chicago bike ordinance(s)

Ron Wallenfang wrote:
On Mar 5, 8:27?pm, Bob wrote:
I figured I'd post this before someone else does and rips into Gomberg
as being "anti-cyclist", something he is most definitely not.
The cyclist related complaints herein are specifically aimed at those
Loop bike messengers that ride like the rules of the road don't apply
to them because they are "just trying to make a living in a tough
occupation" to which I'd simply reply, "And cabbies aren't?"

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...030508.article

Regards,
Bob

Punishing bike riders who genuinely threaten harm to fellow riders or
to pedestrians is fine, but that should be the standard. When it
comes to crossing against a red light when no traffic is in sight, or
going up on the sidewalk in selected situations, I have trouble seeing
how bikers should be treated any worse than pedestrians. We aren't
often a threat to the public safety. That's the trouble with
proposing strict enforcement of traffic laws.

I thought the state supreme court already rules that roads weren't made for
bikes... therefore we should be treated like pedestrians...

I dislike the red light rules as I admit I'll often slow down, and cross if
the intersection is empty... one must always yield to traffic though as
it's bigger than us...

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

On 2008-03-07, Chicago Paddling-Fishing wrote:

I thought the state supreme court already rules that roads weren't made for
bikes... therefore we should be treated like pedestrians...

No, what they ruled is that bikes were "permitted but not intended" users
for the purposes of the Tort Immunity Act, which has no bearing on the rules
of the road (thankfully).

I dislike the red light rules as I admit I'll often slow down, and cross if
the intersection is empty... one must always yield to traffic though as
it's bigger than us...

Or pedestrians, as they're more vulnerable than we are.

--

Kristian Zoerhoff

On Mar 6, 11:35*am, wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:03 am, Bob wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:10 am, wrote:

I don't know how it is in Chicago but in my city the messenger look-
alike-contest-winner to actual messenger ratio is about 10-to-1. So it
seems likely that many of the people who are observed to be breaking
laws and assumed to be messengers by city council members and other
residents are not in fact messengers.

There are a lot of non-messenger riders in your city that ride around
your city center for 6 to 10 hours every weekday while hauling a brick
of a two way radio and an overstuffed bag on their back? Weird.

There are a lot of people wearing messenger bags and dressed in a way
that many associate with messengers and riding bikes that many
associate with messengers. Far more people out there like this than
actual messengers. It's a strange cultural phenomenon that seems to
have snuck up on a lot of people, yourself included. There is no doubt
that the majority of people assume these riders are messengers when
they see them. They do such a good job of looking the part that one
would have to be a messenger to know they aren't.

BTW, messengers haven't carried bulky radios for about 7-10 years.
Nextel phones. And yes, 'posengers' are known to attach their cell
phones to the strap of their messenger bag. At last year's VeloSwap I
noticed several junior high age kids walking around like that.

The modern version of the messenger industry has been around for
several decades. It has been sustained because the messengers on the
street figured out how to perform their jobs in a reasonably safe
fashion. There are now far fewer working messengers on the streets of
Chicago or any big city than there were 15 years ago. And yet, the
number of people out there who look like messengers has multiplied
exponentially in the past 5 years, and complaints against 'messengers'
have gone up. Let's connect the dots here please.

Detached from vehicular laws? That's not "simple", its merely simple
rationalization. Lots of tasks would be easier for the person
performing them if they could disregard the rules with impunity. For
instance, my own job would be a lot easier if I wasn't required to
allow suspects access to lawyers. Would you defend me if I refused a
suspect that right or held them for weeks on end without taking them
before a judge? You are confusing necessity and convenience.

No, you are confusing the two.

Would you get fired for performing in a strictly lawful fashion, after
being viciously lambasted by company managers and dispatchers? I
didn't think so. But that is what messengers have to deal with.

The idea that messengers break laws to line their pockets, for the
sake of personal convenience is competely ridiculous, although common.
Many messengers are working on a fixed hourly or daily rate and would
like to do as few runs as possible as slowly as possible. Realize that
many messengers' idea of convenience would be to ride ultra-
conservative and according to the law. But that is not what they are
hired to do.

Are messengers responsible for the existence of the industry? No, but
are they responsible for the way they ride? Yes. To say otherwise is
to say that "I was only following orders" and "Everyone does it" are
acceptable excuses for an individual's actions and *that* would be
bizarre.

There's a disconnect there, Bob. The industry is based on breaking the
law. That is not an exaggerration. Any messenger who refused to break
the law would not be able to perform his/her required tasks and would
be replaced.

Now that does not mean the messengers aren't ultimately responsible
for their actions. Of course they are. They could choose another job
for instance. More importantly, they are responsible for their own
safety. Nobody understands that more than a veteran messenger. If they
hurt someone while breaking the law, the company will essentially
disown them. Nobody will come to their rescue. And if they get hurt
because of someone else's mistake, they will probably get blamed
anyway.

The freedom granted to messengers comes with serious responsibilities
and consequences. The messengers understand that very well, but the
lookalikes have a lot to learn.

Robert

Robert-
Yours was a very long post so I won't quote it in it's entirety but
I'd like to correct one thing you say and comment on another.
First, the correction. You wrote: "There are a lot of people wearing
messenger bags and dressed in a way that many associate with
messengers and riding bikes that many associate with messengers. Far
more people out there like this than actual messengers. It's a strange
cultural phenomenon that seems to have snuck up on a lot of people,
yourself included."
Sorry but I'm not buying your implication that the bikers I see in the
Loop at 9:00 am then 10:00am then 11:00 am and yet again at 2:00 pm
and 4:00 pm with overstuffed messenger bags and those brick radios I
mentioned (yes, Nextel and other PTT phones are replacing them but the
bricks aren't extinct here yet) that I see shuttling in and out of
office buildings all day long are "posengers".
As for the other, you wrote:
"There's a disconnect there, Bob. The industry is based on breaking
the law. That is not an exaggerration. Any messenger who refused to
break the law would not be able to perform his/her required tasks and
would be replaced."
That isn't a defense of messengers but a condemnation of both them and
the industry that employs them because what you wrote is a textbook
definition of organized crime. No, I don't think messenger services
are equivalent to the Mafia nor do I equate messengers with Outfit
hitmen. I do however think that if an industry is based on breaking
the law as you say that industry should not be allowed to exist and
it's employees forced to find other work.

Regards,
Bob Hunt