Police Step Up Crosswalk Enforcement on Chicago Streets

Lest people think the police only run stings on bicycles running stop signs to enforce safety rules: http://chicagoist.com/2010/09/20/police_step_up_crosswalk_enforceme...

 

Sure, the police should--and probably could--do more to ensure the safe operation of motor vehicles on the streets, but at least it's a start in a good direction.   

Views: 130

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gin on September 20, 2010 at 8:54am
Welcome news. I have been very aware lately of drivers not stopping when I am trying to cross at a crosswalk. Most grievous recent example:

My son and I were on my bike, in the crosswalk, trying to cross North Ave at Troy (I think) as we were leaving Humboldt Park. We stood there. And stood. And then we snuck out to be more visible. And waited. Traffic was not super heavy--there was plenty of time for a driver to stop, or just slow down, and yield. I finally lost it when a driver--with a bike on his bike rack--blew past us with nary a look.

Granted, that is a crappy place to try to cross. Maybe I should take it off our route. But really--why is North Ave like a freaking highway as it skirts a place where kids and families play and exercise?
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 20, 2010 at 9:00am
Tell me about it. I almost got run over by a bus leaving a bus stop on Milwaukee and Spaulding just an hour ago. It was sitting there for almost a minute when I crossed (I was watching it sit there just futzing around while I was waiting for an opening. It decided it was ready to go NOW, when I was 2/3's of the way across the road and directly in front of it. Driver looked in the mirror behind and stepped on the gas to merge into traffic and never bothered to look directly to the FRONT.

Needless to say I had to JUMP that last 5 feet to the curb. He never saw me. Missed me by about 10 inches though. Plenty of room...
Permalink Reply by milesperhour on September 20, 2010 at 9:17am
this is welcome news. a couple of weeks ago, i watched an elderly lady crossing western at augusta. she was walking very, very slowly and only made it half way through the intersection before the light changed. do you think the person in the left turn lane waited to let her finish crossing? nope, so there she was, standing in the middle of western, cars speeding within a foot of her on both sides, until the next light.

how about on chicago by dominicks? the city purposely redid that crosswalk there and still no one stops for pedestrians.

i try to stop whenever i see someone trying to cross, although sometimes i'm paying too much attention to the road and cars in front of me and miss seeing pedestrians until it's too late....that would be the time i get busted.
Permalink Reply by Duppie on September 20, 2010 at 9:32am
Please, somebody tell me that I misread this part (from the linked Trib article)

"The new law also applies to instances in which a pedestrian enters the crosswalk against a "Don't Walk" signal or a red light, just as the old law required drivers to yield in such cases"


So if some iPhone-addled commuter decides to cross the street when he feels like it, it now becomes the driver's or bicyclist's fault?

Again, somebody please tell me I misread this.
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 20, 2010 at 10:07am
The law requires that the vehicles operating in the roadway keep an eye on the peds and all things at the side of the road and DRIVE ACCORDINGLY -this goes even more at crosswalks. If that means you have to slow down a little bit to maintain safe stopping distances for the conditions (including pedestrians present on the sidewalks and especially at the crosswalks) then you have to SLOW DOWN.

If you hit a ped (even a clueless ped) in a crosswalk then you are going TOO FAST for conditions and will be automatically judged to be AT FAULT.

That's how the law reads -like it or not. The same goes for bikes as it goes for cars.

Duppie said:
Please, somebody tell me that I misread this part (from the linked Trib article)

"The new law also applies to instances in which a pedestrian enters the crosswalk against a "Don't Walk" signal or a red light, just as the old law required drivers to yield in such cases"


So if some iPhone-addled commuter decides to cross the street when he feels like it, it now becomes the driver's or bicyclist's fault?

Again, somebody please tell me I misread this.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on September 20, 2010 at 10:36am
As the Tribune article reads: "The new law also applies to instances in which a pedestrian enters the crosswalk against a "Don't Walk" signal or a red light, just as the old law required drivers to yield in such cases, officials said."

I don't read that as "The law requires that the vehicles operating in the roadway keep an eye on the peds and all things at the side of the road and DRIVE ACCORDINGLY".

I read that excerpt as: "You must now stop for people deciding to stand in the street for the light." And if that's the case, what's the point of walk lights anymore. Sounds like Chicago will be becoming Evanston South.
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 20, 2010 at 10:45am
If a pedestrian enters a crosswalk you must yield to them. If they enter it so fast that you can't do that and can't stop in time and end up hitting them then you are still at fault. That is the way I read it. So either you keep an eye out for peds that might decide to dart out into traffic with cell phones in their faces and slow down if you don't think you can stop in time when they do -or risk being judged at fault if it does happen.


Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
As the Tribune article reads: "The new law also applies to instances in which a pedestrian enters the crosswalk against a "Don't Walk" signal or a red light, just as the old law required drivers to yield in such cases, officials said."
I don't read that as "The law requires that the vehicles operating in the roadway keep an eye on the peds and all things at the side of the road and DRIVE ACCORDINGLY".
I read that excerpt as: "You must now stop for people deciding to stand in the street for the light." And if that's the case, what's the point of walk lights anymore. Sounds like Chicago will be becoming Evanston South.
Permalink Reply by thang van ung on September 20, 2010 at 10:50am
i was told about this by ATA crash hot-line:

(625 ILCS 5/11-1003.1)

(from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1003.1)

Sec. 11-1003.1.

Drivers to exercise due care.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, or any person operating a bicycle or other device propelled by human power and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person.

(Source: P.A. 82-132.)
Permalink Reply by Jason W on September 20, 2010 at 10:53am
I have to say this law sucks. I can't believe they made it so that if a ped crosses against the light, or jaywalks the driver (or cyclist) is at fault. This will no doubt be used in civil cases and rarely enforced by the cops. So basically if some jackass jumps into the road in front of you, you are going to be held liable for whatever exorbitant sum you are going to be sued for. Ridiculous. It's carte blanche for idiot pedestrians.

And I'm not surprised that the Active Trans is behind this. Nothing they do seems to actually help or make sense...
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on September 20, 2010 at 10:57am
On a related note, what's your opinion about people who have deer run out in front of their cars?

James Baum said:
If a pedestrian enters a crosswalk you must yield to them. If they enter it so fast that you can't do that and can't stop in time and end up hitting them then you are still at fault. That is the way I read it. So either you keep an eye out for peds that might decide to dart out into traffic with cell phones in their faces and slow down if you don't think you can stop in time when they do -or risk being judged at fault if it does happen.
Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
As the Tribune article reads: "The new law also applies to instances in which a pedestrian enters the crosswalk against a "Don't Walk" signal or a red light, just as the old law required drivers to yield in such cases, officials said."
I don't read that as "The law requires that the vehicles operating in the roadway keep an eye on the peds and all things at the side of the road and DRIVE ACCORDINGLY". I read that excerpt as: "You must now stop for people deciding to stand in the street for the light." And if that's the case, what's the point of walk lights anymore. Sounds like Chicago will be becoming Evanston South.
Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on September 20, 2010 at 10:59am
Perhaps they can privatize them. Somebody call da mayar!

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Start petitioning to remove and sell all the walk signals then. The city needs the money.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on September 20, 2010 at 11:08am
::edit::

Quoted is my initial response to:

Reply by James Baum 21 minutes ago
If a pedestrian enters a crosswalk you must yield to them. If they enter it so fast that you can't do that and can't stop in time and end up hitting them then you are still at fault. That is the way I read it. So either you keep an eye out for peds that might decide to dart out into traffic with cell phones in their faces and slow down if you don't think you can stop in time when they do -or risk being judged at fault if it does happen.

::edit::

James Baum said:
Perhaps they can privatize them. Somebody call da mayar!

Tank-Ridin' Ryan said:
Start petitioning to remove and sell all the walk signals then. The city needs the money.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service