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
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: 7723
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on
-
Yeah and no drivers are dicks to other drivers or cyclists.
How many pedestrians are hit and killed by bikes?
I'm for properly planned bike lanes and not endangering innocent children and old ladies with canes. All the bike lanes I see are on the right, Dearborn is one way but the protected bike lane is on the left then just ends, you're a cyclist in the left lane, now what?
Slower traffic stays to the right.
Mr. Ray Joe Hall said:Actually, you're more reactionary than Kass. As someone earlier wrote, not many tickets are going to result from this law, least of all to cyclists who look both ways at a red light before proceeding through and who roll through a stop sign while respecting someone else's right of way
They're right. This ordinance is lip service - needed lip service - in order to continue to the implementation of new bike infrastructure and Divvy. And if you think bike lanes and bikeshare are "handholding," sorry. But there are no iconoclasts in protected bike lanes.
The core of the "scofflaw cyclist" is not reckless endangerment of oneself, requiring protection by some nanny-mayor to keep you from killing yourself. It's the selfish, dickish rudeness of those who ride through stop signs like Mr. Magoo at the expense of people in all directions - other cyclists, people in the cross walk, and drivers who are waiting their turn -that makes it very hard for the people doling out the cash for the bike lanes and bike share to quiet the critics: http://commuterage.com/2012/03/stop-bike-on-bike-crime/
Mike Zumwalt said:I read the bill and it's an understated way of saying we're cracking down on you dangerous cyclists.
A red light ticket in a vehicle is $100 if we're traffic and supposed to obey the laws then give us a ticket that is already in place why make a new set of rules for cyclists? Are we profiling cyclists now?
Or he's doing to it to protect us from ourselves from the dangers we already know of? Please hold my hand as I try to make it in this big bad dangerous city.
Mr. Ray Joe Hall said:I don't know who is more anal and reactionary: John Kass and Mark Konkot or the people who act as though stating a desire for cyclists to stop riding like assholes and yield to people who have the right of way is akin to demanding bikes come to a complete stop at signs or wait at empty red lights.
READ THE BILL. It says nothing of the sort.
-
Permalink Reply by Mr. Ray Joe Hall on
-
>>>How many pedestrians are hit and killed by bikes?
Not very many, which is why this is a political tactic to get lanes and bike share stations installed with as little obstructionism as possible. People are rude dicks: whether on bikes, behind the wheel, or stopping on a Michigan Avenue sidewalk to gape at the Burberry store.
But drivers aren't getting a whole shitload of game-changing new infrastructure, are they? And drivers are still getting about 99% of the traffic tickets written by CPD, aren't they?
Yes, I realize the "war on cars" is total knee-jerk crap, with all of the casualties being generated by one side, but if you like the bike lanes and bike share stations, those cost a lot of capital, and not just cash.
All of you are getting so worked up over nothing. There are zero new laws in this ordinance. None. It's just increased fines, to quiet the critics and serve notice to stop riding like a rude dickhead. that's all. If you "stoption" an empty intersection or red light, that's not going to result in a ticket. God knows every single CPD bike cop rides like that, and much, MUCH worse.
>>>the protected bike lane is on the left then just ends, you're a cyclist in the left lane, now what?
Talk about handholding! My mother could navigate that easily with a box turn to a standard left turn to get to the right lane, and then take Hubbard to State, where it's much safer than riding in the existing Dearborn lane that also runs along the left side of the street.
[crying] "But it's so inconvenient!"
Well, guess what? That's life. For the last 90 years, Robert Moses-"progressivism" meant getting RID of bikes, transit, and walkable streets. It's going to take almost as long to undo it, with a lot of compromise along the way.
Just be glad there's not a helmet law in the ordinance: http://twitpic.com/cqch3x
Mike Zumwalt said:Yeah and no drivers are dicks to other drivers or cyclists.
How many pedestrians are hit and killed by bikes?
I'm for properly planned bike lanes and not endangering innocent children and old ladies with canes. All the bike lanes I see are on the right, Dearborn is one way but the protected bike lane is on the left then just ends, you're a cyclist in the left lane, now what?
Slower traffic stays to the right.
Mr. Ray Joe Hall said:Actually, you're more reactionary than Kass. As someone earlier wrote, not many tickets are going to result from this law, least of all to cyclists who look both ways at a red light before proceeding through and who roll through a stop sign while respecting someone else's right of way
They're right. This ordinance is lip service - needed lip service - in order to continue to the implementation of new bike infrastructure and Divvy. And if you think bike lanes and bikeshare are "handholding," sorry. But there are no iconoclasts in protected bike lanes.
The core of the "scofflaw cyclist" is not reckless endangerment of oneself, requiring protection by some nanny-mayor to keep you from killing yourself. It's the selfish, dickish rudeness of those who ride through stop signs like Mr. Magoo at the expense of people in all directions - other cyclists, people in the cross walk, and drivers who are waiting their turn -that makes it very hard for the people doling out the cash for the bike lanes and bike share to quiet the critics: http://commuterage.com/2012/03/stop-bike-on-bike-crime/
Mike Zumwalt said:I read the bill and it's an understated way of saying we're cracking down on you dangerous cyclists.
A red light ticket in a vehicle is $100 if we're traffic and supposed to obey the laws then give us a ticket that is already in place why make a new set of rules for cyclists? Are we profiling cyclists now?
Or he's doing to it to protect us from ourselves from the dangers we already know of? Please hold my hand as I try to make it in this big bad dangerous city.
Mr. Ray Joe Hall said:I don't know who is more anal and reactionary: John Kass and Mark Konkot or the people who act as though stating a desire for cyclists to stop riding like assholes and yield to people who have the right of way is akin to demanding bikes come to a complete stop at signs or wait at empty red lights.
READ THE BILL. It says nothing of the sort.
-
Permalink Reply by E A on
-
Will the education extend to the Chicago Police and will the fines be enforced, especially against dooring? I nearly got doored by an officer exiting his Chicago Police SUV - opening the door without LOOKing first. Happened on Clark St. last Friday evening.
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
I would *love* that.
I've met officers at both extremes - from very kind and helpful to hostile and dangerous.
I've also heard from officers who are on our side about their frustrations with judges who dismissed tickets even when it was a legit charge against a driver or cyclist who did something that was hazardous to others. The changes in penalties that are currently being contemplated are meaningless if CPD officers are among the offenders and penalties are rarely enforced.
E A said:Will the education extend to the Chicago Police and will the fines be enforced, especially against dooring? I nearly got doored by an officer exiting his Chicago Police SUV - opening the door without LOOKing first. Happened on Clark St. last Friday evening.
-
Permalink Reply by David Barish on
-
This highlights how difficult the fight against dooring will be. If the enforcers need to be enforced where do we go with regular citizens?
I have a real problem with adult drivers who do not look. I think we need to remind, whine, advertise and continue to get the message out. This will require cooperation from the authorities and the powers that be. Its going to be a while before it becomes normal. How many of us had parents or grandparents who simply refused to wear a seatbelt because they didn't like the feel or didn't like being told what to do. After many years seatbelts have become normal. This needs to happen with checking for bikes before opening a door.
Further, dooring is a very tough one because the driver is not the only person involved. A parent parks a car on Clark and a kid doesn't look before opening the door. A grandparent is sitting in the car and can't see the lane or doesn't look and... Lets say the parent has been vigilant and keeps telling everybody, "get out on the curb side. don't open the door on [mommy's or daddy's] side. That parent parks on Church street in Evanston and the good kid opens the door on the passenger side right where the bike lane passes and...
This is why regardless of the cruelty, stupidity, oblivion etc of a person in a car, the cyclist needs to do everything possible to increase their odds by being aware of who is in parked vehicles and making educated guesses as to who may be about to exit one. Cyclists need to pay attention to where they are in the bike lane or whatever lane to give themselves an opportunity to evade the door. Of course, we all know this stuff. My attitude is that before an accident happens or never happens its all on me. Its my responsibility to avoid being doored (without drifting further into the lane and getting a ghost bike). If an accident happens I will want to make sure the doofus who opened the door is made responsible.
E A said:Will the education extend to the Chicago Police and will the fines be enforced, especially against dooring? I nearly got doored by an officer exiting his Chicago Police SUV - opening the door without LOOKing first. Happened on Clark St. last Friday evening.
-
-
-
Permalink Reply by John C. Wilson on
-
Anyone needing an introduction to statistics should spend a minute looking up the definition of "incapacitating injury". Since the official DOT and FARS definitions are clear as mud you might take a look at how different jurisdictions report incapacitating injuries. Ilinois reports at the high end.
For that matter "fatality" is a term of art when it comes to traffic stats and what you think it means is probably different than what the stats mean.
Original post says there were 1675 bicycle crashes in Chicago last year. Doesn't sound right to me at all. Less than 5 crashes a day in the City of Chicago is real low. I'd guess it means something like "crashes where the CPD got involved and filed a report after getting involved and someone somewhere noted in a register there was a police report involving a bicycle crash". If you know more precisely what it means you could tell us all.
Worst accident I've had in 54 years of riding would count as an incapacitating injury on some scales. I was not able to leave the scene of the accident under my own power and that by itself could be enough to trigger the report. A laceration that needed 40 stitches to close might be reported as severe lacerations and it might be a mere flesh wound. But as best as I can read the FARS coding manual that was an incapacitating injury. After getting stitched up I took a cab to the California Highway Patrol office to pick up my bike and rode home 12 miles. Which included an 800 foot climb and a fun little descent. The doc who stitched me said all this was not only OK but would speed healing. I can't always find the scar. Statistics are what they are.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Here's the classic on the subject, originally published in 1954. I had a stats class in college that dedicated several chapters to this book/the concept:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
-
-
The discussion here has been noticed elsewhere. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/05/bikers-dont-deserv...
-
-
Yep, I noticed that. I hope that any enforcement efforts are fair and proportional to the seriousness of the offense.
David Barish said:The discussion here has been noticed elsewhere. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2013/05/bikers-dont-deserv...
-
-
I don't disagree, I was just noting that debate over the interpretation/definition of statistics is quite old and well-established, and that might contribute to why such obvious connections still don't register with the larger public. If people are convinced there is some "anti car" bike lobby, maybe they make the leap of logic to assume that stats showing bike accidents have been juked.
Chi Lowe 12.5+ mi said:Surely the data does not include the dozens of accidents a day that don't result in a report, surely "incapacitating", like all definitions, had to be decided at some point, and surely it's arguable whether the definition of "incapacitating" in the context of a specific body of data means "incapacitating", as subjectively defined by some consumers of that body of data.
I don't know why we're even discussing these things. They don't make the compiled data less factual or relevant, or less instructive as to why we need good gear, good infrastructure and good laws and yes, good personal habits. I've never advocated for riding like a jerk.
No one should disagree that car + bike = bad, and no one should argue that bike + ped = car + bike. From a physics perspective, the first is always true, and the second is never true. People seem to be arguing them anyway. There are also folks who suggested that stating this minimizes the bike + ped risk, despite the fact that there is good data that demonstrates that (from a statistical perspective) bikes don't kill people. Maybe since folks have invoked the edge cases where cyclists have killed people, it's useful to point out that (statistically) they don't, even without accounting for (or calling attention to) all the unreported bike + ped accidents that don't injure to anyone.
I'm baffled, partly because I assume the folks that I've discussed this stuff with on The Chainlink are cyclists. To me, overstating the bike + ped risk makes as little sense as understating the car + bike risk. Both positions are detrimental to cycling advocacy. In the city, pedestrians already have monumental infrastructure to protect them from both bikes and cars. They're called sidewalks and crosswalks.
Drivers (for the most part) respect that infrastructure. Cars don't ride on sidewalks during rush hour when the road is blocked the way they do in bike lanes. Cars don't park on the sidewalks the way they do in bike lanes. They don't race past six inches away, honk their horns at people on the sidewalk, ride up on the sidewalk and bump them, open car doors into them, or yell obscenities at them. None of these things happen to peds because they have infrastructure.
One or more of them eventually happen to every cyclist I've ever known who rides regularly, even if they are obeying the law. Everyone who rides regularly (or knows someone who does) knows there are risks. Some of them can be mitigated. Some of them cannot. Most of us endeavor to be, but cannot be, 100% vigilant every second that we ride a bike. Most of us endeavor to, but cannot, protect ourselves from every collision situation.
ITT I've advocated for a handful things: (a) gigantic, brutal penalties for dooring - fines so high that even folks with wealth and power will look twice before exiting a vehicle, (b) an Idaho stop, to make the law make sense in light of bicycle physics, and (c) more infrastructure, to keep cars away from bikes.
It's stunning to me that there is disagreement on any of it. But hey, INTERNETS.
Carter O'Brien said:
Here's the classic on the subject, originally published in 1954. I had a stats class in college that dedicated several chapters to this book/the concept:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728
-
-
btw, germane to this discussion is the fact that this morning I almost got forced into the path of a car - by another cyclist.
I was already dealing with the leap-frogging Belmont traffic (curse you, "rush hour parking controls") after heading east and passing Sacramento, and this cyclist headed north at Albany decided it would be easiest to simply enter my already-pitiful space to go the wrong way on Belmont heading west. Fortunately I was so startled at his stupidity that I didn't budge from my path and instead we just narrowly missed colliding with each other, because had I swerved to avoid him I'd likely be writing this from a hospital bed.
And this actually brings me to another missing data set here - contrary to a few opinions expressed earlier, cyclists most definitely can "win" in an accident involving a car, and that happens when a car avoiding an illegally traveling cyclist ends up striking not the cyclist, but instead hits another car and/or a pedestrian.
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
