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

Five years ago, then-Mayor Richard M. Daley threw the book at reckless motorists who endanger bicycle riders amid demands that he do the same to “cowboy cyclists.”

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: 7827

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gene Tenner on May 9, 2013 at 4:49am

Bicycle-pedestrian collisions

In the past two years, cyclists in San Francisco hit and killed two people walking on the street. Both riders ran red lights. Both were charged with varying degrees of vehicular manslaughter.

Orem resident, Emily Bates, knows what it's like to get hit.

"I was running along…and then the next thing I knew I was on the ground," she said. "There was blood everywhere."

The police report said a cyclist "hit her from behind" and that Bates "hit her head on the ground and possibly lost consciousness." The rider wasn't hurt.

"The ambulance came, and the police were there. There were a lot of sirens and flashing lights," Bates said. "I got nine staples in my head from where…his helmet hit me just straight on."

The gash, she said, looked "like a star shape, like an explosion." Bates wound up with a severe concussion and memory loss. As for the medical bills, well, they just keep on coming.

"All together, if you count what the insurance paid, it's close to five thousand or six thousand dollars," she said. "Out of pocket it was still close to two thousand dollars."

Bates went to the police for answers and was stunned to read the report— "No charges filed."

"I was surprised to find there was no citation. He wasn't considered at fault," said Bates. "In a car if you hit someone from behind then the person from behind is at fault. So that's why I thought he would be at fault."

Permalink Reply by David P. on May 9, 2013 at 5:40am

Chi Lowe,

Chi Lowe,

I do not have the time to write very much right now, so I will only mention that you seemed to have missed what I was trying to get across. Of course a car is a far bigger danger to a pedestrian than a bicycle is if they are moving at about the same speed, never mind if faster; that point is obvious. What I was trying to say, rather, was that the danger of a cyclist to a pedestrian is rather like that of a car to a cyclist. Also, to make the point that while we are far more vulnerable than car drivers while on the roads, pedestrians are far more vulnerable than we are, and it is worthwhile to remember that we can cause harm ourselves. 

Chi Lowe 12.5+ mi said:

I can't imagine any reasonable person who would advocate for ignoring the rights of the vulnerable, but it's a fact that the physics of a moving car are not those of a moving bicycle, and it's a fact that the differences aren't slight.  To suggest that illuminating those facts is somehow a disservice to anyone - including peds - is to miss the point.

The statistics back me 100%.  Get run over with a (a) bicycle, (b) a cab, and (c) an SUV, all going 15 mph*.  Statistical chance of death or incapacitating injury? (a) Not zero, but near-zero, (b) About 1 in 10, (c) About 1 in 6.  It's just math.

 

For better or worse, the math reflects common sense (sometimes called "cyclist entitlement mentality").  If you do the thought experiment, a million years of evolution will quickly inform what you'd rather get run over with, if you HAD to get run over: a bike.  

 

Unfortunately, the law doesn't reflect the math, despite the fact that it's not the same "public good" equation when a cyclist ignores a stop sign in an apparently vacant intersection.  If s/he is wrong, and his/her error in judgement results in a collision with another party, the *statistical* risk of serious injury or death to the cyclist or a third party is almost zero.  

This is simply not the case when vehicles are involved.  Still, somehow, we (and our elected officials) are supposed to feel concerned about the *feelings* of drivers and the *fairness* of it all - as if those things have anything to do with anything.  They don't.  The bad feelings are a result of bad expectations driven by bad laws that don't reflect reality.

 

Cagers see cyclists not obeying the law and they get angry, apparently ignorant of (or apathetic about) how detrimental it is - to their own health and happiness, to cyclists and pedestrians, or say, to the survivability of our species -  to drive by themselves in a 6,000lb vehicle that burns fossil fuels while they eat and talk on the phone and text.  

 

But... since they vote, and an election is nearing, the administration's response needs to be "balanced".  Instead of bringing the Idaho stop, and the $8/day municipal entry fee**, we get likely unenforceable increased fines for "reckless" cyclists, and likely-ineffective increases in fines for dooring.  

These changes are great for issue awareness on all counts, and maybe politically expedient, but meaningless.

  

* Ignoring that 15 mph is a near-impossibility for many commuters in much of the city due to lights, stop signs, and road conditions.

** (Which would (a) reduce single-party suburban commutes and the associated traffic and pollution (b) drive massive revenue for the city)


David P. said:

I don't think it does anyone a service to minimize the danger that a moving bicycle can pose to a pedestrian. The kinetic energy differential between a bicycle doing 15mph and a pedestrian walking at 3mph is roughly a couple of orders less that between the bicycle and a car doing 30mph, but it is still significant. Respect everyone less vulnerable than you are!

Permalink Reply by CJ on May 9, 2013 at 5:54am

"What I was trying to say, rather, was that the danger of a cyclist to a pedestrian is rather like that of a car to a cyclist."

I dont think that's true.  stats indicate many more cyclists are killed by cars than pedestrians killed by cyclists.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 9, 2013 at 7:31am

Here's a nice antidote for the piece by the Reporter-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named:

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/May-2013/When-Tr...

Permalink Reply by Jason W on May 9, 2013 at 7:51am

I agree no one's fines should go up, but I am happy he is mad about it.

Permalink Reply by Juan Primo on May 9, 2013 at 8:51am

Kasshatethread

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on May 9, 2013 at 9:19am

We just posted a follow-up blog from Ron about the press coverage, unwarranted tickets, our position on ticketing, etc. (copied/pasted below)

Thanks,

Ethan, Active Trans

Submitted by Rburke on Thu, 05/09/2013 - 2:05pm

Press coverage of bike safety ordinance all over the map

The Chicago Tribune presents two very different versions of the city’s proposed bike safety ordinance. John Kass’s column today is titled “Beware, cyclists, the other shoe has just dropped,” where he dreams about the city sticking it to cyclists.

On the other hand, reporter Hal Dardick wrote “Mayor Emanuel would give bikes more leeway on city streets.” Hmmm, John “Little Bike People in Spandex” Kass or reporter Hal Dardick?

We all know Kass is a goof whose job is to stir the pot, facts be damned. If you read the ordinance, you’ll see it does a lot for cyclists, as explained in Dardick’s story, like doubling fines for motorists that cause dooring crashes, clarifying that people on bikes can pass cars on the right, and making it legal to take the lane and ride two abreast at times.

There’s a lot of hand-ringing in cycling circles over the ordinance’s increased fines for cyclists, and bike-haters like Kass are happy to fuel that fear. And it’s worth mentioning that the new, increased fine range for cyclists’ traffic violations ($50 - $200) is still lower than the one motorists face ($90 - $500, unless otherwise defined in the municipal code).

Active Trans believes that if you’re traveling recklessly and putting people at risk, a ticket is warranted whether you’re biking, walking or driving (especially when you’re driving.)

At the same time, we don’t endorse ticketing cyclists for minor violations that put no one at risk. Let the police focus on more important matters.

That’s been the police department’s approach, too, because they only issue on average less than four tickets per day citywide to people biking. That number is likely to go up, not so much because the fines are higher but because there are more people cycling and, with those growing numbers, a greater need to reign-in the small percentage of cyclists who ride rudely.

We expect – and demand – that the police remain even-handed and only ticket cyclists who are truly putting others at risk.

Active Trans will continue to keep an eye out for any unwarranted ticketing of cyclists. We also want and expect more traffic tickets for reckless, aggressive driving that is so commonplace it’s become “normal.”

Rburke's blog

Permalink Reply by David Barish on May 9, 2013 at 9:23am

OK, big metal vehicle operators, your passengers, your supporters and your columnists-  You better pay attention. If you flout the law and hit a little thing like a bicycle, you may receive a bigger fine.  If a door opens because you were to busy checking your e-mail to bother to look you will pay a bigger fine.  The city is now proposing this. The city does not appear to be taking sides.  The other shoe has dropped and somebody's feet smell. 

While we are at it you may notice that operators big and small face larger fines for flouting the law.  What does that mean?  I know you want to know.  I'll tell ya...it means that the city clearly recognizes that the big metal vehicles that emit carbon and the little ones that emit nothing are all intended users of the road.  Don't tell me that my little bike doesn't belong on the streets of Chicago.  If I blow a red light I will be fined. I am on a vehicle, a slower, smaller and greener one than yours.

Yes, the other shoe has dropped.  The shoe that was glued to an accelerator  while a hand was glued to a horn has dropped.  It must recognize that the shoe with the cleat that snaps onto a pedal belongs to just another vehicle on the road.  Not your road. Not my road.  Our road.  As the kids say these days, "deal." You and  your readers will have to do so.  My little bike and the ones that belong to all my friends will be on the streets. That is where they are supposed to be.  Dearborn will no longer be an experiment. It will be the norm.  Bikes, cars, trucks, etcs all on the same road where they all belong and all being punished when improperly operated to the detriment of others.  You will soon realize that we are all better for it.  Ok?  There, doesn't that feel better?  How 'bout a hug?

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 9, 2013 at 9:32am

Well put.

I'd add that it is also a long overdue *official* reminder that when a driver or passenger is opening a car door into traffic, ANY accidents with ANY moving vehicles are their fault.

This isn't just about dooring bikes, many city streets are narrow and some joker flinging open a door without looking first could easily hit another car.  State law doesn't give you a god-given constitutional right to exit from a car into traffic, period.  It is excellent to see responsibility assigned where it belongs. 

David Barish said:

OK, big metal vehicle operators, your passengers, your supporters and your columnists-  You better pay attention. If you flout the law and hit a little thing like a bicycle, you may receive a bigger fine.  If a door opens because you were to busy checking your e-mail to bother to look you will pay a bigger fine.  The city is now proposing this. The city does not appear to be taking sides.  The other shoe has dropped and somebody's feet smell. 

While we are at it you may notice that operators big and small face larger fines for flouting the law.  What does that mean?  I know you want to know.  I'll tell ya...it means that the city clearly recognizes that the big metal vehicles that emit carbon and the little ones that emit nothing are all intended users of the road.  Don't tell me that my little bike doesn't belong on the streets of Chicago.  If I blow a red light I will be fined. I am on a vehicle, a slower, smaller and greener one than yours.

Yes, the other shoe has dropped.  The shoe that was glued to an accelerator  while a hand was glued to a horn has dropped.  It must recognize that the shoe with the cleat that snaps onto a pedal belongs to just another vehicle on the road.  Not your road. Not my road.  Our road.  As the kids say these days, "deal." You and  your readers will have to do so.  My little bike and the ones that belong to all my friends will be on the streets. That is where they are supposed to be.  Dearborn will no longer be an experiment. It will be the norm.  Bikes, cars, trucks, etcs all on the same road where they all belong and all being punished when improperly operated to the detriment of others.  You will soon realize that we are all better for it.  Ok?  There, doesn't that feel better?  How 'bout a hug?

Permalink Reply by Davo on May 9, 2013 at 9:57am

"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. 

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on May 9, 2013 at 10:27am

Hey Davo, thanks a lot...we do consider that and often send follow-up letters to the editor (some don't get printed, unfortunately) and blog responses. I know we have for previous Kass column's (here and here) along with the blog response posted earlier in this thread. Not sure if we will for this column, but please know that we do include this in our messaging and do public call people out for these things via blog or letters.

Thanks,

Ethan, Active Trans

Permalink Reply by Adam Z on May 9, 2013 at 10:48am

I tried to read Kass's column but it was behind a paywall.

This is the first time I've been relieved to encounter a paywall.  Thank you Tribune!

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service