Husband, wife sue "reckless" Dearborn bike lane cyclist

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicago/7/71/663892/husband-wife-s...

Views: 3620

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MFrank on June 12, 2015 at 10:29am
Permalink Reply by Eli on June 12, 2015 at 10:47am

I know the Sun-Times is the Sun-Times, but it's still a little surprising that they would baldly assert, without any qualification, that the cyclist is responsible before the trial has even begun. I would have thought they'd be opening themselves up to defamation liability by doing that.

Permalink Reply by Not too hip on June 12, 2015 at 4:34pm

I think that we all need to think like drivers and pedestrians. Dearborn appears to be one way north so nobody is expecting southbound traffic. I have made the mistake, as a pedestrian, myself. All cyclists need to be cautious southbound on Dearborn and be on extra alert.Think of what the car drivers and pedestrians are thinking.

Permalink Reply by V W on June 12, 2015 at 4:35pm
First, I use the Dearborn bike lane almost every day, and I think it's fine. I just ride it slower, but I always feel like I see every person that might step into the lane, even when they don't see me. I disagree that it's unride-able as some have deemed it in this thread.

Second, I'm not sure why the lane position is relevant, I've often taken the opposite lane (very briefly) when appropriate (no other bikers around) in order to give a wide berth to the odd pedestrian who is drifting into the bike lane to wait for "real traffic" to stop. For all we know the cyclist in this case could've had the green light and swerved to avoid a pedestrian not paying attention who then proceeded to get hit while the biker was technically in the wrong lane. I don't think the question of which bike lane he was in would necessarily in and of itself be determinative of whether the biker was at fault.

If he had the right of way she shouldn't have been hopping out into the street at all, no matter what lane she was in. If she was standing in the street and he had time to avoid her, then yeah he shouldn't have been buzzing her too close to leave a margin for error.
Permalink Reply by Not too hip on June 12, 2015 at 4:54pm

I think that I agree with you. Your last paragraph confused my thinking.

Permalink Reply by V W on June 12, 2015 at 4:58pm
Sorry if I wasn't being clear, my point being that there's a lot of factors to weigh to determine who was at fault, the article mentions that they claim he was in the bike lane but in the wrong bike lane, I'm saying that shouldn't be a dispositive factor, if a factor at all.

Maybe the "he/she" was confusing? By he I mean the biker and by she I mean the pedestrian.
Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on June 16, 2015 at 10:55am
This is true for crosswalks that don't have stop signs or lights. They don't have the right of way to go against signals or to occupy lanes meant for other purposes. If that's true cyclists could legally ride in all lanes obstructing traffic. I'm riding on the sidewalks and lets see how mad people get.
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on June 13, 2015 at 1:49pm

Makes perfect sense to me. I consider Dearborn quite rideable most of the time. It just requires caution and slower speeds. Visibility is quite good in most locations, which makes most potential crashes avoidable if one rides at an appropriate speed for the amount of traffic in and around the bike lane.

Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on June 16, 2015 at 5:36am

Yes exactly!

Realistic expectations are huge here. If one expects to be able to speed through the loop by any means (bike, taxi, train etc) one is bound to be disappointed. 

Permalink Reply by Mike Schwab on June 15, 2015 at 5:02am

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050...

11-1002

Part (a): Drivers have to yield to pedestrians IN A CROSSWALK (Marked or at an intersection).

Part (b): Pedestrians can't step in front of vehicles IF THEY CAN'T STOP IN TIME.

Part (d): Other vehicles CAN'T PASS vehicles stopped at crosswalks.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050...

11-1002.5

Requires vehicles to yield at crosswalks and school zones.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050...

11-1003

Pedestrians must yield when crossing between intersections without a marked crosswalk.

---

So, still need enough info to decide between 11-1003 / 11-1002a / 11-1002b.

Permalink Reply by Will on June 16, 2015 at 5:50am

I saw a vehicle pass another vehicle stopped at the crosswalk for pedestrians in Oak Park the other day (westbound near Lake and Harlem), only to get to the red light at Harlem. Thankfully, the pedestrians were not in the passing vehicle's path. Ridiculous!

Permalink Reply by Filka Bean on June 18, 2015 at 4:13pm

OK, for the record: I never bike Dearborn in either direction because I just don't have the patience for it.  But isn't there a place in the complete streets schema for riders who want to feel like they're living dangerously and getting the full urban biking experience while also moving at a glacially slow, snail's pace?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service