February 26, 2008
Cyclist Hit by Car Was Racing in Tour Da Chicago
The biker who was hit by a car and killed over the weekend was Matthew Manger-Lynch, 29. He was racing in the Tour Da Chicago, an alleycat street race.
Manger-Lynch, a Milwaukee native, moved to Chicago in 2004 and was a partner in Mandolin Catering. His obituary says he was "an avid cyclist, fisherman, chef, Packer fan, wine collector, sausage maker and committed outdoorsman," and he planned on opening his own wine and food boutique. His wife told the Trib that he was really excited about the Tour, and he was apparently near the front of the pack.
The Tour Da Chicago, now in its 10th year, is a six-stage race, and this past weekend was the third stage. [Trib, Manger-Lynch's obituary, photo via his wife's photography site]
|
"Packer fan"
Come on, now, I'm TRYING to feel bad for the guy.
Admitting that I don't know much about these types of things, doesn't the fact that it was a race on the streets of Chicago tacitly encourage people to flout the rules of the road in order to maintain a lead or make up for lost time?
yes, pinko. i'd imagine this was the last year for this ill advised event
@Pinko: I'm with you. I had never even heard of this event before. However, I went over to the Trib site (linked in the article) and in less than a minute I had all of the information that I needed:
(emphasis mine)Apparently the only requirement for this race is a bicycle as common sense seems to be lacking from any description.
@Pinko: I'm with you. I had never even heard of this event before. However, I went over to the Trib site (linked in the article) and in less than a minute I had all of the information that I needed:
(emphasis mine)Apparently the only requirement for this race is a bicycle as common sense seems to be lacking from any description.
I think the organizers of this race have to be quivering in their boots. Punishments on both the criminal and civil ends of the legal spectrum are not outside the realms of possibility.
"It's an event inherently designed to have people break rules and break laws," said Rob Sadowsky, executive director of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, which advocates city bicycling and promotes bicycling safety. "It provides a competitive incentive, almost, for people to run red lights."
From the Trib article linked to above. Nice to hear someone from the CBF sounding lucid in response to this tragedy.
It sounds like Cannonball Run with bikes.
critical mass better be careful. based on their FAQs on the website, they are kinda pro red light running too, though they do a decent job rationalizing it. http://chicagocriticalmass.org/about/faq
"The strength of the Mass is in it's close-knit unity as an organic body. It is sometimes necessary to ride through lights in order to maintain this unity. It is actually safer. Otherwise, car traffic is tempted to weave in and out among small groups of riders."
Bzzzzt. Oops. Wrong.
"The strength of the Mass is in it's close-knit unity as an organic body. It is sometimes necessary to ride through lights in order to maintain this unity. It is actually safer. Otherwise, car traffic is tempted to weave in and out among small groups of riders."
Bzzzzt. Oops. Wrong.
it does sound bogus at first, but this is probably why there aren't tons of dead bodies lining the streets of chicago during these events.
Tower18...you beat me to the Bzzzzt! :-)
I am going out on a limb here, but it seems that "Stopping at a Red Light" is pretty safe.
One could say the "safest".
Well, critical mass is a whole different animal. You're talking about thousands of riders on a casual ride (essentially a parade), as opposed to a couple dozen in a heated speed race. Granted, its still illegal and potentially dangerous, but its not the same type of situation.
I feel sorry for the guy, but when you're engaged in an illegal, unorganized street race in the midst of one of the worst winters Chicago (icy streets, frigid temps) has seen in 30 years...yeah...that's not the smartest play.
I hate that this is such a polarizing topic. Common sense, decent behavior and courtesy from drivers, cyclists and pedestrians...what's political or divisive about that?
It is a shame that such an apparently smart guy, and energtic businessman, was lost to Chicago because of what seems like an amazingly reckless act. After reading about his life, it seems the city will be less without him. And the driver, too--god, what that must feel like.
For those who haven't already, please absorb the lesson of this accident.
And for the alleycat people: Just stop it already.
Bummer.I hope this doesn't happen during the Chiditarod.
It's a messenger race. This is terrible news.
Point made about the rider being "reckless"
I just wonder *if* we lived in a society
that was not so so so so car focused,
so car loving and soooooo car dependent, what would such a society look like?
Perhaps it would look like a society where a SUV driver could not but help see 40 adult bikers pedaling near a park and the Library and immediatley slow way down.
Don't kill the messenger.
nice work, spook - somehow twist the blame and place it on the driver.
it's obviously the driver's fault that he obeyed the traffic light and didn't focus on the other 5 roads that led into the intersection.
what does being "car dependent" have to do with a bicyclist's absolute disregard for traffic laws? (i'll give you a hint - absolutely nothing)
Ignore the troll.
Unless Spook gathers his own greens and hunts squirrels for sustenance, he's as "car-dependant" as the rest of us. The real danger is to us down here on the ground when idiots like him fall out of their ivory towers.
I just wonder *if* we lived in a society
that was not so so so so car focused,
so car loving and soooooo car dependent, what would such a society look like?
That's a really good question that merits further discussion, and one I'm not certain I'm even qualified to answer...
I will say this, however. Such a society would probably runneth over with unicorns and rainbows, and perhaps even a chocolate waterfall or two...
And if not? Then I'll have no part of it, thank you!
Spook, I'm as strongly pro-bicycle as they come, and even I don't condone the Tour da Chicago.
I, for one, feel horrible for the driver. He's got to have this on his conscience and think about what this is going to do to his insurance rates. All because a cyclist was a dipshit.
Cyclists fancy themselves "just like traffic" - that is until it comes down to doing the simple things like "following laws" and stuff.
"Perhaps it would look like a society where a SUV driver could not but help see 40 adult bikers pedaling near a park and the Library and immediatley slow way down."
Spook, you can't see a park or library from that intersection. You might be thinking of Montrose. Drivers traveling east on Irving Park, as this driver was, would be pretty much in the intersection before they'd see anyone heading southeast-bound on Lincoln. This wasn't the driver's fault.
"Such a society would probably runneth over with unicorns and rainbows, and perhaps even a chocolate waterfall or two..."
Damn, that's cold!, Guess its time for me to bear a hasty retreat and I'll reconsider next time a paraphrase from the critical mass list serve
That is one of the worst intersections in Chicago to bike thru. Extreme caution is needed by all (cars, bikes, and walkers>. Running a redlight there is a terrible idea.
"The strength of the Mass is in it's close-knit unity as an organic body. It is sometimes necessary to ride through lights in order to maintain this unity. It is actually safer."
What's truly scary is that might be sort of true, in a way. I've seen Critical Mass come through my neighborhood in such a wave, as to practically offer the cyclist's equivalent of tailgating. I'm wondering what might happens if one person stops while a bunch of other people go whizzing past, startled by his stopping because they were so conditioned to expect that he was going to keep going. One thing worse that shooting through car traffic on a bike is going to be getting hit from behind by another cyclist and hitting the pavement spinning out of control, as one goes under the wheels of one of those cars.
Which is why my vote would go for "don't go riding with these guys", which I think really seems like the safest choice of all. Don't put yourself in a position of having to decide which dangerous thing you want to do; if one has smarter friends, one often gets a better set of choices than that.
There was just some yutz on ABC 7 blaming the SUV driver. He never explains why it's the cyclists fault - but apparently he works at a retail bike shop so take his opinion for what it's worth.
I'll never understand this silly sense of entitlement that cyclists have - especially after one of their own self-murders via stupidity.
Just got this from "Spook Fellow Traveler"
The Protect Vulnerable Users Bill (H.B. 4861), sponsored by Rep. Luis Arroyo,
proposes that motorists who kill or injure a vulnerable user would
receive:
* A minimum fine of $12,500
* Up to one year in jail
* Possible revocation or suspension of their driver's license
Current penalties include neither jail time nor significant monetary
fines.
These vulnerable users are often children, senior citizens, and people
with disabilities, who have nothing to protect them in a crash. More
than 160 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed in Illinois last year.
The Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, in partnership with the League of
Illinois Bicyclists, is working with legislators to support the
Vulnerable Users Bill and other critical pieces of legislation.
"These bills encourage people who want safe, healthy and active
transportation options by protecting vulnerable users and strengthening
disincentives for careless driving," said Rob Sadowsky, executive
director of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation.
Mayor Richard Daley and the Chicago Department of Transportation also
took a step to protect bicyclists with the 2008 Bicycle Safety Ordinance
introduced this month. The ordinance would improve safety for bicyclists
by:
* Requiring a minimum of three feet of clearance while passing
bicyclists
* Prohibiting a motorist from opening a door into moving traffic,
reducing the danger of "dooring"
* Raising the fines for vehicles parked in bike lanes or marked
shared lanes
* Requiring motorists to yield to oncoming bicyclists when turning
left, which prevents a "left hook" crash
* Prohibiting motorists from turning right in front of a
bicyclist, which prevents a "right hook" crash
* Requiring motorists to exercise due care for bicyclists in
addition to pedestrians
Violation of the ordinance would result in a minimum fine of $150. When
a violation leads to a bicycle crash, the minimum fine would be $500.
Well yeah spook - nobody is disagreeing with the idea of drivers being conscience of the bike riders, but this isn't that kind of situation.
dan - i saw that last night as well. the argument was eerily similar to spook's earlier in the thread. i'll give the interviewee credit for making the most laughable connection i've seen in a while (people shouldn't blame the bicyclist that's at fault/people are bad for driving suv's).
spook - there is no need for that. the solution is pretty simple - the police should be ticketing bicyclists for blowing through stop signs, red lights, and whatever other violations they commit.
dan - i saw that last night as well. the argument was eerily similar to spook's earlier in the thread. i'll give the interviewee credit for making the most laughable connection i've seen in a while (people shouldn't blame the bicyclist that's at fault/people are bad for driving suv's).
spook - there is no need for that. the solution is pretty simple - the police should be ticketing bicyclists for blowing through stop signs, red lights, and whatever other violations they commit.
Well even though, I tecnically agreed with you folks on the point of the biker being somewhat reckless,forgive me for being passive agressive with my strong anti car leanings, but at least I'm honest about my anti car bias and remember, I do drive a vespa, which is a sin among true hard core bikers too. See I'm human
Well even though, I tecnically agreed with you folks on the point of the biker being somewhat reckless,forgive me for being passive agressive with my strong anti car leanings, but at least I'm honest about my anti car bias and remember, I do drive a vespa, which is a sin among true hard core bikers too. See I'm human
Be all anti-car you want. But look: fact is cars still own the road. You're merely borrowing some space.
"I tecnically agreed with you folks on the point of the biker being somewhat reckless."
Spook, running a red light at a busy, three-street intersection is only "somewhat reckless."
What exactly qualifies as "reckless," then? Can bikers do anything that is more than merely "somewhat reckless"?
Before you make assumptions, I am pretty anti-car myself, and don't own a vehicle by choice.
But look: fact is cars still own the road. You're merely borrowing some space.
I'll never understand this silly sense of entitlement that drivers have - especially after one of their own murders via stupidity.
pinko, please connect drunk driving deaths to the fact that this accident was the equivalent of one driving a car onto the train tracks when the gates are down and a freight train is 10 yards away
pinko, please connect drunk driving deaths to the fact that this accident was the equivalent of one driving a car onto the train tracks when the gates are down and a freight train is 10 yards away
I'll never understand this silly sense of entitlement that drivers have - especially after one of their own murders via stupidity.
LOL-ESAD.
You have to understand: If a cyclist gets hit by a car, it's a safe bet that the driver won't even spill his coffee.
Ride around thinking you're the most important thing out there if you want. I don't recommend it - but w/ev.
I'll never understand this silly sense of entitlement that drivers have - especially after one of their own murders via stupidity.
LOL-ESAD.
You have to understand: If a cyclist gets hit by a car, it's a safe bet that the driver won't even spill his coffee.
Ride around thinking you're the most important thing out there if you want. I don't recommend it - but w/ev.
pinko, please connect drunk driving deaths to the fact that this accident was the equivalent of one driving a car onto the train tracks when the gates are down and a freight train is 10 yards away
It has nothing to do with this particular accident--I don't fault the driver in the least...
I was merely drawing attention to the type of dangerous mindset (using his own words) that makes the roads less safe for everyone, cyclists and drivers alike...
I was merely drawing attention to the type of dangerous mindset (using his own words) that makes the roads less safe for everyone, cyclists and drivers alike...
The difference is, drivers are held criminally liable for this stuff. They have to have things like insurance, pay taxes, pass tests, and have a license.
Judging by Manger-Lynch's ending, you need none of the above to ride a bike - nor do you need even a few brain cells.
Are CM rides sanctioned by the Chicago Police Department?
We believe that riding our bikes in public streets does not require sanctioning by anyone. Bikes have as much right as cars to city streets. Police officers sometimes assist us by restraining cross-car traffic at intersections. However, we do not request such assistance. We prefer to "cork" the intersections ourselves.
Yup. Law abiding citizens.
"Be all anti-car you want. But look: fact is cars still own the road. You're merely borrowing some space."
The roads are owned by the taxpayers, who are forced to subsidize their construction and maintenance whether they drive or not. If some of those taxpayers lean on their elected representatives and get them to change the law in such a way as to be more responsive to their interests and needs, what exactly is your point of objection to that?
and get them to change the law in such a way as to be more responsive to their interests and needs, what exactly is your point of objection to that?
Not really an objection, more just a point of reality. We're bigger, heavier, faster and in the vast, vast majority.
Fortunately when it comes to we vehicular types - the bike activists are mainly unclean barely employed bike messengers and the biketards from Critical mass (and let's be honest, idiots like this Manger guy). As long as they keep not following the laws, holding illegal bike racing, and refusing to shower, nobody is ever going to take them seriously - leaving me and my H2 to cruise uninhibited.
BTW:
LOL @ Wingnut.
Yes, Dan, do you know what federal highway funds are? Here's a page for you to read, right after you get done with that free literacy program down at your AA Chapter. Good luck with that.
Dude, it's a wingnut statement.
The roads were made primarily for motorized transportation. Motorized transportation dominates the roads. No link in the world is going to change that and at the end of the day, you're going to have to deal with that.
In other words, you've made up your mind, so don't anybody try to confuse you with the facts.
Those Critical Mass people I just got done criticising are suddenly looking a lot more reasonable than they did a minute ago.
LOL.
You just can't get around the reality of it, can you?
Me big.
You small.
Simple enough?
You small.
And good luck persuading any legislative body with that argument. OK, I guess I've made this a little too philosophical for you. Let me take it down to your level.
Me - over 6'6" and more than 240 lbs.
You - little pissant with big car, whose neck I could probably snap without breaking a serious sweat.
Neither I, nor the women in what I suspect has been the long dry stretch that has passed for your dating life since your inflatable doll sprung a leak, are impressed.
Simple enough?
He was killed doing something stupid and illegal so its hard to feel sorry for him.
Bam. Physical threats over the interwebz.
Hilarious