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 Anne Alt on May 14, 2013 at 8:12am

I know some people who do ride in groups at that kind of speed - and they're not Tour de France racers. They may be among a small minority in our bike community, but they exist.

David crZven 10.6 said:

The Atlantic article and the comments that follow is the usual poisonous soup of mis-statements and mis-information -- such as the person who complained about almost being hit by a group of bicycles that rode by her at 25 to 30 mph.    Either the Tour de France teams are touring in her area, or she doesn't understand the speed of bicycles.   It takes a lot of fitness to get a bicycle up to even 19 and hold it at that speed on a flat.  

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on May 14, 2013 at 8:37am

Nothing wrong with the article.  The comments?  People are people, and anonymous people are jerks.

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on May 14, 2013 at 9:37am

Jason W, Juan

This is what I received: there is only one code for dooring, and that’s 9-80-035. The 250 crashes represents the number of citations under this code, whether it’s for simply leaving the door open or for causing a crash.

Here's a repost of the crash/citation numbers for quick&easy reference:

Dooring crashes/citations

2011 – 309

2012 – 251

 

Bike crashes

2011 – 1434

2012 – 1398 (Chicago Police Dept. estimates)

 

Tickets Issued for Cyclists

2011 – 1508

2012 - 1267



Active Transportation Alliance said:

Jason, Juan, I'm looking into the dooring ticket statistics and will let you know what I find. As I said, good question, and we're working to tracking that down.

I'm guessing this thread will be on the 8th or 9th page before I have more information (smile). But, please know that I'm working on it.

Thanks much,

Ethan, Active Trans

Permalink Reply by carl whetherspoon on May 14, 2013 at 11:05am

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that cars will stop for pedestrians to cross busy streets at non-lighed intersections. It works both ways. Cars stop for people, people dont jaywalk.  

David P. said:

Every time I am in California I am struck by how noooobody jaywalks at all, ever. I haven't been everywhere, but I have been to a fair number of cities in NorCal adn SoCal. I mentioned it to a friend of mine who is a retired LAPD officer and he confirmed that they've ticketed this for ages.

Nelson Trautman said:

To be fair, I have never been to any city in the world where people don't jay walk constantly, and I do travel.

Julie Hochstadter said:

Has anyone seen mention of jaywalking tickets? In other cities around the world pedestrians don't run in the middle of the street cause they know they will get a ticket.

Permalink Reply by Crazy David 84 Furlongs on May 14, 2013 at 11:19am

My Comment:

Where?  Certainly NOT Chicago.  Just yesterday I needed to cross Lincoln at Warner.   I had gotten off my bicycle and was a Pedestrian.  Another Pedestrian was on the other side waiting to cross.   Car after car zipped through in both directions even as I was clearing trying to cross.  After 40 to 50 cars in each direction, I finally forced the issue.  Stepping out with a purposeful step glaring at the car that was far enough away that they would still stop.  I left a safety margin to "bail" if the car didn't stop (although I might have had to leave the bike.....) but they did... glaring rather hard.   And I then repeated the process (partially blocking the South bound lane) for the North Bound lane.  Lots of angry glares from Cars.   But guess what, I was clearly and fully in the right.  I have the same problem at Balmoral and Nagle crossing Nagle.  When I hear Car drivers complain about Bicycles running stop signs, I think that they need to take the timber out of their eye first.  And in my car I have nearly been tail-ended stopping for Pedestrians and have seen cars "cut around me" at high speed" nearly taking out the Pedestrians in the sidewalk.  I am really at my wit's end.  If I follow the law, I am going to get tail-ended or get someone killed when a car weaves around me.  If I ignore the law, well, I am being an asshole.   

The worst part, instead of regulating this kind of stupid conduct, the Cops are spending all of their time writing traffic tickets to benefit a private company.

carl whetherspoon said:

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that cars will stop for pedestrians to cross busy streets at non-lighed intersections. It works both ways. Cars stop for people, people dont jaywalk.  

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 15, 2013 at 2:41am

California.  I've heard from a wide number of people across the state that they do ticket pedestrians, which means less jaywalking, which apparently leads to cars respecting the crosswalks and stopping for pedestrians in them.

I'm still keeping my eye open for a cop actually enforcing ANY traffic violations.  All I see every day is the parking enforcement, which I am starting to suspect is the underlying motivation for everything from permit parking to rush hour parking controls...

David crZven 10.6 said:

My Comment:

Where?  Certainly NOT Chicago.  ...

carl whetherspoon said:

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that cars will stop for pedestrians to cross busy streets at non-lighed intersections. It works both ways. Cars stop for people, people dont jaywalk.  

Permalink Reply by S on May 15, 2013 at 4:33am



Carter O'Brien said:

I'm still keeping my eye open for a cop actually enforcing ANY traffic violations.  All I see every day is the parking enforcement, which I am starting to suspect is the underlying motivation for everything from permit parking to rush hour parking controls...

I've noticed that the U of C police in hyde park seem to be enforcing traffic laws  moderately frequently.  It seems to be a new thing but it's rather interesting.

Permalink Reply by SlowCoachOnTheRoad on June 3, 2013 at 2:08pm

I can see why some cyclists don't like the idea of sitting at a red light - they are intellectualizing their illegal behaviors - it is illegal to go through a red light.  The law exists to promote safety on the road, including for pedestrians who have or should have the right to experience a walk across the road as "their space" too, just as we like to experience our bike lanes as "ours," and cars' space as "theirs."  While cyclists who go through red lights, and they are probably a majority from what I've seen each morning on my way to work, think they are outside of the law, they fail to see how their narcissism (a disorder when in serious dimensions and always accompanied by a sense of entitlement - the sense that I am above others or possess more value than others) negatively affects others (by definition, narcissists have no empathy and can always justify their behavior).  But the reality is that if we want a right to "own the road" too (which I think we all agree we do) we must agree to basic rules of conduct on the road.  It is amazing how people sometimes want rights but don't want, to quote Spiderman's uncle, a sense of responsibility that goes with them (okay, his uncle was talking about "great power").  It is immaterial, as bikers like to state to justify their sense of entitlement, whether accidents are likely when we go through red lights, or that we are not very likely to hit pedestrians crossing the road.  Rather, the reason for the rule is to endow us with a sense of equality with cars, which surely is what we want (and the more we have it, the more others will use bikes and put those cars increasingly out of circulation).  If we act like kids who pretend that the rules of the road only apply to cars, we are in effect saying that we are not on their level, that we don't have the same legitimacy.  I work in a highly dangerous environment in inner cities working with kids in gangs and I see all the time the effects of a human inability to curtail impulses, and also a remarkable inability to see how two groups can co-exist (gang mentality is pretty much like tribal mentality, that we all abandoned a few thousand years ago, although countries still often have it).  We are the bikers, they are the car drivers, we can't co-exist, we are special, they are shit.  This is no different than the gang mentality I see all the time (although it leads to less children dying).  BUT violence historically has declined in our cities because humans increasingly succeeded to  curtail their impulses so that not every insult led to a murder.  Surely bikers can contain theirs long enough to wait at a red light?  Though I go through about 60 light intersections on my way to work, the chances of a red light happening are maybe 8 out of those.   Big deal.  Time to relax and catch one's breath.  But there is a more dangerous psychology at play.  If you take on a more aggressive stance, then car drivers won't care about you.  The chances that they'll skim past you rather than take their full 3 feet to the left of you will increase if they don't care about you.  The city is doing all it can right now to paint more lanes and fine more bad car driver behaviors, so why can't we take some responsibility for our actions?  We love to accuse the car drivers for everything under the sun, and they often deserve it, but now that we have a chance to prove that we are on average careful and considerate, bikers don't want the opportunity to prove that.  Typical ironic human nature.  Typical moronic humans.  However I have seen again and again how bikers (yes, US!) have irritated car drivers with their behaviors, but they don't like to take responsibility for the bad behaviors that car drivers then, in turn, will take out on us (including us bikers not directly responsible for others' behaviors).  Next time you see ghost bicycles, consider the possibility that the careless behavior of the car driver may just to some small degree have been the result of some of you jumping in and out traffic on your bikes and zipping through red lights and pissing off the car drivers.  A fine sounds like a good idea if it means all transportation users follow equal rules.

Permalink Reply by Jeremy on June 3, 2013 at 3:03pm
?
Permalink Reply by Mr. Ray Joe Hall on June 3, 2013 at 3:07pm

Exactly.  Either stop at a stop sign or don't.  Wait at a red light or not.  Who cares?  But if you don't yield to the right of way - cyclist, pedestrian, or car-driver - you're an asshole.  Can't we just sum it all up as simply as this?

Jeremy said:

?
Permalink Reply by We all have an inner Beast... on June 4, 2013 at 7:28am

So, the city will be starting to enforce the laws that are already on the books, we will just be paying more for being caught.

Wow. (note the sarcasm)

So, they will just NOW start doing their jobs? Were they not enforcing them before? How about if they start enforcing the laws that the drivers are breaking first !?!

I believe that their vehicles are a bigger danger to the general public, than me and my 50 pound mountain bike traveling at 16 mph (what I am now up to during my commute to and from work). 

I mean, dang, unless I plow into a 75 yr old lady, while I am going downhill, will I actually run the risk of killing someone !

I think that a more likely scenario would be me going home (on my bike) and yelling at some dumb-butt with their headphones on crossing against the light and scaring them into a speeding car that is trying to get past me.

Does anyone disagree?

Either way, now they will have to enforce the bicycist-have-to-wear-a-helmet-law. Lookout !

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Manny

Permalink Reply by SlowCoachOnTheRoad on June 7, 2013 at 2:40pm

I just want to say I was trying on a more conservative position on this matter as I do sometimes feel this way.  But after reading your responses and thinking more about it in recent days biking to work, I must admit my argument had its weak points - I liked the idea of treating the red light as a stop sign; I agree that going forward on a red light (after stopping to make sure there are no cars coming either way) increases our safety; I agree that the lights exist primarily to provide safety from motor vehicles.  I still think there is something to say for some bikers' behaviors leading motorists not to trust us anymore, but I also think their psychology comes partly from being in a car - it is a large metal suit that protects them nicely  (they think) and increases their narcissism and feelings of entitlement.  I read this in a psychology magazine - this has been tested and shown to be true.

SlowCoachOnTheRoad said:

I can see why some cyclists don't like the idea of sitting at a red light - they are intellectualizing their illegal behaviors - it is illegal to go through a red light.  The law exists to promote safety on the road, including for pedestrians who have or should have the right to experience a walk across the road as "their space" too, just as we like to experience our bike lanes as "ours," and cars' space as "theirs."  While cyclists who go through red lights, and they are probably a majority from what I've seen each morning on my way to work, think they are outside of the law, they fail to see how their narcissism (a disorder when in serious dimensions and always accompanied by a sense of entitlement - the sense that I am above others or possess more value than others) negatively affects others (by definition, narcissists have no empathy and can always justify their behavior).  But the reality is that if we want a right to "own the road" too (which I think we all agree we do) we must agree to basic rules of conduct on the road.  It is amazing how people sometimes want rights but don't want, to quote Spiderman's uncle, a sense of responsibility that goes with them (okay, his uncle was talking about "great power").  It is immaterial, as bikers like to state to justify their sense of entitlement, whether accidents are likely when we go through red lights, or that we are not very likely to hit pedestrians crossing the road.  Rather, the reason for the rule is to endow us with a sense of equality with cars, which surely is what we want (and the more we have it, the more others will use bikes and put those cars increasingly out of circulation).  If we act like kids who pretend that the rules of the road only apply to cars, we are in effect saying that we are not on their level, that we don't have the same legitimacy.  I work in a highly dangerous environment in inner cities working with kids in gangs and I see all the time the effects of a human inability to curtail impulses, and also a remarkable inability to see how two groups can co-exist (gang mentality is pretty much like tribal mentality, that we all abandoned a few thousand years ago, although countries still often have it).  We are the bikers, they are the car drivers, we can't co-exist, we are special, they are shit.  This is no different than the gang mentality I see all the time (although it leads to less children dying).  BUT violence historically has declined in our cities because humans increasingly succeeded to  curtail their impulses so that not every insult led to a murder.  Surely bikers can contain theirs long enough to wait at a red light?  Though I go through about 60 light intersections on my way to work, the chances of a red light happening are maybe 8 out of those.   Big deal.  Time to relax and catch one's breath.  But there is a more dangerous psychology at play.  If you take on a more aggressive stance, then car drivers won't care about you.  The chances that they'll skim past you rather than take their full 3 feet to the left of you will increase if they don't care about you.  The city is doing all it can right now to paint more lanes and fine more bad car driver behaviors, so why can't we take some responsibility for our actions?  We love to accuse the car drivers for everything under the sun, and they often deserve it, but now that we have a chance to prove that we are on average careful and considerate, bikers don't want the opportunity to prove that.  Typical ironic human nature.  Typical moronic humans.  However I have seen again and again how bikers (yes, US!) have irritated car drivers with their behaviors, but they don't like to take responsibility for the bad behaviors that car drivers then, in turn, will take out on us (including us bikers not directly responsible for others' behaviors).  Next time you see ghost bicycles, consider the possibility that the careless behavior of the car driver may just to some small degree have been the result of some of you jumping in and out traffic on your bikes and zipping through red lights and pissing off the car drivers.  A fine sounds like a good idea if it means all transportation users follow equal rules.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service