- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Removed by mod
Alave filed suit later that year, arguing that the city meant for bicycles to be rented and operated in the area and city officials therefore had the duty to exercise reasonable care for intended road users, as required by state law.
The city isn’t trying to avoid building reasonable infrastructure, here, they’re trying to avoid liability for cyclists hitting potholes.
Their argument seems to be that unless a road is included on the official bike plan, it shouldn’t count as one intended for biking on for the purpose of legal liability, regardless of if there’s a nearby city-operated bike rental.
Honestly, unless the ruling were that “the city is liable for bike injuries anywhere in it”, holding the city liable here might produce perverse incentives to make bike infrastructure worse.
Depressing article. Freshly reinforced legal deterrent for anyone who might suggest that bicyclists are actually intended to use the roads. Can’t say that or you might be liable.
No fucking kidding. All legal arguments protecting cyclists on Chicago streets now get dismissed with a simple “well, you shouldn’t have been there.”
Lived in Chicago. The drivers there are fucking savages.
Uber driver side swiped me today on Rush St during my ride home from work.
=(
I also hope you’re alright and am sorry you experienced that.
Hope you’re OK!
What a shithole.
Chicagoan here: ride around in the Loop everyday. This is shitty to see and i can understand the City needing to defend itself against people crashing into pot holes for a paycheck.
Wish the language was different. This language disempowers the thousands of people who ride on Chicago streets.
Chicago needs to understand that they are defending against the very things that could help them thrive as a city. It really doesn’t take much to start looking like Detroit.
Of course when you have blatant liars representing your case in court and you’re selling off the rights to public parking to a bank and foreign financiers, I guess you have a lot more to be concerned about than potholes.
You have to be pretty dumb to drive your bike into a huge and obvious pothole. At what point is a person responsible for their own safety?
You have to be pretty narrow minded and inexperienced to not be capable of imagining a situation where a massive pothole is unavoidable.
On a regular bike, sure. On a Divvy bike though? You’re simply not going fast enough. Far more likely it was driver ineptitude.
At the point when the government is making a reasonable effort towards your safety too. Drivers are responsible for their safety and cars have safety regulations. These are complementary, not contradictory. Without safety regulations, “drivers are responsible for their own safety” rings hollow.
At the same time one should not attempt to rent a bike if you are too inept of a rider to avoid common obstacles like curbs, sewer grates, or potholes. I rode a bike for a long time. You should not go faster than your ability to recognize and avoid stationary obstacles. That is a minimum responsibility of a bike rider I would say.
If the road in front of me appears unobstructed, I should be able to check my blind spot without falling in a ditch.
Imagine if the freeway had features in the middle of the lanes that could total your car. People would lose their minds if it wasn’t fixed.
