Powerful Change in Legislation to Recognize the Rights of Cyclists on the Roads

Incredibly sad story but thanks to Michael Keating, the Jurs family, and other advocates, the law has been changed. 

New biking law is born from tragedy

By Andrew Maloney
Law Bulletin staff writer
SPRINGFIELD — State laws for Illinois drivers already say bicyclists have the same rights and duties as people in automobiles.

But a death and a tossed traffic ticket have led to further clarity that bikes and cars are treated as equals under the state’s rules of the road.

Gov. Bruce Rauner recently signed House Bill 5912, which amends the Illinois Vehicle Code to state that every bicyclist on a highway is entitled to all of the rights, “including, but not limited to” the ones dealing with right of way.

The measure was prompted by the death of Dennis Jurs, a 68-year-old Army veteran who was biking when he collided with a vehicle in Kane County last year. The incident happened at an intersection where north and southbound drivers have stop signs but east and westbound vehicles do not.

The driver was charged with failure to yield in October 2015, but the case was dismissed when 16th Judicial Circuit Judge Donald M. Tegeler Jr. ruled there were conflicting rulings showing that bikes did not have the same rights as automobiles under Illinois law.

So Jurs’ family, as well as Michael S. Keating of Keating Law Offices P.C., crafted the bill and pushed for its passage this spring.

Keating counts bicycle law as a key part of his practice. He chairs the American Association for Justice’s Bicycle Litigation Committee and is an avid bicyclist himself.

“I think that it is a very important clarification in the law in that it emphasizes the importance of bicycles in a modern transportation scheme. And not just in Chicago, but across Illinois,” Keating said this week.

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2016/08/17/Biking-law-8-...

Views: 523

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on August 26, 2016 at 4:20am

The Bench Brief (which is public record) to the traffic court judge is attached. Provides all of the legal details as to why the "not guilty" finding and dismissal of case was unwarranted. Note that the bench brief is an "Amicus" brief meaning it was written as a "friend of the court." A civil attorney technically has no standing in a traffic court case. The "State" was represented by a very motivated Assistant State's Attorney who worked very hard on the case. Technically, my clients are not a party to the traffic court case so, as their attorney, I wrote this as an amicus brief to the court. 

Attachments:
Permalink Reply by ad on August 18, 2016 at 5:01am
If you follow the link, the article cites the 3 cases the judge relied on, and the arguments as to why they were distinguishable in the first place. This law should help clarify any confusion, however. It'll also be interesting to see if this presents an opportunity to challenge the Illinois Supreme Court's prior holdings in Boub that a cyclist is a permitted, but not intended, user of a roadway not marked for bicycle use in terms of injuries caused by road hazards. If a cyclist is entitled to all rights on a road, that would seemingly include the right that the roadway be safe for travel, though Boub was already pretty far off base on that point IMHO in the first place so hard to predict what the Court would say.
Permalink Reply by ad on August 18, 2016 at 6:40am
Well, to be honest, the law largely said the exact same thing when Boub was decided, which is why it drew a pretty strong dissenting opinion from 3 of the 7 Justices. That said, I think the legislature's actions at least open the door for a good-faith challenge to the precedent, as the amendment (like you noted) arguably further clarifies that on state highways vehicles and bicycles are to be treated as equal for all intents and purposes. The hope would be that a majority of the current court would overrule Boub since it was so close the first time. It's a long shot to a degree, especially where our Supreme Court takes so few cases each year, but it's likely better grounds to move to challenge the decision than have existed since it was decided in 98.
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 18, 2016 at 7:00am

It'll also be interesting to see if this presents an opportunity to challenge the Illinois Supreme Court's prior holdings in Boub that a cyclist is a permitted, but not intended, user of a roadway not marked for bicycle use in terms of injuries caused by road hazards. 

Indeed.

Permalink Reply by Tominator on August 18, 2016 at 8:26am

I don't think it will change Boub at all. Since when does a motorist have a right to a pothole free roadway? There's no law that says motorists have a "right" to a smooth, perfect, defect-free roadway. Illinois law allows for suits when the road is "not reasonably safe." Giving cyclists all the "rights" of motorists doesn't change "intended and permitted" IMHO. 

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on August 26, 2016 at 5:24pm

I agree.  It would cost a large fortune to make roads safe for cyclists.  I don't see the courts or legislature opening the door for cyclists to sue for unsafe road conditions.  If that were the case, a significant percentage of all the injured cyclists in Chicago would potentially be making claims for injuries.  Not to mention property damage.  

Permalink Reply by ad on August 18, 2016 at 9:49am
Well, I don't think most are reading reversing Boub as a way to get perfect, defect-free streets for cyclists. But, removing Boub would help avoid situations like what happened to Boub himself---i.e., a road crew does work that leaves new pavement seems exposed which in turn causes a serious accident to occur when an entirely foreseeable event like a cyclist's bike tire getting stuck in the seam occurs. Like the dissent noted in the case, if the crew had created a condition on the bridge that posed a foreseeable danger to a vehicle, the vehicle owner could have collected for any property damage or bodily injury that occurred as a result. There's something inequitable from preventing a cyclist from collecting when you know cyclists will use that roadway and you nevertheless have created an unreasonable danger (and haven't even warned about it).

The fact that Boub is open to question is highlighted in my mind by the fact that even though it gives cities a pretty iron clad defense against road defect cases, cities nevertheless create bicycle infrastructure on streets---in effect removing the protection, and opening themselves up to liability---because they understand the reality is that cyclists use the streets daily (because they're intended to, it's literally illegal to ride on the sidewalk) and need better protection.
Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on August 26, 2016 at 4:22am

Here is a law journal article I wrote earlier this year on Boub. It could very well be that Boub is changed through the courts than through legislation. We all need to keep "fighting the good fight." Change is often incremental. 

Permalink Reply by Mike Keating on August 27, 2016 at 3:19am

A very thoughtful write-up on Dennis's Law from DNAInfo's Alisa Hauser, who covers the Wicker Park and Bucktown beat.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service