The Chainlink

Anyone Have details of the Suburban Cyclist that was Airlifted this AM (4/22)

Either my google skills have weakened or there was no coverage.

 

TV reported it as a child first then changed it to an adult that had to be airlifted from an accident scene.

 

When they changed it to an adult they never went back to covering it. Was on channel 7.

 

Thanks,

gabe

Views: 2145

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The Trib has some photos up of the aftermath which give a good indication of what happened based on the location of the stopped van and the bicycle:

http://galleries.apps.chicagotribune.com/chi-photos-bicyclist-struc...

 

The cyclist died.  He was only 1/2 mile from his house, and was heading to work 2 miles away.  Apparently he always rode to work when the weather was nice out.  He left behind a wife and 2 babies. It looks as though the driver didn't see him. Police are still trying to figure out if the driver stop at the stop sign or not. 

It's hard to say based on one photo, but it looks to me that the cyclist got clipped by a turning vehicle that simply wasn't taking a good long look. Assuming that the cyclist was in the correct lane of travel, the sun shouldn't have really been a factor... It was early, I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was half awake with eyes half closed when it happened.  Check out the photo on this link http://www.nbcchicago.com/traffic/transit/bicyclist-hit-by-van-elgi...

Horrible.  May he rest in peace.

More from  Telemundo.  The cyclist, Efrain Diaz-Torres, was on his way to work when he was hit.  He leaves behind a wife and two small children.  CBS news piece,  including police contact for any witnesses.

I just hate, hate this.  His daughter looks like mine too.  Here's the latest, including the name of the driver:

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

In the various media reports about this sad event some issues have arisen that I find troubling.  First, virtually every media outlet has found it necessary emphasize that the driver appears not to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash, as if that somehow abrogates his responsibility to some degree.  It does not.  I am not sure why there has not been more emphasis on the fact that the driver had a stop sign.  Secondly, there has been some speculation (perhaps reasonable speculation) that the sun obscured the driver's vision as he traveled east on Rosemont upon his approach to the intersection.  Let us assume that it did at around 6:10 a.m. yesterday.  The rising sun should not have greatly affected his view left (to the north) and right (to the south).  He should have been able to see Mr. Diaz-Torres despite any glare from the east.  In any event, it is a fundamental rule of the road that a driver who cannot see should not proceed.  Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.  - See more at: http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

 

Bold= strongest possible agreement.

 



Brendan Kevenides said:

I just hate, hate this.  His daughter looks like mine too.  Here's the latest, including the name of the driver:

http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

+1

h' 1.0 said:

In the various media reports about this sad event some issues have arisen that I find troubling.  First, virtually every media outlet has found it necessary emphasize that the driver appears not to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash, as if that somehow abrogates his responsibility to some degree.  It does not.  I am not sure why there has not been more emphasis on the fact that the driver had a stop sign.  Secondly, there has been some speculation (perhaps reasonable speculation) that the sun obscured the driver's vision as he traveled east on Rosemont upon his approach to the intersection.  Let us assume that it did at around 6:10 a.m. yesterday.  The rising sun should not have greatly affected his view left (to the north) and right (to the south).  He should have been able to see Mr. Diaz-Torres despite any glare from the east.  In any event, it is a fundamental rule of the road that a driver who cannot see should not proceed.  Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.  - See more at: http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

 

Bold= strongest possible agreement.

 

Anyone know of a fundraiser set up for his family?

+2.

when I have to drive; and cannot find the sunglasses and am facing a sun's glare; I become really careful to get some sunglasses and use the visor(s) (the car's and my own on my head) very effectively.

RIP to the victim

Anne Alt said:

+1

h' 1.0 said:

In the various media reports about this sad event some issues have arisen that I find troubling.  First, virtually every media outlet has found it necessary emphasize that the driver appears not to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash, as if that somehow abrogates his responsibility to some degree.  It does not.  I am not sure why there has not been more emphasis on the fact that the driver had a stop sign.  Secondly, there has been some speculation (perhaps reasonable speculation) that the sun obscured the driver's vision as he traveled east on Rosemont upon his approach to the intersection.  Let us assume that it did at around 6:10 a.m. yesterday.  The rising sun should not have greatly affected his view left (to the north) and right (to the south).  He should have been able to see Mr. Diaz-Torres despite any glare from the east.  In any event, it is a fundamental rule of the road that a driver who cannot see should not proceed.  Looking and failing to see what should be seen is no defense.  It is an indictment.  - See more at: http://www.mybikeadvocate.com/2014/04/husband-father-of-two-killed-...

 

Bold= strongest possible agreement.

 

OHHHHHH, so that's the trick?

Jeff Schneider said:

When sun/darkness makes visibility problematic, I slow down.  This is clearly a secret 'trick', because I almost never see other drivers do it.  Just like the 'trick' of stopping to let pedestrians cross the street...


I grew up in Roselle. Not north of Irving Park Road, but I've been an infrastructure and biking nerd for a long time, including elementary school, so I know this area very well. My parents take my toddler-aged daughter to Turner Park once in a while. (Naturally, they drive there.)

  1. The design of this road is terrible. It is classic STROAD without any of the benefits of "easy" access to businesses. 
  2. It is the second fatality in 20 years (that I know of). That might seem like a long timeframe, but like every other suburban county in the nation, DuPage County has engineered roads to prioritize cars over encouraging walking.
  3. Given that so few people walk, and with the crashes here, even less people will choose to cross the street now. What does that do for property values? Obesity rates? Why would anyone choose to move here? From a traffic volume standpoint, this road isn't even that busy (~18,000 cars per day).

Ironically, the village does have a decent bike route network (on-street paths + random trails in parks). But it's things like this that make owning a car necessary, and by that token, make living in the suburbs just a bit more unaffordable, beneath a certain income level.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service