Cyclist Seriously Injured in Blody Collision on the 606 during Tuesday Evening Commute
From Chicagoist:
"A 60-year-old man was seriously injured when he collided with another cyclist on The 606 trail on Tuesday evening.
Two men were both riding bikes on the trail in 2700 block of West Bloomingdale Avenue, near the California trailhead, when they collided at around 5:55 p.m., according to police.
A person who said he witnessed the aftermath posted on Reddit that "there was blood all over the pavement" at the scene. One injured man was "out cold and bleeding" and a second person "was bloodied nearby" and "shaken but standing," according to the post.
Photographer Clayton Hauck on Tuesday evening posted images of what appeared to blood on the trail and bloody garments or towels left behind.
Tribune transportation reporter Mary Wisniewski also saw the aftermath "of a bloody crash" on The 606 Tuesday and said on Twitter that both men were "well enough to sit up in ambulance."
One collision victim, a 23-year-old man, sustained minor injuries and was taken to St. Mary's Hospital. The 60-year-old man suffered serious injuries and was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, according to police."
It was less than ten days ago that I had mentioned on Chainlink that it was only a matter of time before someone riding too fast ran into someone. I hope both are okay and not terribly injured.
What can be done to slow people down on the 606?
Views: 2759
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Potted plants require constant maintenance throughout the summer, and the landscaping is I believe meant to also ensure soil retention. It can be altered over time if need be, of course.
-
Permalink Reply by Bil Susinka on
-
I think these responses raise fundamental issues about what the intended purpose of the trail is. Is it a place where the risks should be nearly zero, and nothing faster than a walking pace is allowed? Or is this a place for adults to exercise aggressively? The lake front paths have the exact same issues. As a cyclist I am regularly alarmed at pedestrians placing themselves and their children in risky situations among cyclists. I'm sure the pedestrians would view the cyclists as the problem. I am also suspicious of the class barrier between many 606 users and the wealthy people who live on the path who demand that the trail be treated as their personal back yards. I still wonder why the city had to give a lavish park to these already gentrifying communities with ample green space.
-
Permalink Reply by ad on
-
I think you note as much above, but it's an entitlement issue. If a cyclist wants to ride at 20 m.p.h. plus to get in some exercise, I'd first question why the cyclist picked at 3 mile section of trail that'll last all of about 10 minutes at those speeds, but I'd also then remind the cyclist that you can ride at those speeds at 6 or 7 a.m.
If you're a dog owner that likes to take in the sights and has a retractable leash (such a horrible invention), or your a parent with a curious 6-year-old who likes to run without looking, I'd tell you its fine to be up there and I'll look out for you while riding, but you need to look out for me when all I'm doing is riding slowly at a casual pace.
Some bad interactions are unavoidable, but it's the entitlement that creates the danger, and it'll be present on any multi-use trail. It's not an easily-solved problem, outside of just calling people out when they're acting like self-entitled jerks, and hoping the self-policing creates a little decorum.
Unfortunately, some of it is lack of resources, as when I've been places like Madison, Vancouver, etc., where there are much more in the way of rec trails to begin with, the entitlement issue has always felt much, much lower. The scarcity of the resource here drives the bad behavior to a large degree.
-
-
To respond to your point about why one would bike there for exercise: I have ridden it back and forth as many as four times, like a lap pool. With my ride to get there included, that's about 20 miles. It's safer and more efficient than the streets and much closer than the lakefront since I am a west sider. I would assert that I have every right to use the path this way, while exercising reasonable caution.
-
-
If everyone would use reasonable caution aka common sense, we'd all be fine. But you know what they say about common sense - it is decidedly uncommon.
Regarding your analogy, I would suggest that there is a pretty large spectrum of cycling that falls under the exercise category. The Bloomingdale Trail is analogous to a pool that has multiple user groups, where there are time periods dedicated for lap swimmers. If you want to go super fast and are trying to get hard-core exercise, I'd suggest that should be done off-peak hours, just as with the LFT.The same etiquette goes towards bike commuters, going to work doesn't mean you get to roll through other users like they're bowling pins.
But there certainly shouldn't be any restrictions on people cycling the trail just to get exercise & fresh air, that's what cycling is all about. How would anyone restrict or police that, anyway?
-
-
Ha, well put. I loathe the 606 at rush hour and prefer to ride midday. Peak hours are just no fun and have too much risk for sensible riders.
-
-
Of course you have that right, I'm just noting "reasonable caution" likely isn't doing 20 m.p.h.+ at 2 p.m. on a beautiful Saturday afternoon when the path is clogged with users. I've ridden it for exercise (along with the LFP) early morning at a pretty high speed, and never had an issue. I think context is key, and being willing to vary your use based on the reasonable use going on around you. Problem is, many people don't want to vary their use habits at all, and that's where I argue the entitlement issue rears its ugly head.
-
-
+1
-
Permalink Reply by Sean Newby on
-
+1
-
-
This is reasonable
-
-
Having lots of friends who were part of the fundraising from the early days, my sense is that the original rails-to-trails Bloomingdale Trail vision got somewhat co-opted by the City's desire to create and package the trail into a larger "606" park system. To be fair, that package is what seems to have sealed the deal in terms of raising the needed funds, but I think that in the process the City sold the trail as "all things for all people," which it just isn't large enough to be (at least, not with all of the things happening simultaneously).
John Greenfield's 2009 article ages like a fine wine:
https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/the-bloomingdale-trail-urban-...
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 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
