Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike w. on April 14, 2012 at 3:19pm

i notice that the suit was settled for $5mil, but doesn't mention that it ever went to trial. Often insurance companies will just offer a settlement rather than go through the bother of the trial process. Right or wrong be damned (experience talking here...)

 

Too bad for the trucker who will lose his license and livelyhood because of someone else's carelessness.

 

And before anyone piles on about me defending bad drivers, ask yourself how you would feel after cobbering someone who shot a stopsign and found himeslf under your wheels...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on April 15, 2012 at 4:52pm

Truck -going maybe 30 on THROUGH street...

 

"elderly" cyclist goes through stop sign and enters intersection in front of oncoming truck..

Considering the truck's mass and speed, 40 feet seems a pretty reasonable stopping distance.... hell, why not call it 60 feet as he was probably about 20' from the intersection when the guy pulled out in front of him.

i've seen more than my share of people who thought "getting there first" confers right-of-way... they got nailed.

i cannot see how being first into an intersection (mind that he failed to obey a stop sign) confers right of way nor do i see the rider as blameless nor the driver as guilty of carelessness.

But then neither of us were there, were we? So i guess both our opinions are worth little in the grand scheme of things.

BTW, ever drive any kind of a truck, Howard?

h' said:

The "Elderly bicycle rider" was in the intersection first, and the truck driver did not look to his right, and dragged the bicyclist 40 feet because he didn't know that he'd hit someone.

I don't see how you get the cyclist "shooting" into the intersection from that.

mike w. said:

i notice that the suit was settled for $5mil, but doesn't mention that it ever went to trial. Often insurance companies will just offer a settlement rather than go through the bother of the trial process. Right or wrong be damned (experience talking here...)

 

Too bad for the trucker who will lose his license and livelyhood because of someone else's carelessness.

 

And before anyone piles on about me defending bad drivers, ask yourself how you would feel after cobbering someone who shot a stopsign and found himeslf under your wheels...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 15, 2012 at 10:43pm

I guess you're saying "stop sign" because the OP mentioned it, but there's no stop sign in the Law Bulletin article and Google streets says that that intersection doesn't have a stop sign in either direction.  I think I recognize the intersection because it's part of a really, really ugly crossing on the IPP, where you have to go to the traffic light on the corner to cross the street to continue on the trail.

Suffice it to say that there's pretty much no evidence at all one way or the other as to who is at fault here.   They mention the cyclist was in the intersection, but I'm not picturing if he was actually crossing or just a couple of feet past the crosswalk, or even just waiting at the curb.   The "look to the right" line is kind of strange to me.

Of course, absence of facts has never slowed down a chainlink flame-fest in the past, so I'm not sure why it would this time.

mike w. said:

Truck -going maybe 30 on THROUGH street...

 

"elderly" cyclist goes through stop sign and enters intersection in front of oncoming truck..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on April 16, 2012 at 5:06am

There need to be a lot more details here before anyone blames anyone with the full fault here.

First off what street was the truck on and what street was the bike on?

If the truck was on 25th it had no stop sign and even seeing the cyclist there would be no hope of stopping that truck. 

There is a lot more to this story before anyone can assign 100% of the blame.  Any of you ever drive a Mack truck?  Any of you know about the huge blind spots and really long stopping distances involved with one of these? 

There are a lot of details missing from that story and I would consider it to be, at best, pure self promotion for the firm posting it.  If you really think about what it is saying and take a look at the intersection in question that article basically says that regardless of traffic signals or right of way if somebody gets into the intersection first they have the right of way...  Think about that; that means that if you, as a cyclist, are coming up to an intersection with a stop sign and somebody runs it so bad you are unable to stop before hitting them and you t-bone them it is your fault because they were there first.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don P on April 16, 2012 at 6:32am

I had the same issues as DUG.  Here are the available facts:

"Michael S. Krzak and Kevin P. Durkin, partners at Clifford Law Offices, obtained the settlement on behalf of Paul Zanoni of Broadview. The incident occurred on Aug. 14, 2009, when Zanoni was riding his bike southbound on the sidewalk on the east side of 25th Avenue when he approached the intersection at Madison Street in Bellwood."

"Zanoni proceeded through the crosswalk but the driver of the truck, John O’Shea, moved through the intersection and struck the rear portion of the bike with his front bumper. The then 73 year old was knocked to the ground as the truck continued to make a right-hand turn. Zanoni was stuck under his bike and dragged across two lanes of traffic for nearly 40 feet and into the south-bound lanes of traffic on 25th Avenue."

"Zanoni lost his right leg below the knee and now walks with a prosthetic device."

“This is clearly a case of avoidable negligence,” Krzak said after the settlement was reached before Cook County Circuit Court Judge Clare E. McWilliams. “The excruciating pain this elderly man has had to endure and will live with through his golden years is a tragedy. He went from one minute living independently and having the ability to go wherever he wanted on his bicycle to the next minute becoming handicapped and losing his independence. Truck drivers need to be more aware of pedestrians and bicyclists.”

The article goes on to say this was the biggest personal injury case for a plaintiff over 60 years old.

There are still some questions - The intersection in question is not entirely clear as Madison intersects 25th Ave. in two places, with the IPP being between the two intersections, and there is no indication Mr. Zanoni was even on the IPP.

I know the area well, both riding the IPP, and having a client on the south east corner of Madison/S. Maywood Dr. and 25th Ave.  Based on the info above, I'm still not sure anyone can reach a conclusion, other than there were no stop signs involved, and it happened on a Friday.

You would think the self-promoting lawyers would get the facts straight.

Personally, when riding the IPP, I exercise great care at this busy intersection.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Don P on April 16, 2012 at 8:45am

Based on the description of the accident from the link, and the detail I added, it is possible to understand how this unfortunate event happened:  (also, I stand corrected, there was a stop sign)

 

Mr. Zanoni was riding on the sidewalk, going south, on the east side of 25th Ave.  Madison Street intersects the east side of 25th Ave north of the IPP.

 

The Mack truck was going west on Madison, stopped at the stop sign (this is a 'T' intersection with 25th Ave.), and proceeded to make a right hand turn on to 25th Ave to go north.

 

Mr. Zanoni did not stop at the intersection (and he was not able to see the traffic on Madison, due to a building that obstructed his view), and rode through the intersection.

 

The driver in the Mack truck was looking to his left for traffic before he made his turn.  Mr. Zanoni could not be seen by the driver (vantage point too high) as he darted out in front of the Mack truck.

 

The Mack truck driver made his right hand turn, but caught Mr. Zanoni's back wheel with his front left (driver's side) bumper, and dragged Mr. Zanoni on to 25th Ave, eventually stopping about 40 feet north of the Madison and 25th Ave intersection, leaving Mr. Zanoni in the south bound lanes of 25th Ave.

 

Given the facts, this is the only explanation that makes sense to me.  While I feel bad for Mr. Zanoni's loss of limb and the unfortunate series of events for both parties, it simply proves to me that when riding, anticipate problems, and expect the unexpected.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on April 16, 2012 at 9:23am

Actually I think there is even more to the story...

First off I want everyone to understand that I don't want to 'blame' anyone here, I want to look at the accident objectively and talk about where, and by who, the mistakes were made that caused this accident.  Most accidents have more than one cause, sort of a chain of mistakes, and often those errors happen on the part of both parties involved.  We can all learn more and in the end be safer, be it behind the wheel or on two wheels, if we step back and look at this not wanting to point fingers but wanting to learn why it happened and how to prevent it from happening.

I also, as a person who has operated a large truck on the roadway before, to ask a lot of you to really think about what driving a large truck is like.  The truck in question is huge.  It has a blind spot, directly in front of it, that is large enough to hide a decent sized car; trucks it's size often have a blind spot to the left often have a window on the bottom half of the passenger door so the driver can look out and see if there is a car there because they sit so high up there is a blind spot that completely hides a car.  If you have not driven a truck like this you probably have no idea just how hard it is to see out of it; go find one somewhere and sit in it, you will be shocked how little you see out of it.

So let's think about this logically shall we?

-The truck was turning right out into traffic so the driver was, of course, looking to his left because, normally, there would be no need for him to look right beyond glancing over to make sure there was not some kind of maniac or blind guy on the wrong side of the road.

-When traffic was clear and he pulled out if the cyclist had gotten within about 6-7 feet (or more even) of the side of the truck by that time it would have been impossible for him to see the cyclist.

-Clipping the cyclist with the drivers side bumper means the cyclist was well in front of him when he started to move making it very likely the cyclist was in his blind spot when he started to move.

-40 feet is a bit under 4 car lengths, it is not very far and in a truck like that hitting a bike or a person is unnoticeable unless you actually see it and the chances of hearing anything over the sound of the truck until there is screaming is unlikely and even screams may not be heard; trucks like that are amazingly loud.

So what does all this ad up to?

A guy, on a bike, riding down the sidewalk, against traffic and from a direction he would not be expected from, entered and intersection in front of a truck from a direction which, and into a position which, the driver of could not see him.

Think about that for a moment...

Now think about this, and remember it will because it can save your life:

IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE DIVER OF A VEHICLE THEY CANNOT SEE YOU!

More specifically if you cannot see their FACE they cannot see you!

This applies both to looking in their mirrors and up at them through the windows; if you cannot see the driver you are in their blind spot and in danger of being run over because they do not know you are there!

It is true that drivers have a duty not to run us over but we have a duty not to put ourselves into a position where they cannot avoid it.  Would you step into an intersection directly in front of a moving car? You would get hit and there would be nothing the driver could have done about it.

Putting yourself in a blind spot is exactly the same thing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David on April 16, 2012 at 10:54am

notoriousDUG said:

-The truck was turning right out into traffic so the driver was, of course, looking to his left because, normally, there would be no need for him to look right beyond glancing over to make sure there was not some kind of maniac or blind guy on the wrong side of the road.

Or pedestrian, jogger, kid running down the street, etc.  Or was "maniac" meant to include all non-drivers  in the suburbs?

Based on attorney statements, the main factual point of contention in the trial was apparently going to be whether the bike was really in the trucker's blind spot or if the trucker simply never looked either forward or to his right at all.   Both sides seemed a bit unsure of their ability to prove this either way in a courtroom.  You seem to have convinced yourself that you know exactly what happened, but you don't really have anything to back it up other than speculation.

Like most (though certainly not all) crashes, this one could probably have been avoided if either party had been a bit more careful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Fiasco on April 16, 2012 at 11:41am

$5,000,000 settlement means the insurance company thinks the driver was in the wrong.  I do not think the insurer was saving litigation costs on this one.

 

I do agree with Dug's assessment, though.  It sounds like the cyclist was in the sidewalk since the article notes that the cyclist did not stop in the crosswalk.  If the cyclist blew from the sidewalk to the crosswalk, he must have been right in front of the truck.

 

I'm sure the cyclist appreciates the $5,000,000 and I'm sure he misses his leg.  From what I see, I think he could have avoided this accident.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on April 17, 2012 at 7:52am

I would consider anyone who puts themselves in the blind spot of a semi to be a maniac so yeah, you could take my words to mean that.

Here is the thing, everything about this accident that we know and my experience with the field of view out of that type of truck indicate that regardless of weather or not the driver looked the person who was struck by the truck was, almost for sure, in the blind spot.  You know those big stupid sticks on the front bumper of a school buss that stick out like 6 feet?  They are to make kids walk far enough in front of the buss that the driver can see them; and the field of view on your average Mack is way worse than that of a school bus.  Unless the cyclist was 10 foot in front of the truck he was not in view of the driver regardless of where he looked.

Look, it comes to this and we can argue the big and little of it all day long but it is my belief that, if you put yourself, on foot, on a bike or in a car, in front of a semi in a position where you cannot see the drivers face you have pretty much put yourself at risk of death.  I will not, no matter what, pass in front of a truck I have not seen the driver of look at me and that is good practice.  To me coming up on the blind side of a truck waiting to turn and then putting yourself in front of it without confirming the driver has seen you is only about one step short of suicide.

David said:

notoriousDUG said:

-The truck was turning right out into traffic so the driver was, of course, looking to his left because, normally, there would be no need for him to look right beyond glancing over to make sure there was not some kind of maniac or blind guy on the wrong side of the road.

Or pedestrian, jogger, kid running down the street, etc.  Or was "maniac" meant to include all non-drivers  in the suburbs?

Based on attorney statements, the main factual point of contention in the trial was apparently going to be whether the bike was really in the trucker's blind spot or if the trucker simply never looked either forward or to his right at all.   Both sides seemed a bit unsure of their ability to prove this either way in a courtroom.  You seem to have convinced yourself that you know exactly what happened, but you don't really have anything to back it up other than speculation.

Like most (though certainly not all) crashes, this one could probably have been avoided if either party had been a bit more careful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Liz on April 17, 2012 at 8:07am

I knew a family when I was growing up that lost a pair of 3 year old twins in a tragic accident with a truck.  There was some doubt as to the exact contributing factors of the accident (pavement conditions, sight lines with turning vehicles, and weather) but the truck company's insurance gave a very large settlement none the less. It is fairly common in accidents for cases to be settled, and while this is an usually large settlement it doesn't indication there was no contributory negligence on the part of the cyclist. 

I feel for the cyclist that lost his limb and hope he has a good recovery, but that does not mean that if you violate the rules of the road (sidewalk riding) you should expect that you would not be found at fault in an accident.  

Even if the truck driver initially looked right, it states that the cyclist could not see the intersection, therefore the truck driver would not be able to see the cyclist approaching at a much quicker rate that a typical pedestrian.Sidewalk riding is extremely dangerous at intersections, especially when done in the direction opposite to traffic flow.

All cyclists can benefit from using due caution at intersections even when right of way is in their favor, and especially when riding contrary to the rules of the road.   I would much rather ride safer and slower, reaching my destination intact, than gain a few seconds or possibly minutes and ending up in a collision, regardless of settlement size in my favor months or years after the accident. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David P. on April 17, 2012 at 12:47pm

H', I think that one can easily make a case that the argument that the cyclist was not at fault was implicit in the post that the OP linked to.

DUG is right about the blind spots in Class 6 - 8 trucks. Most people have no idea how limited visibility can be in trucks like that.

David

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page