Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Reho on August 18, 2014 at 4:44am

Interesting read.  I find that generally, not always, civility towards drivers while biking is returned with the same.  I have to admit that I'm not an aggressive "take the road" biker.  I keep to the side as much as I can while staying just outside what I consider the "dooring zone."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by skyrefuge on August 18, 2014 at 9:30am

In an odd coincidence, I just dug up a 26-year-old Reader article about the bicycle ban through "The Ravine" on Sheridan Rd. in Winnetka (after, uh, someone I know may have inadvertently traversed the ravine yesterday because they didn't notice the "no bicycles" signs until they had already descended).

I was curious to see what the historical rationale for the ban was, it was freaky to see how similar the language was 26 years ago:

"We've had bicycle safety problems there for years," says [Police Chief] Timm. "Most of the cyclists are professionals who ride in rather large numbers. There are concerns because they violate stop signs and stoplights and ride several abreast, which impedes traffic. And they are often rude when motorists make mention of the fact that they are blocking the roadway."

So again my takeaway is this: cyclists, please stop being dicks. Ride single-file and don't blow through stop signs. There is no need to give these communities additional ammunition (however illogical) to ban us "for our safety". Sometimes a little appeasement is the better part of valor. After all, a whole generation of cyclists has been banned from riding a unique and beautiful stretch of road. It would be even worse for the next generation to lose Barrington Hills.

It was also interesting to read in the article about the early days and efforts of the Active Transportation Alliance (nee Chicagoland Bicycle Federation). While they have grown so much and cycling has become much more embedded in Chicagoland over that 26-year period, this bicycle ban, their prime issue in 1988, still remains in effect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tricolor on August 18, 2014 at 10:01am

That ravine has at lest two signs each direction; I've ridden around it a number of times.  If you make the mistake once it's hard to make it twice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jordan M S on August 18, 2014 at 4:57pm

Apparently this ruling is "infamous," but I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Reading a bit on Boub v. T of W, all I can say is wow...



George Schick said:

Surprisingly, there is on factor that has yet to come up for discussion, either in this thread or the one on the same subject, several weeks ago: the potential impact that the 1998 ILL. Supreme Court ruling has in the Boub v. Township of Wayne.  For those not familiar, it's easy to look it up on the Web and find all of the details, but it essentially involved a lawsuit on behalf of a seriously injured cyclist who was traveling along St. Charles Road in Wayne Township (Du Page County) when his front wheel got stuck in a gap between the exposed planks of a bridge deck (from which the township workers had removed the deck surface for repaving), throwing him from the bike.  The suit basically pointed at the township for not providing barricades or warning signs, leading to the injury.  The court ruling was that the township was not required to provide such warning because ONLY cyclists would have been affected by the exposed gaps.  In the higher court's decision it used the language that bicyclists are "… [the] 'permitted' but not 'intended' users of public thoroughfares …"  And therein lies the rub.

Illinois cycling lobbies have tried for years to get legislation passed that mitigates this decision, without success.  But (legal experts please check in here with help) it seems to me like this ruling leaves it wide open for local municipalities to do just about anything they desire, including close stretches of streets or roads to bikers, such as the case in Winnetka (though that action preceded Boub v. Wayne).  Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on August 19, 2014 at 4:32am

Yes, it is infamous at this point, and it's screwed a lot of cyclists out of getting any settlement in a crash caused by road conditions that did not happen on designated bike routes - including me. I had a bad crash in 2000 caused by conditions of which the municipality had many warnings prior to the crash - but it wasn't on a bike route -> no compensation for my medical bills (including surgery), property damage or pain and suffering.  

Jordan Schlife said:

Apparently this ruling is "infamous," but I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Reading a bit on Boub v. T of W, all I can say is wow...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eli on August 19, 2014 at 4:51am

I've often wondered about the relation of sharrows to the Boub ruling. It's often stated here that sharrows have no legal force. But I wonder if the presence of sharrows would indicate a bike route and therefore that cyclists were intended users.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tominator on August 20, 2014 at 4:37am

Ok, you had me until the quote below. Yes, everything you say up to this point is correct.

And, most importantly, in theory at least, Boub creates a disincentive for city's to put in bike lanes. But for the most part, I don't think it's worked out that way. Most towns are still putting in bike lanes.

It does not allow for towns to ban bikes altogether in places since they already had the ability to do that. Boub doesn't change anything in that regard. Boub merely says if you are injured on a defect in the road, you are likely not going to be able to sue a municipality for that defect. If it was done by a private contractor or someone else (not a public entity) you can sue.

Boub only determines whether a public entity "owes you a duty" to keep the road reasonably safe when you sue them for neligence. The logic of the decision is that it would be incredibly expensive for towns to have to fix all defects that could only cause trouble for bicycles -- say a crack that's only 1.25 inches wide. That's hardly unsafe but it could cause a bicyclist on a road bike to crash. That's what happened in Boub and the court said it would be just too expensive to require all public entities to fix defects that can only harm bicyclists.

George Schick said:

 But (legal experts please check in here with help) it seems to me like this ruling leaves it wide open for local municipalities to do just about anything they desire, including close stretches of streets or roads to bikers, such as the case in Winnetka (though that action preceded Boub v. Wayne).  Hopefully, I'm wrong about that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tominator on August 20, 2014 at 4:37am

Yes they would indicate bike route and therefore an intended user of the roadway.

Eli said:

I've often wondered about the relation of sharrows to the Boub ruling. It's often stated here that sharrows have no legal force. But I wonder if the presence of sharrows would indicate a bike route and therefore that cyclists were intended users.

• ▶ Reply