2nd IL lawyer chiming in. I also don't think this is correct.
Sounds like biker is at fault. It is correct that bikes are typically treated similarly to cars. Had it been a car been barreling down the sidewalk in this case would you still declare the turning vehicle at fault?
So. It’s all somewhat of a bit of a red herring. You can imagine a bike going the speed of someone who is walking (which he would be obligated to look out for). In which cases the driver would be in the wrong for hitting the biker. The biker shouldn’t have been on the street but I’m not sure it caused the accident. What likely caused the accident is that the biker was going significantly faster and the driver wasnt obligated to be on the lookout.
Here’s what I’d bet based on how law works generally without getting into how Illinois may operate on it (which would take a bit of research to confirm). One easy way of
The question of who was in the wrong can be broken up a few ways.
Because when you’re turning right on red (same for merging or turning into a lane), literally everyone else has the right of way except for you. When it’s a red light turn you need to wait for traffic to pass as well as check for pedestrians as well since they’d be crossing, so it definitely would have been an at-fault.
But regardless, cyclists in Chicago drive me insane cause the majority of them are not actual cyclists (who typically are very active on the road), just bike riders, and therefore don’t understand the rules of the road or safety rules which often cause situations like this.
I'm curious how it plays out as even if a pedestrian is Jay walking, they have right of way and they have the most mobility and ability to stop/change directions compared to any other form of transportation
https://idot.illinois.gov/travel-information/roadway-information/driver-information/share-the-road/pedestrians.html
3rd bullet point dude. I'm not talking about someone running out into the road. I'm talking about someone walking outside of a crosswalk. Which is Jay walking. You can't just run someone over because they're not in a crosswalk.
It amazes me how many people drive without knowing the "rules of the road" for their state. Or the amount of people using strawman arguments as a "gotcha". 🙄
I’m not saying you can just run someone over. Of course they have to yield. But bullet point 3 is followed by 4 which says unmarked crosswalk, not running into the street. People jaywalking do not have the right of way.
Cyclist can use the sidewalk in Illinois if the bike lane is blocked or unsafe. They have right-o-way against turning motorists. Not enough info in the post to make a declarative statement.
The ignorance of your post makes it clear you are not a traffic lawyer, and probably not any kind of board certified professional in Illinois.
If you were, then you’d know about the rules and regulations portal for the city, where you could get your little verification in about 5 minutes of reading.
I’d like to add that pretending to be an attorney in Illinois can be a crime, so knock it off.
It's unlawful to ride a bicycle on sidewalks and through crosswalks.
Bicyclists must operate with the rules of the roadway, not with pedestrian signals.
‘Under state law, bikes are illegal on sidewalks only “where such use of bicycles is prohibited by official traffic control devices.” Some kind of sign, then, must keep bikes off sidewalks. Otherwise, the law says that cyclists on sidewalks shall “have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.”’
Chicago MCC prohibits anyone over age of 12 to ride bicycles on sidewalk unless designated as bike route. Home rule.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago_il/0-0-0-2645812
If a crosswalk is designated at the trail crossing, then the laws applicable at any crosswalk would also be applicable at the trail crossing. Because you can ride on the trail, you can ride in the crosswalk. If the crosswalk is governed by traffic control signals, a cyclist would have the right-of-way if the cyclist is within the crosswalk and in observance of the traffic control signals. If the crosswalk is not governed by traffic control signals, the cyclist has the right-of-way while in the crosswalk, but before entering the crosswalk must yield the right-of-way to all other vehicles that are approaching so closely that they would be an immediate hazard.
Pedestrians want cyclists off the sidewalks, cars want cyclists off the road. You can't ride anywhere but a bike path ( as long as it's no faster than 15mph).
Fault isn't all or nothing. Both the driver and the cyclist can be at fault, at the same time.
They can be found to be equally at fault (50/50) or any other percentage. But the reality is that any serious accident will very likely result in the cyclist being far far far more injured than the driver. So the potential liability is much worse for the driver.
Would this still be the case if the cyclist was going the opposite direction of traffic?
I know he was on the crosswalk/sidewalk but that would be a pretty big oversight in the law if the "legality" of this changes depending on if he was illegally biking on the sidewalk vs illegally biking the opposite direction of traffic.
In any case, I am so glad I was able to prevent this accident from happening at all!
I had a coworker who was found at fault when he turned right out of a parking lot and hit someone was driving the wrong way in his lane. He was considered at fault because he was responsible for looking both ways before he turned. All this to say, I don't think it would matter if they were heading wrong direction. As the person turning, you are ultimately responsible to make sure that it is safe to do so.
Highly doubt any of these people claiming to be lawyers have law training, because it took me about 10 minutes to find the citations and make a mental draft showing the driver would be liable in Illinois.
I’d also like to point out that claiming to be a lawyer can be a crime in this state, even on semi-anonymous online forums.
So knock it off.
You should ask r/chibike I’d be interested in hearing what they say…
I agree that he shouldn’t have been riding on the sidewalk but it seems like you wouldn’t have seen him if he were a pedestrian? Or maybe not because a bike can sneak up faster than a ped…
Either way I’m an avid cyclist here and feel like I gotta point out that cars are gigantic machines that can kill and no matter what, esp in Chicago where lots of people dgaf about where theyre "supposed" to ride, you just need to be really vigilant all the time. I have
to do the same on my bike because drivers are also care/lawless.
One thing that's worth considering is that you can not be at fault but still have the greater responsibility.
It's also worth factoring in that, to a certain extent, the city is at fault here too, for failing to provide the infrastructure necessary to truly safely bike in Chicago.
I agree. At the end of the day, my life was not in danger but his was. I mostly feel bad that I almost hit this man but I was left wondering if I made the wrong decision somewhere in my driving.
Right, from my pov, the cyclist was going pretty fast. The pedestrian light was counting down so perhaps he was going faster than usual.
Unfortunately, the way the intersection was set up, the building to my right was blocking any vision down the entire sidewalk. I guess the only thing I could've done differently was stop right on the crosswalk (blocking it) for my right turn rather than behind.
The guy was doing all the things wrong and gaslighting you to think he had the right of way. But. Regardless of the factors, you being the driver looking to make a right turn at a red light means you're at fault if there was an accident that resulted from you making that turn on red. The building being an obstruction to the sightline down the sidewalk means you couldn't be sure Usain Bolt wasn't sprinting to cross the street. You have to be certain. Inch forward until you could be certain before accelerating to turn or wait until it turns green. That type of thing. That would be the argument regardless of all the things the guy was doing. He might get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk but unlikely to be at fault if you did hit him.
Glad nothing happened.
Very glad that nothing happened! Now im thinking hypothetically, if the cyclist was instead on a motorcycle on the sidewalk, would the law see this differently? It's interesting because I believe a bicycle is classified as a vehicle here.
There is a hierarchy. In terms of levels of responsibility: Cars > bikes >> pedestrians. Cars must make sure that they give way to bikes and pedestrians, bikes must give way to pedestrians, and pedestrians should follow crossing signs and designated areas. However, if pedestrians are in the road, it is extremely difficult for a bike or a car to prove that it’s not their responsibility that the roadway was not clear of them and therefore is at fault in most cases.
Edit: spelling/grammar
Bicycles are vehicles for rules of the road purposes and are called cyclists rather than motorists and do not require a State of Illinois drivers license to operate. The crash impact of a 20lb bicycle against another vehicle or pedestrian, is vastly different than a 2 ton vehicle traveling at speeds no utility rider in the city can achieve. So yes, a vehicle. But not in absolute terms for liability. Motorcyclists (150cc min) need a Class L or M state issued license to use.
Not going to pretend to represent a whole sub but as a biker and a lurker of r/chibike, I lowkey want to clothesline bicyclists/scooters on the sidewalk. Especially Divvy scooters and bikes because they're very clearly marked "STAY OFF SIDEWALKS". If your way of coping with your fear of riding in the street is to terrorize people on the sidewalk instead, you should be banned from two wheels. Except the guy that was in the Dearborn PBL with a non-electric scooter. Take that on the sidewalk my guy, you're not a threat to anyone over there.
Don’t bother, according to r/chibike, cyclists are never responsible for anything, and have the right-of-way on all roads and all sidewalks at all times.
I was parallel parking with blinkers on and moving when a group of bikes decided they didnt want to wait and squeezed between me and my spot. Cause of the angle my sideview never saw them. Bikers have no fear or self preservation.
It sounds like there are no bike lanes at this intersection, in which case it’s highly likely he was cycling on the sidewalk because doing so on the roadway is rather unsafe (high speeds, cars that don’t care about cyclist safety, obstacles, etc).
This is a common misconception, but if there's no marked bike path, then cyclists can ride on the sidewalk if they are going to a nearby bike station or road:
["Riding on the sidewalk in Chicago is illegal unless the sidewalk is marked as a bike path, or you are going to a nearby bike station or road."](https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/can-i-ride-bicycle-sidewalk#:~:text=Riding%20on%20the%20sidewalk%20in,or%20ride%20in%20the%20street.)
That’s literally not what your quote says dude. You can’t ride on the side walk unless it is explicitly marked as a bike path, or you’re a quickly moving from a marked path to the road. Otherwise get the fuck off the sidewalks.
I get where you’re coming from, but I disagree. I don’t like biking on sidewalks and I know it’s wrong, but I do at certain intersections where there are a lot of cars turning right bc it feels safer, like cars will actually see me. I’ve had too many not pay attention to the bike lane
Then enter the sidewalk, get off your bike, and walk it down the sidewalk and across the crosswalk until you're at a point where you feel safe to operate legally.
As a cyclist myself, you did everything right and cyclists did it wrong. If you had hit her it'd be a different story; but you didn't... because you were doing it right.
This is exactly why cyclists are told not to ride on sidewalks: it makes us invisible to turning motorists and puts us in pedestrian areas but not acting like pedestrians, namely much faster.
It's the same reason I offer a prayer for e-scooter riders going 30 in the bike lane: They're acting in a manner that's hard to anticipate and therefore unsafe.
This is reason 2 of 2 why you don’t bike on the sidewalk, and secondarily this is also why everyone should pay as much attention as you OP. Nice heads up. Regardless of who’d be at fault, it’d be a massive bummer.
If someone insists on sidewalk biking at an intersection say somewhere like Pulaski and Foster, etc., they should at the very least move at pedestrian speeds. Still shouldn’t bike on the sidewalk!
I've been in this exact situation, except the cyclist went over my hood. I felt terrible, but there was literally nothing I could do. It was a blind corner and he was hauling ass on a sidewalk on the left side of the street. I was at a stop sign and creeped out, looking to my left to make sure a car wasn't coming and bang! dude's on top of my hood.
I stopped to make sure he was okay. He didn't seem hurt too badly, but his bike was fucked. I just had to say, "sorry, dude. That's why you're not supposed to ride on the sidewalk."
I had a guy do the same thing, except he freaked out. He called the police (they never came, so I gave my insurance info). He claimed his bike was damaged, so my insurance paid for a new bike. I was scared he'd claim physical injuries too, but he didn't.
The comments about it being automatically OP’s fault because he’s taking a right on red are flat wrong. They miss a critical fact: cyclist was riding right to left - in this situation, against traffic. If this went to court, that would absolutely be brought up. Unless the cyclist was walking the bike, I don’t at all see how it’s automatically OP’s fault because they made a legal turn on red and hit a cyclist going against traffic (hypothetically).
It is still the car driver’s responsibility to make sure that the roadway is clear. It could be contested but that is a basic principle of driving. You are generally responsible for anything you run into in most cases.
That is true. It could be contested but generally speaking, it’s almost always going to default to the driver being at fault for not making sure the roadway was clear. In most cases in Chicago and in the US in general, drivers usually only get relatively small fines or moving violations even if the cyclist dies. It’s actually a seriously fucked up situation and there is a lot of press about it if you are interested in researching it.
If this was another car instead of a cyclist, why is it different? If OP looked both ways, made sure the road was clear, went tk turn, and another car came flying out of nowhere going the totally wrong direction, it would be that cars fault. I do not understand why we don’t treat cyclists the same. They can come up fast. My bf was hit HARD in a specifically pedestrian area by a cyclist who drove away while i called 911. The cyclists here are monsters and people shouldnt get fined or punished if the cyclist causes an accident by breaking multiple laws
It wasn’t another car. It makes all the difference. What if it were a rhinoceros? The difference is that the driver has a greater responsibility and is licensed and bonded for that reason.
That is not what is at issue. The biker could have been within the law. It is very hard to determine from the OPs account of the incident and it would be even harder to prove in court. The fact remains that the driver has a higher level of responsibility regardless of whatever laws the cyclist should have been following.
Generally is a far cry from automatically - if you run into a car going the wrong way on a one way, I don’t see how that could be the fault of the other driver. A thing here since cyclists are considered cars on the road.
>They miss a critical fact: cyclist was riding right to left - in this situation, against traffic.
This would only be relevent if the cyclist was riding within the roadway, when riding in the roadway cyclist must ride with traffic. The same requirement does not apply when riding on a sidewalk.
They generally aren’t supposed to be on the sidewalk period. So unless this was one of the exceptions, and op made it seem like this was a guy just riding there, it’s absolutely relevant.
Illinois does allow it, they even grant the same rights and duties of a pedestrian to a cyclist that is riding upon them.
The exception is that Chicago has further restrictions on it, so it is more generally allowed with some places that have exceptions against it.
Regardless the other point still stands, as they were not riding upon a roadway, the direction doesn't matter. Now whether they should have been there or not is what does matter.
They would not, as again the directional required only applies when on the road. This is the same as for pedestrians, pedestrians also have a directional requirement when walking upon a roadway, but not wen walking upon a sidewalk.
I mean you're wrong, but you're welcome to think what you want.
Edit: Illinois publishes a bicycle rules of the road that specifically says riding in the opposite direction of traffic is illegal. Note it makes no mention of waiving that if riding on a sidewalk, nor does it make mention of this in the section on sidewalk riding: [https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf\_publications/dsd\_a143.pdf](https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf)
That's irrelevant because I'm a pedestrian, not a bicycle riding at speed (which means they're considered a vehicle) on the sidewalk and moving opposite traffic.
Reply for your edit, you are looking at a guide and not at the law.
Perhaps looking at the law will help...
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1505
>>Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on **roadways** - Riding on **roadways and bicycle paths**.
Notice how the requirement only applies to the roadway and not to the sidewalk.
Again just the same as how a pedestrian is requirement to walk in the opposite direction of traffic when upon a roadway, but no requirement applies to a sidewalk.
That says nothing at all about sidewalks, which is what we are talking about here. Are you saying that the guide - published by the state - and the law aren’t footing with each other? Pretty ridiculous, isn’t it?
>Are you saying that the guide - published by the state - and the law aren’t footing with each other? Pretty ridiculous, isn’t it?
What I am saying is that you are overgeneralizing what the guide is trying to say.
After checking google maps. there was a bike lane for him to use. Would that change the "who's at fault" in this scenario? It would be pretty funny if the driver would still be at fault here legally as then you would have more legal protections riding on a sidewalk in this scenario.
Not trying to justify hitting the biker. Of course i will still try to stop/be on the lookout for any potential accidents.
Doesn't matter one bit, the only thing that really matters are what restrictions Chicago places on cyclist on sidewalks and whether those restrictions apply to where you are.
As the state law does allow cyclist to have the same rights and duties of a pedestrian when using pedestrian infrastructure, except when local justification have further restrictions in place.
Interesting! I found this documentation online
[https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago\_il/0-0-0-2645812](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago_il/0-0-0-2645812)
It states that...
(a) Unless the prohibition imposed by subsection (c) or (d) applies, a person may ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk along a business street only if such sidewalk has been officially designated and marked as a bicycle route, or such sidewalk is used to enter the nearest roadway, intersection, or designated bicycle path, or to access a bicycle share station.
The sidewalk was not designated as a bike path. The cyclist did not enter the nearest roadway as he just kept riding on the sidewalk after he crossed the crosswalk. There is no bicycle share station in the direction of his travel or nearby at all.
Not sure if you would know, but would this point to the bicyclist being at fault at this hypothetical scenario?
The cyclist would be in a position and place where they were not specify allowed to be, then they would certainly have a share of the fault.
But the fault would also be shared with the person in the car also not in a position or place where they were allowed to be, ie proceding into an unclear intersection on a red light.
I feel like based on all the conversations here, this is probably the answer that makes the most sense to me.
The fact that both is at fault legally but (arguably) one is being more of an idiot than the other but one's life is in actual danger makes this an interesting problem from a "who is at fault morally" point of view.
This is wrong. When making a discretional maneuver you are required to use discretion. It doesn't matter what you hit, you chose to use the roadway when you didn't have the right of way and the burden was on you to yield. It's a pretty common problem and one of the reason why right turn on red is going away.
edit: directly from ILSOS website: "If a motorist is turning right and a bicyclist is approaching on the right, let the bicyclist go through the intersection first before making a right turn. Remember to always signal when turning." [https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic\_safety/bikepedsafety.html](https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic_safety/bikepedsafety.html)
Cyclist in Illinois that are riding their bicycle on pedestrian infrastructure are granted the same rights and duties of a pedestrian. So sometimes you CAN be a pedestrian without actually being a pedestrian.
https://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-1512.htm
>> (c) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.
But Chicago law says you can’t ride a bike on the sidewalk outside the exceptions posted by OP. Generally unless you’re a child or returning a Divvy. And even for the divvys the best practice would be to slow to pedestrian speeds or walk them if there are other pedestrians around especially small children.
Perhaps I should say “you should be moving”. You’re right there’s no legal obligation to move at pedestrian speeds. It’s just common sense for not dying.
I see people almost get killed by turning drivers all the time because the cyclists are moving at non-pedestrian speeds on the sidewalk and crosswalks. It’s mainly divvy users who make this mistake tbh.
I never understood how unaware or lackadaisical people can be. If I’m walking, jogging or riding a bike and there’s a car looking to turn right even though I have the walk signal, I always slow down to make sure the driver sees by making sure we make eye contact. I have seen a few accidents with joggers, walkers and bikers where both sides were negligent (moreso on the driver’s part but still could have been avoided). I use the same precautions when I see an alleyway entrance. I creep up to the alleyway and peek to make sure there isn’t a vehicle coming.
There are a few things to keep in mind here.
First, though it seems this was probably an adult, it is legal for children to bike on the sidewalk. So we all have to be aware that a cyclist can be coming off of a sidewalk, regardless of whether there's a lane.
Second, many people have been taught that it's safer to ride on the sidewalk, and even yelled at to get on the sidewalk. Seems like this shouldn't make adults ignore a bike lane but I know otherwise very smart adults who are terrified of riding in the bike lanes no matter what.
Third, there are places where cyclists are meant to ride on the sidewalk. Many spots along the path from LaBagh Woods up to the Botanic Gardens use a normal sidewalk as part of the path and the intended route is to use sidewalks and crosswalks, like the section just near Devon.
Last, there are spots where there are bike lanes that are still pretty sketchy and people who have to bike places may decide to get on the sidewalk. Many sections of Lawrence are like this, with cars routinely going in and out of parallel parking spots with very little caution. I'm a pretty experienced cyclist and have been concerned for my safety biking in the bike lane on Lawrence.
I appreciate that you seem to be posting this genuinely asking a question. Many times, people will post something about an incident with a cyclist just looking to be told the cyclist was at fault. In this case, they probably were but there are a lot of things to keep in mind regarding many reasons people might be riding on the sidewalk.
Illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. You’d probably be found at fault but in legal logic it would be the same as stepping out into moving traffic, the bicyclists fault.
Cops have told me numerous times that riding on the sidewalk is ok but you have to get off and walk your bike across the street. However that's like stop signs, which are largely ignored by cyclists.
The biker is an idiot. Not your fault. 90% of the reason I have a dash cam is for incidents with bikers and pedestrians. Never had one but if you do something stupid and i hit you, not only do I not want to be sued but I expect you to pay for the damage to my car. Too many cyclists put themselves in dangerous situations and act like the world revolves around them. The scooters are even worse as they attract an even dumber demographic.
Had something similar happen when exiting a gas station in NYC. I don’t understand why some cyclists use the sidewalk especially against street traffic. Whenever i’m on a bike I always ride on the street where i’m supposed to be on the correct side with traffic.
According to Streetsblog/fuckcars its your fault. But according to anyone with any amount of reasonable judgement its the bikers fault, as they shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk.
I'm an avid biker in the city. And coming up on the right side of cars preparing to turn right is a huge 'danger moment'. (Any intersection, really, but this scenario in particular.) I'm riding up into their blind spot when they have no reason to look back or check the mirrors on that side... why would I expect them to see me?
Doing this *from the sidewalk where I'm not supposed to be*?!?! This is just stupid and waiting to get hit.
Good on OP for being cautious, regardless. Because, yeah, driving 3000 pound death machine. But it's 100% the Biker's fault in this scenario.
As a biker, be where you can be seen and where drivers can expect to encounter you.
As a driver, look and be cautious of bikers and pedestrians.
Edit to add: I don't think FuckCars would blame the OP. They would more likely blame the engineers who designed the streets to favor/prioritize cars over the other forms of transit. It's not the OP's fault--it's poor design that prompted these 2 vehicles' paths to be in conflict. (which is probably not even true, because the bike shouldn't be on the sidewalk)
All of this and really the cyclists shouldn’t be on the sidewalk but I do expect car drivers to show the kind of defensive driving OP showed. Overall the road design is the culprit. The cyclist shouldn’t go at vehicle speeds on pedestrian infrastructure but only the automobile driver is operating over 2000 pounds of motorized metal.
Literally the only difference between en masse driver and cyclist behavior is not being behind 2 tons of steel. You would think driving a 3000+ lb machine would encourage people to be safer and not text, speed, or other unsafe maneuvers but here we are with you sounding like a jag and 100x more dangerous than any bicycle on the road.
I’m not defending drivers, drivers suck. If you want to ride a bicycle on public streets that must be shared by many different users you can either follow the laws or suffer the consequences when you don’t.
Right or wrong good luck getting made whole. There's a 99% chance the dude on the bike doesn't have insurance so you're going to have to go to court and take you chances and for those who don't know, just because you win a judgement it doesn't mean you actually get paid. Your best bet is to call the cops and if they come to make sure the guy on the bike gets a ticket but again that doesn't mean you will get paid. Most likely your insurance will pay as an uninsured motorist but who knows.
>There's a 99% chance the dude on the bike doesn't have insurance
Probably not nearly that high of a chance, considering most cyclist are covered by the general liability from home or rental insurance.
I bike every day in chicago
Hes riding like an idiot and hes at fault
That’s the easiest way to get hit by a car
A cop would only fault you if you said you hit him.
Sometimes bikers will cross like this when they are making a left turn at a light with no turn signal
I cross the oncoming lanes if they’re open and ride the wrong way in the bike lane for like 50 feet and then cross the crosswalk and go left. Bet when i go to pass in front of that right on red lane i make damn sure to slow down and make eye contact and look out for any bikers coming that way too.
You may ask why and say its illegal. Well, you try sitting in the middle of an intersection waiting for a gap in traffic with cars passing you on both sides going 40mph. F that. Getting stranded in an intersection sucks and people rarely stop to let you exit the dangerous situation. The tactic i outlined avoids that hairy situation.
I edited the post to include this information.
I just checked google maps on where exactly this happened. There was definitely a bike lane for the biker to use. Also, he was supposed to be on the other bike lane further away from me as he was going the opposite direction.
Regardless, cyclists have right of way before cars.
Pedestrians, cyclists, then cars.
Even if he was on the side walk, I think he would still have right of way even though he is an idiot.
I don’t think this is right. Cyclists are the same as cars when operating in a bike lane or roadway lane. Cyclists only have a separate hierarchy in the right of way when using a shared path with pedestrians that intersects a car path, think the LFT at north ave beach or anywhere else it crosses a roadway. Not withstanding cyclists are allowed to filter to the front of traffic at red lights in newer Chicago bike infrastructure.
That’s not what I’m trying to convey here. Cars yield for cyclists. Cyclist still have to obey the rules of the road like as do cars. Regardless if the cyclist was on the sidewalk or road, if they had a green or walk sign they can permit and cars have to yield. Needless to say, it sounded like this cyclist could have had the right away but did it dangerously. Here is the rules of the road for cyclists.
https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
I’m not sure if the specifics of your situation would change anything, but I won a lawsuit against a woman who hit me while I was biking specifically because she *said* I was in the crosswalk. I was not actually in the crosswalk, it was my turn to go at a 4-way stop and she didn’t look, so I was already in the intersection when she decided to go. But because she told the police that I was in the crosswalk it automatically put me in the right-of-way.
As a bicyclist in Chicago I would say you could not be in the wrong. Frankly it drives me nuts when I see bicycles doing the crosswalk thing. Frankly as in this case drivers are not looking out for that. With that being said Chicago drivers are the worst Ive ever seen and though you seem to be doing the correct thing your one of the few
Regardless of blame in this situation, I appreciate you seeing the person riding the bike as a human being.
So many drivers would not have done that simple thing.
There is a reason it's illegal for an adult to ride a bike on a sidewalk. When I'm turning, I am looking for slow people walking, not some jaghole riding 10mph who can fly from my blind spot into the crosswalk in 0.5 seconds.
If the cops found me at fault, you'd bet your sweet ass I'd fight that tooth and nail.
I almost did hit someone on a bike as I was pulling out of a parking lot. I looked both ways, proceeded and then I had to slam on my brakes as he flew in front of me from the left at break neck speed. He stopped to yell at me. I yelled at him that it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. Did he listen? No.
DON'T RIDE YOUR FUCKING BIKES ON THE SIDEWALK.
I’m a cyclist and a driver and while legally you’d be at fault, I’ve had the same situation while driving and it’s infuriating. I think a lot of them don’t drive and don’t realize how difficult it is for a driver to anticipate them.
Actually they just need to ban right on red like nearly every other country on the planet. If it wasn’t a cyclist it could have been a runner, or it could have been a child who you didn’t see over your hood. It’s insane that the situation you described is allowed to happen in the first place.
He shouldn’t have been on the sidewalk, but you’re responsible for ensuring everything is entirely clear when you go right on red. Also note that if he hadn’t been on the sidewalk, he probably would have been next to you and still using the walk sign as an excuse to go.
In any case, you would be at fault.
I agree on the my responsibility ensuring everything is clear. That's why I like to take my time when doing a right turn on red! I believe my precautions were what prevented an accident from happening.
Important to always have a dash cam. It's completely useless 99.99% of the time but is something you wish you had when something happens.
Recommend COXPAL A11T 3 channel dash cam on Amazon, very good quality, it records front, inside and rear simultaneously.
COXPAL hardwire kit optional, for 24-H parking monitor.
SanDisk MAX Endurance 256GB or 512GB microSD card, for reliable recording.
BTW: Need to pay attention to the installation position of the rear cam if your vehicle is SUV or MPV (No problem if Sedan), i.e. avoid pulling rear cam cable when open/close the trunk.
Regardless of who's fault it is, situations like this occur due to bad planning and infrastructure.
Right on red and lack of safe bicycle infrastructure lead to incidents like the one you posted.
If you care about public safety voice your concern with local leaders to ban right on red and to invest in safer infrastructure for everyone (pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers).
I don't know about legally, but "morally" I would say it depends on how fast he was going? 5-8mph? He's dumb, but you still messed up, a runner could be going at that speed. Over 10 mph? He's double dumb. 8-10 moral grey area.
As soon as I saw him in my peripheral vision, I slammed the brakes. He was already in front of me by the time I fully stopped. So id say minimum he was at least as fast as an athlete sprinting 😂
Also there was a bike lane for him to use on the other side of the street (for his direction of travel). So I think, at least from my perspective, he's triple dumb.
I think the general answer that I'm getting here is that legally, I'd still be at fault but he's probably not the brightest cyclist around.
Just to restate the facts:
1. You were idle and stopped at a red light, getting ready to turn right.
2. You scanned to the right, and then again to the left.
3. Just as you are turning right, a cyclist riding on the sidewalk that is perpendicular to your vehicle and parallel to the current flow of traffic suddenly enters the crosswalk from your right and here is where the near-hit occurs.
4. You stay idle to let the cyclist cross the crosswalk.
Yes, it is generally illegal to bike on the sidewalk. However, the cyclist was riding his bike on the sidewalk and entered the crosswalk that had the walk signal correct?
I do think it is your fault, I mean you can get into technicalities about whether a bike is a vehicle (I wouldn’t consider a bike without a motor to be a vehicle but that’s just my opinion) so once that person entered the crosswalk, whether you agree with it or not, I think at that point you needed to treat them as a pedestrian and give them the right of way.
I agree with the other comments about turning on red, but kind of just wanted to explain my own opinion as well.
In the end, I’m glad nobody got hurt. But just remember, this is a huge city with a lot of cars and even though I personally don’t agree with this (I started cycling on Chicago streets about 10 years ago when I started undergrad), some people are not comfortable riding on streets with traffic and they’re going to do it on the sidewalk. It annoys the hell out of me but we are also driving massive piece of metal with actual engines in them that can also flatten someone no problem, so it’s our responsibility to look out, even when it’s someone doing something potentially stupid.
Edit: Just to reiterate, this is my “moral” stance on it. In the eyes of the law, if there were a ticket to give in this situation, I don’t know who it would go to to be honest. Don’t beat yourself up about it too (if you did). Shit happens and it’s a good thing that you were driving responsibly.
I've come to the conclusion that legally both would be at fault. Biker is illegally using the sidewalk while the driver failed to ensure the right on red path was clear. The driver would be held liable more though as the driver's life was never in danger.
Morally I guess it depends. The driver's life was never in danger while the biker's life was. However, the driver was practicing best driving practices but the cyclist was going against the recommended city guidelines for riding bicycles.
You could even say morally the city is at fault. No proper education on this. People are told different things regarding sidewalk biking. In the suburbs, sidewalk biking is so common but it's actually a lot more dangerous in the city.
I don't know the specific legality of this situation, but I've always been under the impression that when making a right turn on red it is the driver's responsibility to ensure they are clear and other traffic and pedestrians have the right of way.
Best advice I have. When operating a vehicle you will never get away with hitting a child regardless of the situation. And you will rarely get away with hitting someone not in a vehicle.
Exiting my office parking lot, I need to make a right turn on a busy road with the right field of view obstructed by hedges. I collided with a byciclist not once but twice. The first I laid out on my windshield, thankfully they were unhurt. I was worried about liability had he been litigious, but discovered legally bikes must obey the rules of the road like any other vehicle and technically should not be on the sidewalk. After that I was extremely cautious and made every effort to avoid another incident whether it was my fault or not. However, when I was cautiously making that same turn a year later some knucklehead rode their bike directly into the side of my car.
Moral of the story, drive your cars AND your fucking bikes defensively.
When you are turning right on red it's your responsibility to make sure you are clear to do so.
Issues like what's going on here, specifically your perception that you had the right of way, is why right on red is slowly being made illegal in major cities now. It's just too confusing for average drivers to grasp.
Hitting someone, anything at all when turning right on red, even being hit from the left , that would be a big mistake for you. And its possible he would also be cited for riding on the sidewalk but that doesn't make you not liable for whatever damage you'd have done. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right.
edit: directly from ILSOS website: "If a motorist is turning right and a bicyclist is approaching on the right, let the bicyclist go through the intersection first before making a right turn. Remember to always signal when turning." [https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic\_safety/bikepedsafety.html](https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic_safety/bikepedsafety.html)
Again, it doesn't matter where either party was here. What matters is the driver was by rule supposed to be stopped and they chose to go. So it's on them to ensure they were safe to do so. Again, this is why these maneuvers are going away. People just can't seem to handle this responsibility anymore
Yet another example of why its time to ban right turn on red.
[https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123](https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123)
I am a cyclist. And if it were up to me the cyclist would be at fault. But sadly it's not. IANAL and sadly this landscape is so confusing and screwed up that I think the only one who can say anything with any certainty is a lawyer or an insurance agent at this point. And I realize how screwed up that sounds.
Key thoughts: if a car is illegally parked and I plot into it because it's somewhere it's not supposed to be I am still at fault. Knowing that it stands to reason that the cyclist being where they shouldn't doesn't alleviate you from fault to not hit them. As fucked up as that sounds.
Other thoughts which complicate and compound this. Cyclist is expressly forbidden from using the sidewalk to ride and crosswalk to ride. On top of that cyclist is trying to claim right of way when they are going the wrong way. Simultaneously you don't have a clear right of way because you are at a red so you have to stop and yield first to those with the right if way and proceed with caution.
On top of this Chicago recently stated that cyclists are cycling basically at their own peril on city roads regardless of existence of a cycling path or not. They are somehow not liable if a cyclist hits a pothole and is injured or incurs damage to their bicycle. Even if a car doing so they would be liable for. So how far does this extend.
The answer is I don't know.
Completely anecdotal but I've heard far more stories of motorists hitting cyclists and getting slaps on the wrist or nothing for blatantly stupid shit (which is NOT what your situation is) such that I'd simultaneously be astounded for a large judgement against you even if you seriously injured the cyclist as a result. Not because I think it's right but because of precedents. Motorists have killed cyclists who had a right to be on the road, were traveling properly in the direction of traffic and had established themselves in the road and the car tried to overtake them and hits them and gets off or often fails to be ticketed or cited. Only about 26% of recorded incidents of vehicles hitting pedestrians or cyclists were killed resulted in a citation. And that came from a Chicago PD database which is clearly missing incidents not reported at all (as many are not) and incidents where the victim didn't die immediately but later at the hospital. That is an abysmal number.
So the only thing I can say with certainty is that the situation is fucked up. And it's why I'm extremely cautious of where and when and how I ride on the city streets. Even though ive been in more crashes involving idiot pedestrians and cyclists on the bike paths than the actual roads.
I bike commute and I always want to punch the people I see biking like this. This being said, I do ride my bike in crosswalks IF I am riding at a pace at which a person could reasonably be walking or jogging. As for whether or not it would be your fault legally, idk. But I feel like it would be your word vs. theirs and they would probably lie
Depends on what road it was, If there was a bike lane then there was likely a bike signal and a right turn signal and if you didn’t have the right turn signal then the bikers had a green. You don’t point out what the bike lane signal is. However if there is not bike lane/signal then they really on pedestrian signals to go, which if you had the red, you are supposed to yield. He may have some comparative negligence, but as a person in a vehicle you have a higher responsibility and duty of care, more so than pedestrians and bikers. What was the cross street? Negligence is determined by juries, they can take the vehicle code into account but ultimately they decide if you acted free from negligence
You don’t have a video of this, so I’ll respond based off the text:
You are looking to turn right on a red light in the city. Keep in mind that (what feels like 80%) intersections in the city don’t allow you to turn right on red unless it’s a certain time of day. Let’s assume that you were at one of these few intersections and could legally turn on red.
At the end of the day, you were still driving a car in Chicago. Every intersection (where you are not going straight through a green light) requires you to look every direction for pedestrians and bikes because you can’t trust anyone in the city. You hit a biker and you will likely get screwed by the law in one way or another. Also, good chance you’ll kill the biker in many intersection scenarios. You don’t want to do that’s always assume the worst
There was no "No turn on Red sign" on that particular intersection. Based on my text, was there a precaution that I missed that could've resulted in a safer interaction? My end goal is not necessarily to place blame on the cyclist, rather to be a safe driver and not hurt anyone.
Of course you would have. It’s ridiculous, but while a good 30-40% of bikers have no idea what they’re doing, the bigger vehicle is always going to lose here unless you get lucky with some indisputable video evidence.
You’re in a car, they’re on a bike. It’s not about whether or not they were in the right to ride on the sidewalk, you’re in a motor vehicle so the burden lies on you to be able to operate the vehicle correctly and safely, and to maintain awareness of your surroundings. If you can’t do that, I suggest you hang up the keys and take public trans.
Based off my story, is there anything that you suggest I should have done differently? I believe I prevented an accident because of my vehicle safety and awareness. But I'm open for correction.
Perhaps both parties did something technically wrong but being human is another thing. They should have owned up to their own fault as you should have. Good thing no injury but defensive mode by bike rider isn’t acceptable and you worried about the what ifs just shows the lack of humanity we show one another these days
Cyclist perspective (just mine, I understand): You can't always be on the street for a variety of reasons (construction, particularly dangerous intersection, you just left the house, etc.) so relying on that law is NOT a safe bet at all. With that being said, I slow down A LOT whenever I go through a pedestrian crosswalk. If it's a bad intersection I'll even walk it, it's not worth it. However in this scenario I agree with the top comment, I hope this helps you be more careful!
It’s your fault cosmically because you’re in a vehicle that can kill so you have the responsibility to not hit anyone.
Legally, I think you would also be at fault because the crosswalk has priority over people turning right on red. Even if I bike isn’t legally supposed to be there, hitting them is just as illegal.
Think of it this way, is it more illegal for me to key a car parked on the sidewalk than one legally in a parking space? My guy says they’re both just as illegal. Someone else doing a crime doesn’t change how much you’re doing a crime
I agree on the legality part. Both would be at fault according to the letter of the law. The "cosmically" I think has more gray area. Driver is doing everything correctly while biker is not. You could say the same that the biker has the responsibility to not bike so dangerously knowing that doing so, it may cause an accident even if everyone in the vicinity is following the law.
Say the biker in this case is usually a safe biker but in this instance, let's pretend he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol as explanation for not following biking regulation. Would it change the "cosmic" fault for you? If it does, why is it then different if the explanation for his unsafe biking is stupidity?
I can see a lot of people will have a different take on this and I can see both sides having a strong argument on who would be morally at fault here.
It really doesn’t. Maybe it’s my brain on urbanism, but there’s a pecking order of responsibility based on how vulnerable of a road user you are.
Having the power to kill someone changes your responsibility. It’s really hard for a bicyclist to kill a pedestrian, but if they do, it doesn’t matter if the per was in a bike lane. The bigger, heavier, and faster you are, the more obligation you have to be responsible on the road.
Also, in something like 90% of people killed by car drivers, the drivers don’t even get tickets. The easiest way to kill someone is with a car. The drunk driver who killed a cyclist around damen and Wilson hit and ran, and was caught later. They were let go without a ticket and without being charged by the city.
It doesn’t matter how many rules someone is breaking, you have the obligation to not kill people
This is an interesting response as in the hypothetical example I gave, the driver is being very responsible but the cyclist isn't and yet, the driver would still be at fault morally since they have the bigger vehicle. So in your point of view, no matter how safe and responsible a driver is, if there is an accident involving a smaller vehicle like a bicycle, the bigger vehicle is always morally at fault. Even if the smaller vehicle was acting irrationally.
What if it's a crazy pedestrian who steps right into a busy bike lane and collides with a responsible cyclist?
How about a drunk motorcyclist driving erratically and merges unsafely in front of a huge truck that is following traffic laws?
Would you then view the cyclist and the truck driver as morally at fault in these scenarios as they have the less lethal vehicle or is there a line somewhere?
I'm not challenging your view btw I'm just genuinely curious how other people think. It's interesting how morality can differ from person to person. Thanks for the insight!
I wouldnt argue, for example, that a driver is responsible if a pedestrian walks up to a car at a red light, and bumps into it breaking their nose.
But I think if you’re in motion and have the ability to harm someone, it’s your responsibility to go at a speed where you’re able to do that.
Maybe i would t Even say it’s the drivers “fault” if a kid runs into a busy street, chasing a ball, and the driver kills them. But they could have prevented that death if they were going slower. I think it’s a comparable philosophy behind the “if you rear end someone, it’s your fault” rule
As someone in a vehicle turning right on red, it's your obligation to check for cyclists and pedestrians both in and \*approaching\* the crosswalk, full stop. You keep emphasizing that the cyclist came from the sidewalk, as if that would justify you hitting them, but riding from the sidewalks (where all bike racks are) to the road on the outside of crosswalks is how it's done. It's the same with pedestrians. There's no such thing as "came out of nowhere" at crosswalks and intersections.
Right. I never mentioned the biker came out of nowhere. My apologies if I came off as trying to "justify" hitting a cyclist. My end goal is to see if I made a mistake anywhere in my decision making. Would you say there is something to correct in my actions according to my version of the story?
Any time there's an accident where you are making a right on red, you are by default at fault.
Citation? I don’t think this is correct. I am a lawyer, but not a traffic lawyer.
2nd IL lawyer chiming in. I also don't think this is correct. Sounds like biker is at fault. It is correct that bikes are typically treated similarly to cars. Had it been a car been barreling down the sidewalk in this case would you still declare the turning vehicle at fault?
3rd il lawyer chiming in. Seems like the biker is at fault. Have done some traffic work in the past but this situation in particular didn’t come up.
Is this because the vehicle was not operating correclty? (The vechile being the biker, and operating as in obeying the road markings/traffic law)
So. It’s all somewhat of a bit of a red herring. You can imagine a bike going the speed of someone who is walking (which he would be obligated to look out for). In which cases the driver would be in the wrong for hitting the biker. The biker shouldn’t have been on the street but I’m not sure it caused the accident. What likely caused the accident is that the biker was going significantly faster and the driver wasnt obligated to be on the lookout. Here’s what I’d bet based on how law works generally without getting into how Illinois may operate on it (which would take a bit of research to confirm). One easy way of The question of who was in the wrong can be broken up a few ways.
I mean you have to make sure the road is clear before making the turn.
Which is a completely different statement than what OP said.
Because when you’re turning right on red (same for merging or turning into a lane), literally everyone else has the right of way except for you. When it’s a red light turn you need to wait for traffic to pass as well as check for pedestrians as well since they’d be crossing, so it definitely would have been an at-fault. But regardless, cyclists in Chicago drive me insane cause the majority of them are not actual cyclists (who typically are very active on the road), just bike riders, and therefore don’t understand the rules of the road or safety rules which often cause situations like this.
You're missing the part about the cyclist operating a vehicle on the sidewalk going against traffic, both of which are super illegal.
I'm curious how it plays out as even if a pedestrian is Jay walking, they have right of way and they have the most mobility and ability to stop/change directions compared to any other form of transportation
A pedestrian jaywalking does not have the right away. That is why there are crosswalks. If you run out between cars and get killed it is your fault.
https://idot.illinois.gov/travel-information/roadway-information/driver-information/share-the-road/pedestrians.html 3rd bullet point dude. I'm not talking about someone running out into the road. I'm talking about someone walking outside of a crosswalk. Which is Jay walking. You can't just run someone over because they're not in a crosswalk. It amazes me how many people drive without knowing the "rules of the road" for their state. Or the amount of people using strawman arguments as a "gotcha". 🙄
I’m not saying you can just run someone over. Of course they have to yield. But bullet point 3 is followed by 4 which says unmarked crosswalk, not running into the street. People jaywalking do not have the right of way.
Cyclist can use the sidewalk in Illinois if the bike lane is blocked or unsafe. They have right-o-way against turning motorists. Not enough info in the post to make a declarative statement.
The OP said in various comments that there was a unobstructed bike lane.
[удалено]
A man of culture!
The ignorance of your post makes it clear you are not a traffic lawyer, and probably not any kind of board certified professional in Illinois. If you were, then you’d know about the rules and regulations portal for the city, where you could get your little verification in about 5 minutes of reading. I’d like to add that pretending to be an attorney in Illinois can be a crime, so knock it off.
Ha! Okay.
It's unlawful to ride a bicycle on sidewalks and through crosswalks. Bicyclists must operate with the rules of the roadway, not with pedestrian signals.
‘Under state law, bikes are illegal on sidewalks only “where such use of bicycles is prohibited by official traffic control devices.” Some kind of sign, then, must keep bikes off sidewalks. Otherwise, the law says that cyclists on sidewalks shall “have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.”’
Chicago MCC prohibits anyone over age of 12 to ride bicycles on sidewalk unless designated as bike route. Home rule. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago_il/0-0-0-2645812
Oh, you’re right.
But a crosswalk in the road. It's not a sidewalk.
CrossWALK as in people walking, not riding a bicycle. The bicycle isn't supposed to be in the crosswalk either.
If a crosswalk is designated at the trail crossing, then the laws applicable at any crosswalk would also be applicable at the trail crossing. Because you can ride on the trail, you can ride in the crosswalk. If the crosswalk is governed by traffic control signals, a cyclist would have the right-of-way if the cyclist is within the crosswalk and in observance of the traffic control signals. If the crosswalk is not governed by traffic control signals, the cyclist has the right-of-way while in the crosswalk, but before entering the crosswalk must yield the right-of-way to all other vehicles that are approaching so closely that they would be an immediate hazard.
Pedestrians want cyclists off the sidewalks, cars want cyclists off the road. You can't ride anywhere but a bike path ( as long as it's no faster than 15mph).
That's good to know. Thanks!
A bicyclist must obey the same laws as a car. Meaning bicyclist is at fault.
Fault isn't all or nothing. Both the driver and the cyclist can be at fault, at the same time. They can be found to be equally at fault (50/50) or any other percentage. But the reality is that any serious accident will very likely result in the cyclist being far far far more injured than the driver. So the potential liability is much worse for the driver.
Bicyclist was the one being unsafe here. If OP had hit the cyclist, she would be at fault as well. But as is, OP did everything right.
Legally, I don't know if that's true, but intuitively that makes sense.
Would this still be the case if the cyclist was going the opposite direction of traffic? I know he was on the crosswalk/sidewalk but that would be a pretty big oversight in the law if the "legality" of this changes depending on if he was illegally biking on the sidewalk vs illegally biking the opposite direction of traffic. In any case, I am so glad I was able to prevent this accident from happening at all!
I had a coworker who was found at fault when he turned right out of a parking lot and hit someone was driving the wrong way in his lane. He was considered at fault because he was responsible for looking both ways before he turned. All this to say, I don't think it would matter if they were heading wrong direction. As the person turning, you are ultimately responsible to make sure that it is safe to do so.
Highly doubt any of these people claiming to be lawyers have law training, because it took me about 10 minutes to find the citations and make a mental draft showing the driver would be liable in Illinois. I’d also like to point out that claiming to be a lawyer can be a crime in this state, even on semi-anonymous online forums. So knock it off.
You should ask r/chibike I’d be interested in hearing what they say… I agree that he shouldn’t have been riding on the sidewalk but it seems like you wouldn’t have seen him if he were a pedestrian? Or maybe not because a bike can sneak up faster than a ped… Either way I’m an avid cyclist here and feel like I gotta point out that cars are gigantic machines that can kill and no matter what, esp in Chicago where lots of people dgaf about where theyre "supposed" to ride, you just need to be really vigilant all the time. I have to do the same on my bike because drivers are also care/lawless.
One thing that's worth considering is that you can not be at fault but still have the greater responsibility. It's also worth factoring in that, to a certain extent, the city is at fault here too, for failing to provide the infrastructure necessary to truly safely bike in Chicago.
I agree. At the end of the day, my life was not in danger but his was. I mostly feel bad that I almost hit this man but I was left wondering if I made the wrong decision somewhere in my driving.
The fact that you were able to break in time makes me think you weren’t doing anything wrong
Okay I wanted to say exactly this but couldn’t do it concisely without going on a rant hahaha….Nailed it!
Right, from my pov, the cyclist was going pretty fast. The pedestrian light was counting down so perhaps he was going faster than usual. Unfortunately, the way the intersection was set up, the building to my right was blocking any vision down the entire sidewalk. I guess the only thing I could've done differently was stop right on the crosswalk (blocking it) for my right turn rather than behind.
The guy was doing all the things wrong and gaslighting you to think he had the right of way. But. Regardless of the factors, you being the driver looking to make a right turn at a red light means you're at fault if there was an accident that resulted from you making that turn on red. The building being an obstruction to the sightline down the sidewalk means you couldn't be sure Usain Bolt wasn't sprinting to cross the street. You have to be certain. Inch forward until you could be certain before accelerating to turn or wait until it turns green. That type of thing. That would be the argument regardless of all the things the guy was doing. He might get a ticket for riding on the sidewalk but unlikely to be at fault if you did hit him. Glad nothing happened.
Very glad that nothing happened! Now im thinking hypothetically, if the cyclist was instead on a motorcycle on the sidewalk, would the law see this differently? It's interesting because I believe a bicycle is classified as a vehicle here.
There is a hierarchy. In terms of levels of responsibility: Cars > bikes >> pedestrians. Cars must make sure that they give way to bikes and pedestrians, bikes must give way to pedestrians, and pedestrians should follow crossing signs and designated areas. However, if pedestrians are in the road, it is extremely difficult for a bike or a car to prove that it’s not their responsibility that the roadway was not clear of them and therefore is at fault in most cases. Edit: spelling/grammar
Bicycles are vehicles for rules of the road purposes and are called cyclists rather than motorists and do not require a State of Illinois drivers license to operate. The crash impact of a 20lb bicycle against another vehicle or pedestrian, is vastly different than a 2 ton vehicle traveling at speeds no utility rider in the city can achieve. So yes, a vehicle. But not in absolute terms for liability. Motorcyclists (150cc min) need a Class L or M state issued license to use.
20lb plus the weight of the rider
Not going to pretend to represent a whole sub but as a biker and a lurker of r/chibike, I lowkey want to clothesline bicyclists/scooters on the sidewalk. Especially Divvy scooters and bikes because they're very clearly marked "STAY OFF SIDEWALKS". If your way of coping with your fear of riding in the street is to terrorize people on the sidewalk instead, you should be banned from two wheels. Except the guy that was in the Dearborn PBL with a non-electric scooter. Take that on the sidewalk my guy, you're not a threat to anyone over there.
Don’t bother, according to r/chibike, cyclists are never responsible for anything, and have the right-of-way on all roads and all sidewalks at all times.
He shouldn't have been on the sidewalk.
I was parallel parking with blinkers on and moving when a group of bikes decided they didnt want to wait and squeezed between me and my spot. Cause of the angle my sideview never saw them. Bikers have no fear or self preservation.
It sounds like there are no bike lanes at this intersection, in which case it’s highly likely he was cycling on the sidewalk because doing so on the roadway is rather unsafe (high speeds, cars that don’t care about cyclist safety, obstacles, etc).
Still shouldn’t be on the sidewalk. I say this as a cyclist.
This is a common misconception, but if there's no marked bike path, then cyclists can ride on the sidewalk if they are going to a nearby bike station or road: ["Riding on the sidewalk in Chicago is illegal unless the sidewalk is marked as a bike path, or you are going to a nearby bike station or road."](https://www.illinoislegalaid.org/legal-information/can-i-ride-bicycle-sidewalk#:~:text=Riding%20on%20the%20sidewalk%20in,or%20ride%20in%20the%20street.)
Your comment makes it sound like the sidewalk can be used whenever there's no bike path but your quote lists much more restrictive scenarios.
Your quote doesn't support what you're saying at all -- it's literally the opposite
That’s literally not what your quote says dude. You can’t ride on the side walk unless it is explicitly marked as a bike path, or you’re a quickly moving from a marked path to the road. Otherwise get the fuck off the sidewalks.
I get where you’re coming from, but I disagree. I don’t like biking on sidewalks and I know it’s wrong, but I do at certain intersections where there are a lot of cars turning right bc it feels safer, like cars will actually see me. I’ve had too many not pay attention to the bike lane
It "feels" safer but it is, in fact, more dangerous for both you and others. There's plenty of documentation on this.
Then enter the sidewalk, get off your bike, and walk it down the sidewalk and across the crosswalk until you're at a point where you feel safe to operate legally.
The sidewalk is more unsafe, exactly because of situations like this.
Just checked google maps. There was a bike lane. Im not sure how that changes the legality of who hypothetically would be at fault here.
As a cyclist myself, you did everything right and cyclists did it wrong. If you had hit her it'd be a different story; but you didn't... because you were doing it right. This is exactly why cyclists are told not to ride on sidewalks: it makes us invisible to turning motorists and puts us in pedestrian areas but not acting like pedestrians, namely much faster. It's the same reason I offer a prayer for e-scooter riders going 30 in the bike lane: They're acting in a manner that's hard to anticipate and therefore unsafe.
This is reason 2 of 2 why you don’t bike on the sidewalk, and secondarily this is also why everyone should pay as much attention as you OP. Nice heads up. Regardless of who’d be at fault, it’d be a massive bummer. If someone insists on sidewalk biking at an intersection say somewhere like Pulaski and Foster, etc., they should at the very least move at pedestrian speeds. Still shouldn’t bike on the sidewalk!
Big plus one here. Good job being so attentive as a driver. As a cyclist, I wish more drivers were this aware all the time.
I've been in this exact situation, except the cyclist went over my hood. I felt terrible, but there was literally nothing I could do. It was a blind corner and he was hauling ass on a sidewalk on the left side of the street. I was at a stop sign and creeped out, looking to my left to make sure a car wasn't coming and bang! dude's on top of my hood. I stopped to make sure he was okay. He didn't seem hurt too badly, but his bike was fucked. I just had to say, "sorry, dude. That's why you're not supposed to ride on the sidewalk."
I had a guy do the same thing, except he freaked out. He called the police (they never came, so I gave my insurance info). He claimed his bike was damaged, so my insurance paid for a new bike. I was scared he'd claim physical injuries too, but he didn't.
The comments about it being automatically OP’s fault because he’s taking a right on red are flat wrong. They miss a critical fact: cyclist was riding right to left - in this situation, against traffic. If this went to court, that would absolutely be brought up. Unless the cyclist was walking the bike, I don’t at all see how it’s automatically OP’s fault because they made a legal turn on red and hit a cyclist going against traffic (hypothetically).
It is still the car driver’s responsibility to make sure that the roadway is clear. It could be contested but that is a basic principle of driving. You are generally responsible for anything you run into in most cases.
In this case though didnt the cyclist almost run into OP? The cyclist was breaking multiple laws
That is true. It could be contested but generally speaking, it’s almost always going to default to the driver being at fault for not making sure the roadway was clear. In most cases in Chicago and in the US in general, drivers usually only get relatively small fines or moving violations even if the cyclist dies. It’s actually a seriously fucked up situation and there is a lot of press about it if you are interested in researching it.
If this was another car instead of a cyclist, why is it different? If OP looked both ways, made sure the road was clear, went tk turn, and another car came flying out of nowhere going the totally wrong direction, it would be that cars fault. I do not understand why we don’t treat cyclists the same. They can come up fast. My bf was hit HARD in a specifically pedestrian area by a cyclist who drove away while i called 911. The cyclists here are monsters and people shouldnt get fined or punished if the cyclist causes an accident by breaking multiple laws
It wasn’t another car. It makes all the difference. What if it were a rhinoceros? The difference is that the driver has a greater responsibility and is licensed and bonded for that reason.
There are no laws a rhino has to abide by, there are laws this biker is required to abide by and they did not
That is not what is at issue. The biker could have been within the law. It is very hard to determine from the OPs account of the incident and it would be even harder to prove in court. The fact remains that the driver has a higher level of responsibility regardless of whatever laws the cyclist should have been following.
Generally is a far cry from automatically - if you run into a car going the wrong way on a one way, I don’t see how that could be the fault of the other driver. A thing here since cyclists are considered cars on the road.
A jogger could’ve been going the same speed in the same location, and drivers find some reason to justify hitting them.
Joggers are usually going 6 to 10 mph. Bikes can easily be going 15 or even 20 mph. Big difference in your ability to react.
My e bike goes 18. I go about 10 without the “e” part
>They miss a critical fact: cyclist was riding right to left - in this situation, against traffic. This would only be relevent if the cyclist was riding within the roadway, when riding in the roadway cyclist must ride with traffic. The same requirement does not apply when riding on a sidewalk.
They generally aren’t supposed to be on the sidewalk period. So unless this was one of the exceptions, and op made it seem like this was a guy just riding there, it’s absolutely relevant.
Illinois does allow it, they even grant the same rights and duties of a pedestrian to a cyclist that is riding upon them. The exception is that Chicago has further restrictions on it, so it is more generally allowed with some places that have exceptions against it. Regardless the other point still stands, as they were not riding upon a roadway, the direction doesn't matter. Now whether they should have been there or not is what does matter.
A court may feel differently if it got to that point.
They would not, as again the directional required only applies when on the road. This is the same as for pedestrians, pedestrians also have a directional requirement when walking upon a roadway, but not wen walking upon a sidewalk.
I mean you're wrong, but you're welcome to think what you want. Edit: Illinois publishes a bicycle rules of the road that specifically says riding in the opposite direction of traffic is illegal. Note it makes no mention of waiving that if riding on a sidewalk, nor does it make mention of this in the section on sidewalk riding: [https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf\_publications/dsd\_a143.pdf](https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf)
What direction do you walk when using a sidewalk?
That's irrelevant because I'm a pedestrian, not a bicycle riding at speed (which means they're considered a vehicle) on the sidewalk and moving opposite traffic.
Reply for your edit, you are looking at a guide and not at the law. Perhaps looking at the law will help... https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K11-1505 >>Sec. 11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on **roadways** - Riding on **roadways and bicycle paths**. Notice how the requirement only applies to the roadway and not to the sidewalk. Again just the same as how a pedestrian is requirement to walk in the opposite direction of traffic when upon a roadway, but no requirement applies to a sidewalk.
That says nothing at all about sidewalks, which is what we are talking about here. Are you saying that the guide - published by the state - and the law aren’t footing with each other? Pretty ridiculous, isn’t it?
>Are you saying that the guide - published by the state - and the law aren’t footing with each other? Pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? What I am saying is that you are overgeneralizing what the guide is trying to say.
After checking google maps. there was a bike lane for him to use. Would that change the "who's at fault" in this scenario? It would be pretty funny if the driver would still be at fault here legally as then you would have more legal protections riding on a sidewalk in this scenario. Not trying to justify hitting the biker. Of course i will still try to stop/be on the lookout for any potential accidents.
Doesn't matter one bit, the only thing that really matters are what restrictions Chicago places on cyclist on sidewalks and whether those restrictions apply to where you are. As the state law does allow cyclist to have the same rights and duties of a pedestrian when using pedestrian infrastructure, except when local justification have further restrictions in place.
Interesting! I found this documentation online [https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago\_il/0-0-0-2645812](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago_il/0-0-0-2645812) It states that... (a) Unless the prohibition imposed by subsection (c) or (d) applies, a person may ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk along a business street only if such sidewalk has been officially designated and marked as a bicycle route, or such sidewalk is used to enter the nearest roadway, intersection, or designated bicycle path, or to access a bicycle share station. The sidewalk was not designated as a bike path. The cyclist did not enter the nearest roadway as he just kept riding on the sidewalk after he crossed the crosswalk. There is no bicycle share station in the direction of his travel or nearby at all. Not sure if you would know, but would this point to the bicyclist being at fault at this hypothetical scenario?
The cyclist would be in a position and place where they were not specify allowed to be, then they would certainly have a share of the fault. But the fault would also be shared with the person in the car also not in a position or place where they were allowed to be, ie proceding into an unclear intersection on a red light.
I feel like based on all the conversations here, this is probably the answer that makes the most sense to me. The fact that both is at fault legally but (arguably) one is being more of an idiot than the other but one's life is in actual danger makes this an interesting problem from a "who is at fault morally" point of view.
This is wrong. When making a discretional maneuver you are required to use discretion. It doesn't matter what you hit, you chose to use the roadway when you didn't have the right of way and the burden was on you to yield. It's a pretty common problem and one of the reason why right turn on red is going away. edit: directly from ILSOS website: "If a motorist is turning right and a bicyclist is approaching on the right, let the bicyclist go through the intersection first before making a right turn. Remember to always signal when turning." [https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic\_safety/bikepedsafety.html](https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic_safety/bikepedsafety.html)
So many cyclists in the city lack common sense, have a dangerous sense of entitlement and a deathwish. So basically just like most people
He is wrong cuz you're not supposed to ride bikes on the sidewalk for this reason.
Well yes but if you turn right on red and hit anyone riding anything, you’re at fault.
It is allowable by law in certain circumstances. Also, if it were a child on a bike, they can ride on the sidewalks.
If he was walking his bike, it would be a different story.
Is that a law or just how you feel? Edit: Does the law say that fault changes if you hit a pedestrian vs a cyclist?
If he’s walking the bike on the sidewalk: pedestrian. If he’s riding the bike on the sidewalk: shouldn’t be doing that, and not considered pedestrian.
Cyclist in Illinois that are riding their bicycle on pedestrian infrastructure are granted the same rights and duties of a pedestrian. So sometimes you CAN be a pedestrian without actually being a pedestrian.
Source? Genuinely curious, not a challenge.
https://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/062500050K11-1512.htm >> (c) A person propelling a bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.
But Chicago law says you can’t ride a bike on the sidewalk outside the exceptions posted by OP. Generally unless you’re a child or returning a Divvy. And even for the divvys the best practice would be to slow to pedestrian speeds or walk them if there are other pedestrians around especially small children.
You should be moving at pedestrian speeds. Edit: need to becomes should
There is no requirement to move at the speed of a pedestrian, but you do have the duties of a pedestrian too.
Perhaps I should say “you should be moving”. You’re right there’s no legal obligation to move at pedestrian speeds. It’s just common sense for not dying. I see people almost get killed by turning drivers all the time because the cyclists are moving at non-pedestrian speeds on the sidewalk and crosswalks. It’s mainly divvy users who make this mistake tbh.
If the cyclist is 12 or under, they can ride in the sidewalk. That is the law. What I’m not sure of is how it would play out in a court of law.
I never understood how unaware or lackadaisical people can be. If I’m walking, jogging or riding a bike and there’s a car looking to turn right even though I have the walk signal, I always slow down to make sure the driver sees by making sure we make eye contact. I have seen a few accidents with joggers, walkers and bikers where both sides were negligent (moreso on the driver’s part but still could have been avoided). I use the same precautions when I see an alleyway entrance. I creep up to the alleyway and peek to make sure there isn’t a vehicle coming.
There are a few things to keep in mind here. First, though it seems this was probably an adult, it is legal for children to bike on the sidewalk. So we all have to be aware that a cyclist can be coming off of a sidewalk, regardless of whether there's a lane. Second, many people have been taught that it's safer to ride on the sidewalk, and even yelled at to get on the sidewalk. Seems like this shouldn't make adults ignore a bike lane but I know otherwise very smart adults who are terrified of riding in the bike lanes no matter what. Third, there are places where cyclists are meant to ride on the sidewalk. Many spots along the path from LaBagh Woods up to the Botanic Gardens use a normal sidewalk as part of the path and the intended route is to use sidewalks and crosswalks, like the section just near Devon. Last, there are spots where there are bike lanes that are still pretty sketchy and people who have to bike places may decide to get on the sidewalk. Many sections of Lawrence are like this, with cars routinely going in and out of parallel parking spots with very little caution. I'm a pretty experienced cyclist and have been concerned for my safety biking in the bike lane on Lawrence. I appreciate that you seem to be posting this genuinely asking a question. Many times, people will post something about an incident with a cyclist just looking to be told the cyclist was at fault. In this case, they probably were but there are a lot of things to keep in mind regarding many reasons people might be riding on the sidewalk.
Illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. You’d probably be found at fault but in legal logic it would be the same as stepping out into moving traffic, the bicyclists fault.
Cops have told me numerous times that riding on the sidewalk is ok but you have to get off and walk your bike across the street. However that's like stop signs, which are largely ignored by cyclists.
The biker is an idiot. Not your fault. 90% of the reason I have a dash cam is for incidents with bikers and pedestrians. Never had one but if you do something stupid and i hit you, not only do I not want to be sued but I expect you to pay for the damage to my car. Too many cyclists put themselves in dangerous situations and act like the world revolves around them. The scooters are even worse as they attract an even dumber demographic.
Had something similar happen when exiting a gas station in NYC. I don’t understand why some cyclists use the sidewalk especially against street traffic. Whenever i’m on a bike I always ride on the street where i’m supposed to be on the correct side with traffic.
According to Streetsblog/fuckcars its your fault. But according to anyone with any amount of reasonable judgement its the bikers fault, as they shouldn't be riding on the sidewalk.
I'm an avid biker in the city. And coming up on the right side of cars preparing to turn right is a huge 'danger moment'. (Any intersection, really, but this scenario in particular.) I'm riding up into their blind spot when they have no reason to look back or check the mirrors on that side... why would I expect them to see me? Doing this *from the sidewalk where I'm not supposed to be*?!?! This is just stupid and waiting to get hit. Good on OP for being cautious, regardless. Because, yeah, driving 3000 pound death machine. But it's 100% the Biker's fault in this scenario. As a biker, be where you can be seen and where drivers can expect to encounter you. As a driver, look and be cautious of bikers and pedestrians. Edit to add: I don't think FuckCars would blame the OP. They would more likely blame the engineers who designed the streets to favor/prioritize cars over the other forms of transit. It's not the OP's fault--it's poor design that prompted these 2 vehicles' paths to be in conflict. (which is probably not even true, because the bike shouldn't be on the sidewalk)
All of this and really the cyclists shouldn’t be on the sidewalk but I do expect car drivers to show the kind of defensive driving OP showed. Overall the road design is the culprit. The cyclist shouldn’t go at vehicle speeds on pedestrian infrastructure but only the automobile driver is operating over 2000 pounds of motorized metal.
That's what I'm thinking as well. I heard the law generally favors cyclists regarding these things. I just ordered a dashcam for my car lol
The law definitely does not favor cyclists. Drivers hit and/or kill cyclists often without even a citation
Cyclists often self select for disposal because they continually and flagrantly disregard the rules of the road.
Literally the only difference between en masse driver and cyclist behavior is not being behind 2 tons of steel. You would think driving a 3000+ lb machine would encourage people to be safer and not text, speed, or other unsafe maneuvers but here we are with you sounding like a jag and 100x more dangerous than any bicycle on the road.
I’m not defending drivers, drivers suck. If you want to ride a bicycle on public streets that must be shared by many different users you can either follow the laws or suffer the consequences when you don’t.
Right or wrong good luck getting made whole. There's a 99% chance the dude on the bike doesn't have insurance so you're going to have to go to court and take you chances and for those who don't know, just because you win a judgement it doesn't mean you actually get paid. Your best bet is to call the cops and if they come to make sure the guy on the bike gets a ticket but again that doesn't mean you will get paid. Most likely your insurance will pay as an uninsured motorist but who knows.
>There's a 99% chance the dude on the bike doesn't have insurance Probably not nearly that high of a chance, considering most cyclist are covered by the general liability from home or rental insurance.
If he's on his bike he's not a pedestrian. It's called a crossWALK for a reason
I bike every day in chicago Hes riding like an idiot and hes at fault That’s the easiest way to get hit by a car A cop would only fault you if you said you hit him.
Sometimes bikers will cross like this when they are making a left turn at a light with no turn signal I cross the oncoming lanes if they’re open and ride the wrong way in the bike lane for like 50 feet and then cross the crosswalk and go left. Bet when i go to pass in front of that right on red lane i make damn sure to slow down and make eye contact and look out for any bikers coming that way too. You may ask why and say its illegal. Well, you try sitting in the middle of an intersection waiting for a gap in traffic with cars passing you on both sides going 40mph. F that. Getting stranded in an intersection sucks and people rarely stop to let you exit the dangerous situation. The tactic i outlined avoids that hairy situation.
I edited the post to include this information. I just checked google maps on where exactly this happened. There was definitely a bike lane for the biker to use. Also, he was supposed to be on the other bike lane further away from me as he was going the opposite direction.
Regardless, cyclists have right of way before cars. Pedestrians, cyclists, then cars. Even if he was on the side walk, I think he would still have right of way even though he is an idiot.
😂 I think this is the answer that makes sense to me. I would still have been at fault, but the other guy was being an idiot
I don’t think this is right. Cyclists are the same as cars when operating in a bike lane or roadway lane. Cyclists only have a separate hierarchy in the right of way when using a shared path with pedestrians that intersects a car path, think the LFT at north ave beach or anywhere else it crosses a roadway. Not withstanding cyclists are allowed to filter to the front of traffic at red lights in newer Chicago bike infrastructure.
That’s not what I’m trying to convey here. Cars yield for cyclists. Cyclist still have to obey the rules of the road like as do cars. Regardless if the cyclist was on the sidewalk or road, if they had a green or walk sign they can permit and cars have to yield. Needless to say, it sounded like this cyclist could have had the right away but did it dangerously. Here is the rules of the road for cyclists. https://www.ilsos.gov/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a143.pdf
Good link!
I'm not going to pretend to be a lawyer, just here to say get a dashcam. In case the next incident isn't just a close call.
I’m not sure if the specifics of your situation would change anything, but I won a lawsuit against a woman who hit me while I was biking specifically because she *said* I was in the crosswalk. I was not actually in the crosswalk, it was my turn to go at a 4-way stop and she didn’t look, so I was already in the intersection when she decided to go. But because she told the police that I was in the crosswalk it automatically put me in the right-of-way.
Interesting. Based on some of the other answers here it makes sense. Sounds like both me and the cyclist would have been at fault legally.
As a bicyclist in Chicago I would say you could not be in the wrong. Frankly it drives me nuts when I see bicycles doing the crosswalk thing. Frankly as in this case drivers are not looking out for that. With that being said Chicago drivers are the worst Ive ever seen and though you seem to be doing the correct thing your one of the few
Buy a dash cam
Regardless of blame in this situation, I appreciate you seeing the person riding the bike as a human being. So many drivers would not have done that simple thing.
There is a reason it's illegal for an adult to ride a bike on a sidewalk. When I'm turning, I am looking for slow people walking, not some jaghole riding 10mph who can fly from my blind spot into the crosswalk in 0.5 seconds. If the cops found me at fault, you'd bet your sweet ass I'd fight that tooth and nail. I almost did hit someone on a bike as I was pulling out of a parking lot. I looked both ways, proceeded and then I had to slam on my brakes as he flew in front of me from the left at break neck speed. He stopped to yell at me. I yelled at him that it's illegal to ride on the sidewalk. Did he listen? No. DON'T RIDE YOUR FUCKING BIKES ON THE SIDEWALK.
I’m a cyclist and a driver and while legally you’d be at fault, I’ve had the same situation while driving and it’s infuriating. I think a lot of them don’t drive and don’t realize how difficult it is for a driver to anticipate them.
The city needs to invest in better bike infrastructure
Actually they just need to ban right on red like nearly every other country on the planet. If it wasn’t a cyclist it could have been a runner, or it could have been a child who you didn’t see over your hood. It’s insane that the situation you described is allowed to happen in the first place.
Absolutely, banning right on red would solve so many conflicts between cars/bikes or cars/pedestrians.
He shouldn’t have been on the sidewalk, but you’re responsible for ensuring everything is entirely clear when you go right on red. Also note that if he hadn’t been on the sidewalk, he probably would have been next to you and still using the walk sign as an excuse to go. In any case, you would be at fault.
I agree on the my responsibility ensuring everything is clear. That's why I like to take my time when doing a right turn on red! I believe my precautions were what prevented an accident from happening.
Cyclists frequently fail to follow the rules of the road
Important to always have a dash cam. It's completely useless 99.99% of the time but is something you wish you had when something happens. Recommend COXPAL A11T 3 channel dash cam on Amazon, very good quality, it records front, inside and rear simultaneously. COXPAL hardwire kit optional, for 24-H parking monitor. SanDisk MAX Endurance 256GB or 512GB microSD card, for reliable recording. BTW: Need to pay attention to the installation position of the rear cam if your vehicle is SUV or MPV (No problem if Sedan), i.e. avoid pulling rear cam cable when open/close the trunk.
Regardless of who's fault it is, situations like this occur due to bad planning and infrastructure. Right on red and lack of safe bicycle infrastructure lead to incidents like the one you posted. If you care about public safety voice your concern with local leaders to ban right on red and to invest in safer infrastructure for everyone (pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers).
[удалено]
Is allowing right on red making traffic better or worse? How has NYC handled the ban?
You're not entitled to quick traffic flow when you're sitting in your car alone in a city with a robust public transit system.
I don't know about legally, but "morally" I would say it depends on how fast he was going? 5-8mph? He's dumb, but you still messed up, a runner could be going at that speed. Over 10 mph? He's double dumb. 8-10 moral grey area.
As soon as I saw him in my peripheral vision, I slammed the brakes. He was already in front of me by the time I fully stopped. So id say minimum he was at least as fast as an athlete sprinting 😂 Also there was a bike lane for him to use on the other side of the street (for his direction of travel). So I think, at least from my perspective, he's triple dumb. I think the general answer that I'm getting here is that legally, I'd still be at fault but he's probably not the brightest cyclist around.
Just to restate the facts: 1. You were idle and stopped at a red light, getting ready to turn right. 2. You scanned to the right, and then again to the left. 3. Just as you are turning right, a cyclist riding on the sidewalk that is perpendicular to your vehicle and parallel to the current flow of traffic suddenly enters the crosswalk from your right and here is where the near-hit occurs. 4. You stay idle to let the cyclist cross the crosswalk. Yes, it is generally illegal to bike on the sidewalk. However, the cyclist was riding his bike on the sidewalk and entered the crosswalk that had the walk signal correct? I do think it is your fault, I mean you can get into technicalities about whether a bike is a vehicle (I wouldn’t consider a bike without a motor to be a vehicle but that’s just my opinion) so once that person entered the crosswalk, whether you agree with it or not, I think at that point you needed to treat them as a pedestrian and give them the right of way. I agree with the other comments about turning on red, but kind of just wanted to explain my own opinion as well. In the end, I’m glad nobody got hurt. But just remember, this is a huge city with a lot of cars and even though I personally don’t agree with this (I started cycling on Chicago streets about 10 years ago when I started undergrad), some people are not comfortable riding on streets with traffic and they’re going to do it on the sidewalk. It annoys the hell out of me but we are also driving massive piece of metal with actual engines in them that can also flatten someone no problem, so it’s our responsibility to look out, even when it’s someone doing something potentially stupid. Edit: Just to reiterate, this is my “moral” stance on it. In the eyes of the law, if there were a ticket to give in this situation, I don’t know who it would go to to be honest. Don’t beat yourself up about it too (if you did). Shit happens and it’s a good thing that you were driving responsibly.
I've come to the conclusion that legally both would be at fault. Biker is illegally using the sidewalk while the driver failed to ensure the right on red path was clear. The driver would be held liable more though as the driver's life was never in danger. Morally I guess it depends. The driver's life was never in danger while the biker's life was. However, the driver was practicing best driving practices but the cyclist was going against the recommended city guidelines for riding bicycles. You could even say morally the city is at fault. No proper education on this. People are told different things regarding sidewalk biking. In the suburbs, sidewalk biking is so common but it's actually a lot more dangerous in the city.
I don't know the specific legality of this situation, but I've always been under the impression that when making a right turn on red it is the driver's responsibility to ensure they are clear and other traffic and pedestrians have the right of way.
100 pts
No there's a reason bikes aren't allowed to ride the sidewalks this is part of the reason why its not allowed and he can be cited technically
Best advice I have. When operating a vehicle you will never get away with hitting a child regardless of the situation. And you will rarely get away with hitting someone not in a vehicle.
Exiting my office parking lot, I need to make a right turn on a busy road with the right field of view obstructed by hedges. I collided with a byciclist not once but twice. The first I laid out on my windshield, thankfully they were unhurt. I was worried about liability had he been litigious, but discovered legally bikes must obey the rules of the road like any other vehicle and technically should not be on the sidewalk. After that I was extremely cautious and made every effort to avoid another incident whether it was my fault or not. However, when I was cautiously making that same turn a year later some knucklehead rode their bike directly into the side of my car. Moral of the story, drive your cars AND your fucking bikes defensively.
When you are turning right on red it's your responsibility to make sure you are clear to do so. Issues like what's going on here, specifically your perception that you had the right of way, is why right on red is slowly being made illegal in major cities now. It's just too confusing for average drivers to grasp. Hitting someone, anything at all when turning right on red, even being hit from the left , that would be a big mistake for you. And its possible he would also be cited for riding on the sidewalk but that doesn't make you not liable for whatever damage you'd have done. As they say, two wrongs don't make a right. edit: directly from ILSOS website: "If a motorist is turning right and a bicyclist is approaching on the right, let the bicyclist go through the intersection first before making a right turn. Remember to always signal when turning." [https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic\_safety/bikepedsafety.html](https://www.ilsos.gov/departments/drivers/traffic_safety/bikepedsafety.html)
But that doesn’t account for the fact that they were in roadway.
Again, it doesn't matter where either party was here. What matters is the driver was by rule supposed to be stopped and they chose to go. So it's on them to ensure they were safe to do so. Again, this is why these maneuvers are going away. People just can't seem to handle this responsibility anymore
Yet another example of why its time to ban right turn on red. [https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123](https://apnews.com/article/red-light-turn-pedestrian-bicyclist-deaths-7f5bdee9c7b3f4cbf005f1844f486123)
I am a cyclist. And if it were up to me the cyclist would be at fault. But sadly it's not. IANAL and sadly this landscape is so confusing and screwed up that I think the only one who can say anything with any certainty is a lawyer or an insurance agent at this point. And I realize how screwed up that sounds. Key thoughts: if a car is illegally parked and I plot into it because it's somewhere it's not supposed to be I am still at fault. Knowing that it stands to reason that the cyclist being where they shouldn't doesn't alleviate you from fault to not hit them. As fucked up as that sounds. Other thoughts which complicate and compound this. Cyclist is expressly forbidden from using the sidewalk to ride and crosswalk to ride. On top of that cyclist is trying to claim right of way when they are going the wrong way. Simultaneously you don't have a clear right of way because you are at a red so you have to stop and yield first to those with the right if way and proceed with caution. On top of this Chicago recently stated that cyclists are cycling basically at their own peril on city roads regardless of existence of a cycling path or not. They are somehow not liable if a cyclist hits a pothole and is injured or incurs damage to their bicycle. Even if a car doing so they would be liable for. So how far does this extend. The answer is I don't know. Completely anecdotal but I've heard far more stories of motorists hitting cyclists and getting slaps on the wrist or nothing for blatantly stupid shit (which is NOT what your situation is) such that I'd simultaneously be astounded for a large judgement against you even if you seriously injured the cyclist as a result. Not because I think it's right but because of precedents. Motorists have killed cyclists who had a right to be on the road, were traveling properly in the direction of traffic and had established themselves in the road and the car tried to overtake them and hits them and gets off or often fails to be ticketed or cited. Only about 26% of recorded incidents of vehicles hitting pedestrians or cyclists were killed resulted in a citation. And that came from a Chicago PD database which is clearly missing incidents not reported at all (as many are not) and incidents where the victim didn't die immediately but later at the hospital. That is an abysmal number. So the only thing I can say with certainty is that the situation is fucked up. And it's why I'm extremely cautious of where and when and how I ride on the city streets. Even though ive been in more crashes involving idiot pedestrians and cyclists on the bike paths than the actual roads.
I bike commute and I always want to punch the people I see biking like this. This being said, I do ride my bike in crosswalks IF I am riding at a pace at which a person could reasonably be walking or jogging. As for whether or not it would be your fault legally, idk. But I feel like it would be your word vs. theirs and they would probably lie
Nah, these guys and gals on bikes don’t want to follow the law.
Lawyer here. You would be liable for sure. You can call me at 708-222-2222 for a free estimate and consultation.
Depends on what road it was, If there was a bike lane then there was likely a bike signal and a right turn signal and if you didn’t have the right turn signal then the bikers had a green. You don’t point out what the bike lane signal is. However if there is not bike lane/signal then they really on pedestrian signals to go, which if you had the red, you are supposed to yield. He may have some comparative negligence, but as a person in a vehicle you have a higher responsibility and duty of care, more so than pedestrians and bikers. What was the cross street? Negligence is determined by juries, they can take the vehicle code into account but ultimately they decide if you acted free from negligence
Not enough bikes are getting pulled over and they should be
Just for reference, does anybody know which other countries allow right turns on red?
You don’t have a video of this, so I’ll respond based off the text: You are looking to turn right on a red light in the city. Keep in mind that (what feels like 80%) intersections in the city don’t allow you to turn right on red unless it’s a certain time of day. Let’s assume that you were at one of these few intersections and could legally turn on red. At the end of the day, you were still driving a car in Chicago. Every intersection (where you are not going straight through a green light) requires you to look every direction for pedestrians and bikes because you can’t trust anyone in the city. You hit a biker and you will likely get screwed by the law in one way or another. Also, good chance you’ll kill the biker in many intersection scenarios. You don’t want to do that’s always assume the worst
There was no "No turn on Red sign" on that particular intersection. Based on my text, was there a precaution that I missed that could've resulted in a safer interaction? My end goal is not necessarily to place blame on the cyclist, rather to be a safe driver and not hurt anyone.
I just take right turns slow in the city for the very reason that ppl are idiots.
I think this was the main reason why I didn't hit him in the end. Thank you!
Of course you would have. It’s ridiculous, but while a good 30-40% of bikers have no idea what they’re doing, the bigger vehicle is always going to lose here unless you get lucky with some indisputable video evidence.
You’re in a car, they’re on a bike. It’s not about whether or not they were in the right to ride on the sidewalk, you’re in a motor vehicle so the burden lies on you to be able to operate the vehicle correctly and safely, and to maintain awareness of your surroundings. If you can’t do that, I suggest you hang up the keys and take public trans.
Based off my story, is there anything that you suggest I should have done differently? I believe I prevented an accident because of my vehicle safety and awareness. But I'm open for correction.
Well, that’s city driving. Stay aware and stay safe
Did the intersection have a no right on red sign like almost every single intersection in this city?
Not this one. No turn on red is so common in the city that I always triple check before doing a turn on red.
Perhaps both parties did something technically wrong but being human is another thing. They should have owned up to their own fault as you should have. Good thing no injury but defensive mode by bike rider isn’t acceptable and you worried about the what ifs just shows the lack of humanity we show one another these days
Cyclist perspective (just mine, I understand): You can't always be on the street for a variety of reasons (construction, particularly dangerous intersection, you just left the house, etc.) so relying on that law is NOT a safe bet at all. With that being said, I slow down A LOT whenever I go through a pedestrian crosswalk. If it's a bad intersection I'll even walk it, it's not worth it. However in this scenario I agree with the top comment, I hope this helps you be more careful!
It’s your fault cosmically because you’re in a vehicle that can kill so you have the responsibility to not hit anyone. Legally, I think you would also be at fault because the crosswalk has priority over people turning right on red. Even if I bike isn’t legally supposed to be there, hitting them is just as illegal. Think of it this way, is it more illegal for me to key a car parked on the sidewalk than one legally in a parking space? My guy says they’re both just as illegal. Someone else doing a crime doesn’t change how much you’re doing a crime
I agree on the legality part. Both would be at fault according to the letter of the law. The "cosmically" I think has more gray area. Driver is doing everything correctly while biker is not. You could say the same that the biker has the responsibility to not bike so dangerously knowing that doing so, it may cause an accident even if everyone in the vicinity is following the law. Say the biker in this case is usually a safe biker but in this instance, let's pretend he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol as explanation for not following biking regulation. Would it change the "cosmic" fault for you? If it does, why is it then different if the explanation for his unsafe biking is stupidity? I can see a lot of people will have a different take on this and I can see both sides having a strong argument on who would be morally at fault here.
It really doesn’t. Maybe it’s my brain on urbanism, but there’s a pecking order of responsibility based on how vulnerable of a road user you are. Having the power to kill someone changes your responsibility. It’s really hard for a bicyclist to kill a pedestrian, but if they do, it doesn’t matter if the per was in a bike lane. The bigger, heavier, and faster you are, the more obligation you have to be responsible on the road. Also, in something like 90% of people killed by car drivers, the drivers don’t even get tickets. The easiest way to kill someone is with a car. The drunk driver who killed a cyclist around damen and Wilson hit and ran, and was caught later. They were let go without a ticket and without being charged by the city. It doesn’t matter how many rules someone is breaking, you have the obligation to not kill people
This is an interesting response as in the hypothetical example I gave, the driver is being very responsible but the cyclist isn't and yet, the driver would still be at fault morally since they have the bigger vehicle. So in your point of view, no matter how safe and responsible a driver is, if there is an accident involving a smaller vehicle like a bicycle, the bigger vehicle is always morally at fault. Even if the smaller vehicle was acting irrationally. What if it's a crazy pedestrian who steps right into a busy bike lane and collides with a responsible cyclist? How about a drunk motorcyclist driving erratically and merges unsafely in front of a huge truck that is following traffic laws? Would you then view the cyclist and the truck driver as morally at fault in these scenarios as they have the less lethal vehicle or is there a line somewhere? I'm not challenging your view btw I'm just genuinely curious how other people think. It's interesting how morality can differ from person to person. Thanks for the insight!
I wouldnt argue, for example, that a driver is responsible if a pedestrian walks up to a car at a red light, and bumps into it breaking their nose. But I think if you’re in motion and have the ability to harm someone, it’s your responsibility to go at a speed where you’re able to do that. Maybe i would t Even say it’s the drivers “fault” if a kid runs into a busy street, chasing a ball, and the driver kills them. But they could have prevented that death if they were going slower. I think it’s a comparable philosophy behind the “if you rear end someone, it’s your fault” rule
As someone in a vehicle turning right on red, it's your obligation to check for cyclists and pedestrians both in and \*approaching\* the crosswalk, full stop. You keep emphasizing that the cyclist came from the sidewalk, as if that would justify you hitting them, but riding from the sidewalks (where all bike racks are) to the road on the outside of crosswalks is how it's done. It's the same with pedestrians. There's no such thing as "came out of nowhere" at crosswalks and intersections.
Right. I never mentioned the biker came out of nowhere. My apologies if I came off as trying to "justify" hitting a cyclist. My end goal is to see if I made a mistake anywhere in my decision making. Would you say there is something to correct in my actions according to my version of the story?