Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on January 5, 2015 at 2:26pm

In my case by the time I saw the stairs my only option was to jump/ride and hit a stair and keep rolling.

I wasn't able to stop in time.

I like riding fixed in the city as it evens out the flow of riding I ride with brakes just in case but I'm no curb hopper and ride helmetless, and also in my 40's and not a spry 20 something hipster so at best I'd be missing teeth or have a broken limb.

notoriousDUG said:

What does riding fixed have to do with being able to stop or air over 3 stairs?

Just because you are riding fixed it does not mean you do not have a brake.

Irvin Steinert said:

Good reason to not ride fixed in the real world (off the velodrome).

Mike Zumwalt said:

They could install reflectors at the edge but that's only helpful if you have a light.

My own brush with OMG I almost hurt myself was riding East on Chicago ave. I hate the bridges that are open grates because of the slippery tire movement so I went up on the sidewalk.

OOOOPS! the other side of the walk past the bridge is 3 steps, luckily I was on my Mt. Bike and improvised very fast and rode down the steps. WHEW!

Now had I been riding fixed I'd be layed up somewhere eating through a tube.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Markus on January 5, 2015 at 6:30pm

Damn that sucks...

I have several different views of this and other LFT accidents and 'glitches'. 

First I hope the city makes a reasonable offer since 50K will barely cover med costs, plus compared to the mega bucks shelled out by the city due to foolish police, fire and city worker actions this is a drop in the bucket.

I have always marveled that their are not more people being launched by the design style of the path...combined with the mixed traffic the path draws.

While I ride with almost paranoid attention and have not had serious incidents I am far from a nermal rider of the path. What I've seen of the pedalling (ignoring the bladers, walkers and the rest of the 'invited but not intended' users) population it is sorta amazing there isn't a need for a full time series of trauma centers up and down the lakefront.

I would hope an event like this would start a engineering focus on 'effective' ways to illuminate the situation and reduce the potential of such accidents. 

However to even make a minor change would scare the bejeesus outta the city that it might be an admission of a problem thus establish liability so we probably can look forward to NO improvements....

Ain't life in a litigious society grand???

Jeff

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Irvin Steinert on January 6, 2015 at 7:54am

"it is sorta amazing there isn't a need for a full time series of trauma centers up and down the lakefront"

Welcome to humanity ;-)

Jeff Markus said:

Damn that sucks...

I have several different views of this and other LFT accidents and 'glitches'. 

First I hope the city makes a reasonable offer since 50K will barely cover med costs, plus compared to the mega bucks shelled out by the city due to foolish police, fire and city worker actions this is a drop in the bucket.

I have always marveled that their are not more people being launched by the design style of the path...combined with the mixed traffic the path draws.

While I ride with almost paranoid attention and have not had serious incidents I am far from a nermal rider of the path. What I've seen of the pedalling (ignoring the bladers, walkers and the rest of the 'invited but not intended' users) population it is sorta amazing there isn't a need for a full time series of trauma centers up and down the lakefront.

I would hope an event like this would start a engineering focus on 'effective' ways to illuminate the situation and reduce the potential of such accidents. 

However to even make a minor change would scare the bejeesus outta the city that it might be an admission of a problem thus establish liability so we probably can look forward to NO improvements....

Ain't life in a litigious society grand???

Jeff

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Asper K on January 6, 2015 at 3:44pm

Mike, this is personal injury lawsuit...for money.  You can check out the law firm's website to get a flavor for what they do http://www.salvilaw.com/.   This is not public advocacy

They are claiming that the park district "carelessly and negligently designed the trail by failing to warn bicyclists of an abrupt drop-off on the trail."   

Since she wasn't even on the trail, I find this disingenuous and an offensive twisting of the facts.  It was a terrible accident, but that doesn't mean the city is at fault or we need signs on pedestrian walkways to warn bicyclists.

It is certainly a terrible tragedy what happened to her.  The pictures are very sad.  I am one fender bender away from that myself wish her the best.

Mike Zumwalt said:

I don't think anyone said she was fishing for money? You can sue the city for getting a flat tire or a bent rim on your car after hitting a pothole but unfortunately much like riding a bike anywhere in the city/world there are a lot of hazards and the lawyers representing the city have more resources and money to fight your claim and deny it or they'd have a rash of frivoulous lawsuits.

Then again it may point out a flaw in the design and create safer pathways for multi use as that's what they're designed for, not just cycling.

Asper K said:

She was not on the bike trail.  Fishing for money.  Offensive

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 6, 2015 at 4:33pm

Exactly. The idea of one's life being changed so quickly and permanently is a sad and scary thing.

Yasmeen said:

I agree with you Anne. Regardless of how this happened, it is tragic. Heartbreaking to see the two pictures (before and after) and know that her life is changed forever.  

Anne Alt said:

A little bit of compassion goes a long way here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Thedutchtouch on January 6, 2015 at 5:58pm

This really sucks for the lady, but should be pretty easy to get the suit dismissed. "Cyclist was riding on a breakwater, not on the lake front trail. This breakwater is neither designed, meant, nor designated for cyclist or pedestrian traffic. The defense rests." I mean seriously, it's pretty open and shut, no?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ad on January 7, 2015 at 9:57am

For better or worse in this country, litigation---including most often personal injury litigation---is one of the most common forms of public advocacy.  If you want something to change in Chicago (or almost any major city) public-policy wise, suing the City and making it a question of economics going forward IS basically your best recourse.  

As to the validity of the lawsuit, who knows, but my opinion is that it's not as frivolous as people on here are portraying it to be, though its unlikely IMHO to go all the way to trial.  I've ridden the south part of the trail for years, and it's not uncommon to see cyclists follow paths that are not actually part of the trail itself.  The City knows cyclists ride other paved areas outside of the trail regularly, which is why she at least has a valid point that warning signs (or some other preventative measure, if people would view signs as aesthetically unpleasing) could be put up regarding the drops, no matter the ultimate validity of the suit.    

She's probably going to have a big hurdle to overcome---as she was likely a permitted, but not intended, user of this path (I say likely permitted because I haven't seen anything to suggest the park district has a standing rule banning cyclists from riding on paths outside of the Lakefront Trail, but maybe there is something out there rule-wise).  And a court may not even have to get to that analysis if the park district convinces the court that the danger was open and obvious.      

Best of luck to her in the ongoing recovery.

Asper K said:

Mike, this is personal injury lawsuit...for money.  You can check out the law firm's website to get a flavor for what they do http://www.salvilaw.com/.   This is not public advocacy

They are claiming that the park district "carelessly and negligently designed the trail by failing to warn bicyclists of an abrupt drop-off on the trail."   

Since she wasn't even on the trail, I find this disingenuous and an offensive twisting of the facts.  It was a terrible accident, but that doesn't mean the city is at fault or we need signs on pedestrian walkways to warn bicyclists.

It is certainly a terrible tragedy what happened to her.  The pictures are very sad.  I am one fender bender away from that myself wish her the best.

Mike Zumwalt said:

I don't think anyone said she was fishing for money? You can sue the city for getting a flat tire or a bent rim on your car after hitting a pothole but unfortunately much like riding a bike anywhere in the city/world there are a lot of hazards and the lawyers representing the city have more resources and money to fight your claim and deny it or they'd have a rash of frivoulous lawsuits.

Then again it may point out a flaw in the design and create safer pathways for multi use as that's what they're designed for, not just cycling.

Asper K said:

She was not on the bike trail.  Fishing for money.  Offensive

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 7, 2015 at 10:11am

I think the goal of getting signage and other indicators to prevent such accidents in the future is a good one.
 
ad said:

For better or worse in this country, litigation---including most often personal injury litigation---is one of the most common forms of public advocacy.  If you want something to change in Chicago (or almost any major city) public-policy wise, suing the City and making it a question of economics going forward IS basically your best recourse.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Barish on January 7, 2015 at 10:14am

This is an interesting point. the difference between a permitted and intended user was the reason why the Plaintiff in Boub v. Township of Wayne (well discussed here by Brendan http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2009/09/when-may-public-entity-be-hel...)

denied compensation to a seriously injured rider on a public road because he was not deemed an intended user of the road. I recall riding on the Wells St. Bridge before they installed the bike lane and plate with a friend. The friend would always go onto the sidewalk over the bridge telling me he was using the "intended user" route. He feared sliding on the grates of the bridge and his  widow being poor. As such he decided to take the "safe" route on the sidewalk.  Who amongst us has not gotten lost biking or hiking on a trail and taken a seeming offshoot that leads nowhere or in this  case worse? I will not comment on the behavior of the cyclist or the liability of the Park District and will leave that to the parties. Regardless of the litigation "no bikes" signs at the point where these offshoots leave the main path are an inexpensive and good idea.
ad said:

...She's probably going to have a big hurdle to overcome---as she was likely a permitted, but not intended, user of this path (I say likely permitted because I haven't seen anything to suggest the park district has a standing rule banning cyclists from riding on paths outside of the Lakefront Trail, but maybe there is something out there rule-wise).  And a court may not even have to get to that analysis if the park district convinces a court the danger was open and obvious.      

Best of luck to her in the ongoing recovery.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on January 7, 2015 at 10:18am

A lot of people (including me) have gotten screwed by the precedent set by the Boub decision after crashes caused by metal grate bridge decks, potholes and other road defects.
 
David Barish said:

This is an interesting point. the difference between a permitted and intended user was the reason why the Plaintiff in Boub v. Township of Wayne (well discussed here by Brendan http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2009/09/when-may-public-entity-be-hel...)

denied compensation to a seriously injured rider on a public road because he was not deemed an intended user of the road.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ad on January 7, 2015 at 10:36am

Myself as well, actually.  I am one of several cyclists who was severally injured before the City finally took out the train tracks on Kingsbury---something that would have happened much earlier if Boub wasn't on the books and the City had to deal with suits from all of the cyclists injured by a dangerous road condition the City had clear knowledge of.  The business owner that helped me and held on to my bike while I went to the hospital said an accident occurred on Kingsbury almost weekly.  The City, however, refused to fix the situation for years---arguably because it couldn't face liability under Boub.

The above is just one example of how PI suits can be used to cause change to come about quicker---at least when the system hasn't placed a restriction like Boub on otherwise clear liability.     

David's bridge example also highlights how silly Boub is in practice, as in that case the cyclist had to use a sidewalk (which they are actually not permitted to use by law) to avoid a danger in the public right-of-way the law/City clearly "intends" the cyclist to use, no matter what our Supreme Court has said on the issue.  That's likely an argument for a different forum than this, unfortunately.

   
Anne Alt said:

A lot of people (including me) have gotten screwed by the precedent set by the Boub decision after crashes caused by metal grate bridge decks, potholes and other road defects.
 
David Barish said:

This is an interesting point. the difference between a permitted and intended user was the reason why the Plaintiff in Boub v. Township of Wayne (well discussed here by Brendan http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2009/09/when-may-public-entity-be-hel...)

denied compensation to a seriously injured rider on a public road because he was not deemed an intended user of the road.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Montanaro 0mi on January 7, 2015 at 11:11am

I have a suggestion. I don't see there's much we can do about making certain road segments "permitted and intended" where today they are only "permitted", but we could do something about the "on notice" part. We could maintain a page on thechainlink.org which calls out known hazards and periodically email (and print+USPS mail?) it to appropriate city officials.

That said, I think a forum thread would be a horrendous way to maintain such information. There would be no easy way to remove resolved problems, and the data would be strewn all around throughout the thread. Maybe have a thread to discuss additions/deletions and one or more tabular type pages (one per neighborhood? One for the entire City of Chicago? What about suburbs?) which contain the actual problem data.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page