Cyclist sues city for falling off bike

I just came across this story on the Tribune. As much as I can't stand frivolous lawsuits of the I'm an idiot and I fell so now I need to blame someone else type, I actually kind of hope he wins. Only because the judge may force the city to make bridges safer. 

Realistically I don't think this suit stands a chance. 

Views: 2785

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Lee on March 22, 2012 at 12:48pm

A few years ago I was driving to a meeting and as I crossed the LaSalle St bridge downtown I saw a bicyclist down, writhing in pain. I threw her bike in the station wagon and drove her to Northwestern Memorial. I tried to not react at the scarily deep gash in her knee. She had lost it as she rode over a groove.

Last week I crossed the Division bridge at Halsted after a rain - it was crazy slippery.

I hope the City decides to fix this problem.

Permalink Reply by Rich S on March 22, 2012 at 2:35pm

Called 311 earlier but now it may be wasting their time ... the biggest holes in the grates have been repaired. I took a ride after work to both the LaSalle and Division Bridges. The LaSalle bridge is not in disrepair and isn't the worst one out there. About half of the bridge is covered with concrete. The grates still suck but there are definitely more treacherous bridges in the city. I took the Orleans bridge going back north and that was beautiful. Not a single grate! 

LaSalle

The Division bridge is patched up and rusty. You can see a gap in one of the grate covers wide enough for a bike tire.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on March 22, 2012 at 3:04pm

Forgot to add: There are two similar cases against the city right now. One was filed last November and the Chicago Tribune never picked up on it (they apparently monitor newly filed cases).

And, in the T.Y. Lin report, the LaSalle bridge was rated "poor", along with Webster, Clark, 18th, Loomis, and Chicago. (Other bridges were rated poor but they did or now have a bike-friendly deck treatment.)

Both Division Street bridges were rated "fair" in the "Bicycle Ride-ability Formula" and that they would be filled in with concrete in 2005 and 2006. This formula was based on deck type, grate orientation, percent of deck filled, and "overall deck quality as determined from field surveys". 

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on March 22, 2012 at 3:39pm

If the city ends up being forced by a legal decision to deal with the metal grate bridges, I hope they do a better job of implementing the solutions than they've done with many of the recent ADA curb cut installations.  I've seen too many that are already looking like the example below (or worse) after only 1 or 2 years.  This shoddy work is effectively pre-installing potholes - right where cyclists generally turn the corner!




Steven Vance said:

I've seen the report by T.Y. Lin that the Tribune mentions. Here are more details. The Chicago Bike Map even says to "use caution" when riding over the bridges.

I've written about open metal grate bridges many times on Grid Chicago. Read on:

My personal wish is that the outcome is similar to the ruling against the city for its lack of ADA compliance in curb cuts. The city was required to spend an *additional* $50 million over 5 years to create hundreds (thousands?) of ADA compliant curb cuts. I wrote about this here.

Permalink Reply by Eric Puetz - Smart Bike Parts on March 22, 2012 at 6:04pm

As cyclists, we understand there are risks. Sucks when we lose, but the real loss is never trying. Ride on. Eric Puetz

Permalink Reply by Chris B on March 22, 2012 at 9:43pm

I thought there was an IL Supreme Court decision several years ago where the judge said that cities do not have to keep streets in enough repair for bicycles.

Ah, here it is, Boub v Wayne township

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boub_v._Township_of_Wayne

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the article. Since that went all the way to the state supreme court, I don't see how this lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Unless he can show the circumstance is different, like the city claims the bridge is safe for bicycles.

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on March 23, 2012 at 1:59am

The city is trying to claim that the bridges are not dangerous, and includes them in "recommended routes". 

Chris B said:

I thought there was an IL Supreme Court decision several years ago where the judge said that cities do not have to keep streets in enough repair for bicycles.

Ah, here it is, Boub v Wayne township

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boub_v._Township_of_Wayne

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the article. Since that went all the way to the state supreme court, I don't see how this lawsuit is going to go anywhere. Unless he can show the circumstance is different, like the city claims the bridge is safe for bicycles.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on March 23, 2012 at 2:08am

The government is here to help you and would never lie to you...

Steven Vance said:

The city is trying to claim that the bridges are not dangerous, and includes them in "recommended routes". 


Permalink Reply by Sue Jones on March 23, 2012 at 11:20am

WHether the guy wins or loses, it could be a very bad thing. For years after Boub, it was impossible to get townships or local governments to do *anything* for bicycles. After all, as long as there was no indication that bicycles were expected, they couldn't lose a lawsuit, could they?   

    So, if this guy wins because it's an "approved route," then ... who's going to be willing to approve a route?

Permalink Reply by Kathy Schubert 'n Suzy Schnauzer on March 23, 2012 at 11:49am

I have just written about the Division St. bridge to Alderman Scott Waguespack of the 32nd ward.  Both of the Division St. bridges are in the 32nd Ward.  I gave him a link to this discussion.

You can add to my comments by writing to info@ward32.org or phoning 773 248 1330

Alderman Waguespack is a cyclist.  He is a good alderman.  He will listen.

Permalink Reply by Gene Tenner on March 23, 2012 at 12:01pm

Bravo, Kathy 'n Suzy.

Kathy Schubert 'n Suzy Schnauzer said:

I have just written about the Division St. bridge to Alderman Scott Waguespack of the 32nd ward.  Both of the Division St. bridges are in the 32nd Ward.  I gave him a link to this discussion.

You can add to my comments by writing to info@ward32.org or phoning 773 248 1330

Alderman Waguespack is a cyclist.  He is a good alderman.  He will listen.

Permalink Reply by Gary Gilbert on March 23, 2012 at 12:22pm

Way back last century (1998), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in the Boub decision, that municipalities were not reponsible for the condition of the road as it impacted cyclists.  LIB and others tried several times to work with the legislature to overturn the ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boub_v._Township_of_Wayne

 

It seems to me that this issue goes against the cyclist unless the particular bridge is marked with cycling signage showing that the city expects cyclists on the road including the bridge.

 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service