in the first place.
Without that, this data adds little to our understanding except "getting in a crash in Chicago on your bike is deadly," which I suspect all of us understand. IMO more useful data would dovetail with the rider counts they've done on Milwaukee and the LFT, and would include variables like what time of day are these crashes happen, the impact (or non-impact) of controllable factors like lights, if riding in a bike lane reduces (or doesn't reduce) one's chance of crashing and/or serious injury, etc.
Chi Lowe 12.5+ mi said:Not a factoid; wrong in that it slightly understates the risk of death or incapacitating injury for every year except 2010.
SOURCE:http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=24bfd...
-
-
Bingo! The core of the issue: "The other day, something happened in Chicago that made bicycling a little more boring."
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/05/bikers-dont-deserv...
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
