Neighborhood cycling differences & NW side vehicles passing on the right
So, just moved from Edgewater out to Portage Park, and the differences in riding are stark. Sure, infrastructure is different, but the main one for me is something I've noticed being allowed more on the NW side: rush hour parking regulations.
It seems that CDOT decided that on some streets (ahem, Central), parking would be curtailed at places to allow for more access on the roads. The side effect of this is an epidemic of cars passing on the right. Parking spaces, right turn lanes, no lane...doesn't matter. I can't see how this lines up with a complete streets idea, and I haven't seen much talked about this way. It is monumentally dangerous for drivers to do this on streets, as pedestrians, cyclists, etc can be unseen by a driver deciding that they are just going to whip around along the curb.
I know there were recent laws allowing cyclists to pass on the right, but has there been any movement to prohibit this in many of the cases that don't involve turning traffic? And I sure as heck never saw this this much riding along Damen/Bryn Mawr/Clark/etc.
Views: 554
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
I wish this problem was limited to your 'hood. Sadly, it's not. We have a serious problem with passing on the right on 99th between Wood and Vincennes - too many "entitled" people in a hurry to get to or from I-57. I would love to have a road diet/bike lanes to help curtail the problem. New bike lanes have worked wonders with the same issue on a portion of Vincennes.
Do you feel that your alderman would be at all willing to work with you on this? Have you been in touch with the folks responsible for the Bike 45 effort? If not, let me know, and I'd be happy to put you in contact with them. They were very involved in community outreach for the Street for Cycling plan in your area.
-
Permalink Reply by Madopal (16.5 mi) on
-
I did a few bike 45 rides, but I think much of this is Cullerton's ward, at least partially. The 38th has the cutout section of Portage Park proper, but I don't know who's responsible. Arena definitely has some of Central up thru Jefferson Park. And Central is labeled a cycling route with signs, which is insane.
I was hoping to get some outreach for the 38th Ward as well, so any info you have would be great.
-
-
When we were doing community outreach for Streets for Cycling (S4C), Alice's area included much of the NW side and your neighborhood. I sent you a msg. Alice may have contact info and insights on recommendations that were developed for your 'hood through S4C. It's worth asking.
-
Permalink Reply by Alex Z on
-
I am just curious. How is it that you are riding far enough left for the cars to pass you on the right? I'm not trying to be snarky at all, I'm just having trouble picturing what you are describing.
-
-
I commute out that ways. I did not enjoy riding on Central the couple of times I've tried it.
-
-
No I'm not being passed. What's happening is that Central is effectively a 2 lane, but cars are passing *each other* on the right, making for some VERY dangerous situations, squeezing 3-4 cars into what is ostensibly a 2 lane road. I can't figure out how it's not got anyone killed. I ride Long over there instead of Central as a result, and when it widens (like at Sunnyside), it happens there as well, probably because everyone is used to doing it on every other road that's a 2 lane (Central, Laramie, Narragansett, Oak Park, Montrose, Addison).
The only place I've ever been passed on the right by a car while cycling was on Lawrence near California while in the bike lane.
Alex Z said:I am just curious. How is it that you are riding far enough left for the cars to pass you on the right? I'm not trying to be snarky at all, I'm just having trouble picturing what you are describing.
-
-
I feel like going in the spirit of Portage Park and putting up Burma Shave style messages in art deco fonts:
Don't be a jerk
And cause a fightIt's too dangerous
To pass on the right
I was taught in drivers ed back in the day that passing on the right was illegal, but looking into the laws, turns out it's not in way more situations than I thought. Section 2 below really bothers me, because who gets to interpret what "sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle" means?
(625 ILCS 5/11-704) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-704)
Sec. 11-704. When overtaking on the right is permitted.
(a) The driver of a vehicle with 3 or more wheels may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
3. Upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles.
(b) The driver of a 2 wheeled vehicle may not pass upon the right of any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the unobstructed pavement to the right of the vehicle being passed is of a width of not less than 8 feet.
(c) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway. (Source: P.A. 84-873.)
-
-
Yeah, no kidding. BTW, that quote is from before they changed the law for bikes. It's amusing, though, that a car just needs "sufficient width", but a bike required 8 feet.
Duane Waller said:In Portage and Jefferson Park, "sufficient width" would mean if your sidewalls are scraping the curb, that is sufficient.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
There's no doubt in my mind that "rush hour lanes" are a complete legal fiction. This has been my pet peeve in Chicago for a good 20 years +, my recollection when they rolled these parking restrictions out was that the idea was to improve traffic flow by minimizing people backing up traffic while they parallel parked on arterial streets. An added bonus was the parking restrictions prevent people from using arterial street parking for long-term storage.
But added lanes just because there's no parking? That's ridiculous. By that logic a driver can use valet parking areas, bus lanes, etc as lanes of traffic. The law is crystal clear, lanes need to be marked as such. The absence of a parked car does not equate to a de facto lane.
So the tough part. Not even Gabe Klein was willing to expend the political capital to take a stance on this.
He sent me this reply (my query underneath), which prompted no responses from his staff. I even followed up, to no avail.
My suggestion? Phone & email your aldermen, CDOT, the Mayor's Office and make some noise. This problem is much like dibs, it's an engrained cultural/behavioral issue, and it isn't going away until there is a clear message (and enforcement) from the top.
What is likely to happen IMO is a cyclist is going to get seriously injured, the City will get taken to the cleaners in court, and out of a desire to cover their behind will finally do something quickly & heavy-handed which will just make everyone unhappy. If it happens to anyone here, you can use my email below as evidence that the City most definitely has been warned. I think Gabe did everything he could in his tenure here, but the fact I did not receive a single reply - even after following up - from the staff he actually requested to speaks volumes about the inertia and priorities at CDOT.
(everyone see this btw? hell yes! http://www.illinoisbicyclelaw.com/2013/11/claim-for-bicyclist-injur...)
from: Klein, Gabe <Gabe.Klein@cityofchicago.org> to: Carter O'Brien <carterobrien@gmail.com> cc: "Samadi, Malihe" <Malihe.Samadi@cityofchicago.org>,
"Montazery, Yadollah" <Yadollah.Montazery@cityofchicago.org>,
"Kubly, Scott" <Scott.Kubly@cityofchicago.org>,
"Hamilton, Luann" <Luann.Hamilton@cityofchicago.org>Carter,
This is an interesting point that you bring up and something that we are looking at citywide; where rush hour zones are actually needed, and how they are utilized and by what modes. I also see a need in some areas for shared bus/bike lanes, and others where the lane is actually utilized appropriately by cars during peak periods. In terms of this particular location, I know the issue you are speaking of in general re: pinch points, but I am copying our traffic team to respond, and some others who have been thinking of this issue as an FYI. Thx for writing.
Gabe
Gabe Klein
Commissioner, Chicago Department of Transportation
*original note*
Dear Mr. Klein,
I continue to struggle as a cyclist and motorist with what the exact definition and rules are regarding usage of the "rush hour lanes," which is how many people understand they can use the street space vacated due to the No Parking 7 - 9 am and 4 - 6 pm sign restrictions.
It seems to me that legally, there needs to be lane striping for this to be a valid lane for a moving vehicle. Otherwise, which car is at fault if two vehicles moving in the same direction collide or otherwise get into an accident? Which vehicle must yield when you have the inevitable problem of a car which has not vacated the space, etc?
And for a cyclist, this is a nightmare. Using Belmont from Kimball to the lake as an example, this unwritten policy results not in traffic moving any quicker or smoother, but in fact rather the opposite - the actual speed of traffic is still determined by the pinch points/bottlenecks at intersections (bus stops, right turn only lanes).
So what happens is cars trying to use these rush hour lanes end up needing to merge into the normal lane on a regular basis, which leads to aggressive driving, as well as defensive driving from motorists who feel they are being illegally passed on the right, etc.
I would suggest that this vacated space simply be converted and communicated to the public as a bus and bike-only zone, but if the City does indeed want to have the flexibility of rush hour lanes, a more formal demarcation and policy is greatly needed. As it stands, I personally view these parking restrictions as just that and nothing more - they keep car owners from using arterial streets for long-term parking and give the buses a bit more breathing room, which is just.
I am a 41 year old life long resident of Chicago, and I have been biking on the street & following the rules of the road since I was 10 (which probably explains how I've lived this long). I do greatly appreciate everything you are doing to make Chicago a more civil and friendly place to get around.
Sincerely,
Carter O'Brien
-
-
I think #2 actually backs the position that this practice is illegal. The key word here is "two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully." A parking restriction does not create a lane of traffic, only lane markings and signage can do that.
I can't seem to find anything official which states "A lane of traffic is defined as... " but on a two-way street, if these rush-hour lanes are legit than the City needs to define them, physically. Once upon a time Sheridan Avenue had true rush hour lanes, which were basically reversibles and had overhead traffic control signals to let motorists know when they were active. Expensive to establish, expensive to enforce (City workers used to physically move traffic cones, just imagine what a PIA that must have been), I think CDOT would prefer to just stick its head in the sand and kick this can down the road forever.
But this seems pretty clear to me:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=1815&Chapt...
(625 ILCS 5/1-135)(from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-135)Sec. 1-135.Lane-control signal.An official traffic control device consisting of an electrically controlled and illuminated signal of a square or rectangular design and employing distinctive colors or symbols used to control the direction of vehicular flow on the particular lane to which the indication applies.(Source: P.A. 76-2122.)(625 ILCS 5/1-136)(from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-136)Sec. 1-136.Laned roadway.A roadway which is divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for vehicular traffic.(Source: P.A. 76-1586.)
Madopal (5.8 mi) said:I feel like going in the spirit of Portage Park and putting up Burma Shave style messages in art deco fonts:
Don't be a jerk
And cause a fightIt's too dangerous
To pass on the right
I was taught in drivers ed back in the day that passing on the right was illegal, but looking into the laws, turns out it's not in way more situations than I thought. Section 2 below really bothers me, because who gets to interpret what "sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle" means?
(625 ILCS 5/11-704) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-704)
Sec. 11-704. When overtaking on the right is permitted.
(a) The driver of a vehicle with 3 or more wheels may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle only under the following conditions:
1. When the vehicle overtaken is making or about to make a left turn;
2. Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle.
3. Upon a one-way street, or upon any roadway on which traffic is restricted to one direction of movement, where the roadway is free from obstructions and of sufficient width for 2 or more lines of moving vehicles.
(b) The driver of a 2 wheeled vehicle may not pass upon the right of any other vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the unobstructed pavement to the right of the vehicle being passed is of a width of not less than 8 feet.
(c) The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. Such movement shall not be made by driving off the roadway. (Source: P.A. 84-873.)
-
-
Jeff: If only it were left turning. Usually, that's at an intersection when everyone is stopped, and there's time to look. The major problem is when traffic is backed up at a stop sign or waiting for a stop light, and someone inevitably whips around on the right, further backing up the line of traffic because they edge their way in.
Carter: this is exactly the problem, and what's more...when people drive in these situations every day, they *expect* to be able to pass like that everywhere. So it becomes a drag race at every. Single. Light. One person waiting, a car parked ahead, someone goes around on the right and causes problems. Until they address this, cycling on these streets will be a huge risk.
-
-
Completely agreed.
The easy, although not free, solution is to mark intersections with proper "right turn only" markings and/or signage. Combine that with police out enforcing these already-existing laws. This ain't rocket science, it just takes some political backbone.
Madopal (5.8 mi) said:Jeff: If only it were left turning. Usually, that's at an intersection when everyone is stopped, and there's time to look. The major problem is when traffic is backed up at a stop sign or waiting for a stop light, and someone inevitably whips around on the right, further backing up the line of traffic because they edge their way in.
Carter: this is exactly the problem, and what's more...when people drive in these situations every day, they *expect* to be able to pass like that everywhere. So it becomes a drag race at every. Single. Light. One person waiting, a car parked ahead, someone goes around on the right and causes problems. Until they address this, cycling on these streets will be a huge risk.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
