Area Soldier Killed In Fort Hood Rampage
Stroger Makes Hollywood Play
Put Down Your Nanowrimo And Leave The House
Sox Shuffle Continues
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]
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
"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
And good luck persuading any legislative body with that argument.
Dude, I don't need to persuade anybody. Status quo is already in my favor.
@ fed_up
And even more importantly - he was killed being a part of doing something stupid and inconsiderate, a deliberate attempt to shut down a part of the city to auto traffic. Even in the densest pack of cyclists, he could have angled off into a parking lot or down an intersection he was crossing, or in some way gotten out of there, the moment he could see what was happening. He chose not to, and won himself a Darwin award by continuing to run with the other lemmings.
No argument about Critical Mass - I'll agree that they're idiots, even by Moonbat standards. My point is that Dan is even worse.
You pissing in your pants and trying to look like a big man as you do so - hysterical, especially after you try to swagger with a line like
You small.
What is now on display for all to see is the fact that you're only big when you get to hide behind a computer screen or the wheel of a car. Not much of a man, are you?
I'll agree that they're idiots, even by Moonbat standards. My point is that Dan is even worse.
Why? Because I point out that nasty little reality that cyclists are never going to have equal claim to the road?
Welcome to reality: Your best advocate that ABC could find for your movement was a dweeb who works retail at a bike store. He took the horrible situation where one of his customers gets IRL banned and turns it into a crusade against people who drive SUV's. Do you really think you're going to be taken seriously?
Welcome to reality: Your best advocate that ABC could find for your movement
You're signing me up for membership in a group I've been openly opposing on this very page, and you want to talk about reality.
Priceless.
What is now on display for all to see is the fact that you're only big when you get to hide behind a computer screen or the wheel of a car. Not much of a man, are you?
Lulz.
This guy keeps getting better.
I'm sorry. It's just so damn funny.
R U GUNNA BEAT ME UPZ? M33t ME ATZ the BIKE RACK!!
As Chicagoist now has become a adjunct site for 2nd City Cop, allow me, your Spook and commentator of the month elect, to share this letter with Chicagoist off the critical mass website. It was written to Eric Zorn
There are too many cars in Chicago and we all (drivers and the car(e)free alike) share
responsibility for changing that -- for moving our city forward to a point where
we're all not living in constant danger and polluted air. I'd also hold that
regular drivers have culpability in agreeing to be part of a system that
maintains the status quo. That being said, the situation is now that the
streets are dangerous esp. when you choose to blow stop lights on major streets.
The guy who was killed was a regular cyclist and knew this. He paid for his
mistake with his life. To hear people making a terrible situation worse with the
level of hatred and inability to see the bigger picture is too bad. While I can
and do feel bad for the driver, at least s/he isn't dead.
And it's interesting that while this racer who made a mistake and got himself
killed is getting so much press, we never hear this type of outrage when an
idiot driver kills *someone else* -- maybe because it happens all the time...
tod
spook, the problem with that blurb is the attempt to shift some of the blame to the driver and society in general.
the only danger created was by the bicyclist, and his stupidity cost him his life. i know that it's difficult for some to come to grips with, but decisions have consequences.
idiot driver kills *someone else* -- maybe because it happens all the time...
Boom! There it is.
Or perhaps, because the driver can actually be held liable.....
But remember: you're just like traffic.
Yeah bike riders need to be held liable for all the people they're killing with their recklessness, let the world know next time a bike rider kills somebody by running them down. Let me help you out. Bike riders can be ticketed and held liable for violations and if you don't think it happens enough maybe you should take that up with the police. I'm not sure they'll take too kindly to your internet tough guy, angry little man, macho bullshit 'tude though.
Congrats your responses her show that you've got to be the biggest mouth breathing retard in cook county. Geez man, some physically fit bike rider steal your girlfriend or something?
No, because you're trying to create your own reality and see if others are gullible enough to join you in it. You're trying to get support for what would be a radical change, in part, by employing Hitler's technique of the Big Lie and pretending that the law has been as you've always wanted it to be, and that you are affirming the status quo instead of trying to twist it to your own psychotic tastes.
You assert that the cyclists are merely borrowing the road from the motorists, who "own it", implying that the Law does not grant cylists access to the city streets on which they are to be found. In point of fact, as we can quickly see on this page on the site of join committee on administrative rules, cyclists very much do have that right and drivers had better respect it:
11-1003.1 "Failure to exercise due care for pedestrian or bicyclist"
The driver in this case was shielded from prosecution not because, as you imagine in your dementia, because his vehicle was bigger than the bicylist's vehicle, but because the rider was at fault for running a red light, causing the accident, and the driver was guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, if a psycopath such as yourself blows through a cyclist for shits and giggles, that's known as vehicular homicide. Try that in the real world and get convicted, and at best, you are going to end up as somebody's bitch in Stateville. That's the law, like it or lump it.
The only thing under discussion in regard to the bill somebody mentioned is whether or not the teeth in the law ought to be sharpened.
I'll tell you what. You've asked me nicely so many times, how can I say no? Fine. I'll beat you senseless over the Internet. Right after you run me down with that big car of yours on the Internet, as you were hinting that you were going to.
"Me big, you small", remember, big guy?
Navin writes:
Or maybe just a psychologically stable one. Out of curiosity, I did a google search on "dan+l" and Chicagoist, and kept coming across this Blogger profile for a "Dan L", on which I found a link to this blog.
He's an interesting guy, our Dan, quite possibly more interesting than we were imagining until now. I came across this post, in which he quotes remarks about our local teams which he attributes to somebody named "Tommy the Tout". Having never heard of Tommy, I did a search under that name and Chicago, turning up very few results other than those in Dan's blog, but according to one of them, "Tommy", apparently, is a comic book character. Unless there's another Tommy the Tout who comments on Chicago sports, who Google doesn't know about for some reason. Maybe there is. The world is a big place and Google doesn't see it all.
But if there isn't - wow. Can you say "schizophrenia"? The rest of the blog is kind of special, too.
And the lulz continue:
obviously not, if several of your friends like to get together and have illegal bike races and "cork" intersections. But let me know when you get out of retail so you can pay insurance, get a license to operate, and have to register your "vehicle" so you can be like the big kids.
See what's funny here kiddo, is that this cavalier attitude on this stuff that you show on the web is moot, because of the practice of the situation: The facts are still the fact: You're slow and small. Cars are big and fast. You're in far more danger than the driver.
Oh and congrats. You found my site. It's a big secret that I keep MOSU and contribute at Illinoize. Huge secret. It's a wonder that you're "underemployed".
But that might make sense as to why you don't own a car though.....
obviously not, if several of your friends like to get together and have illegal bike races and "cork" intersections. But let me know when you get out of retail so you can pay insurance, get a license to operate, and have to register your "vehicle" so you can be like the big kids.
Eh Dan, once again you've proved my point that you're a sad, sad little man. I don't race bikes and I'm not even what other cyclists would consider a cyclist, I actually have nothing to do with bike culture other than the fact that I ride a bike to work when I feel like it. I ride to work a lot, I also drive my very much insured van around as well. It speaks volumes that in order to make your childish argument even sound remotely reasonable you've got to assume that everyone that finds you to be a ignorant juvenile JAMF must really some kind of gung ho bike or die person. No, you're just a standard, cowering internet troll. I think I hear your mother calling you to dinner........
I find it highly entertaining that reality it "childish" and the work of a "troll".
With the level of obtuse that you show, I strongly urge you to wear a helemet. Not just on the bike - but all the time.
I know what the driver must feel like. There is an intersection near my house (in a residential part of Ukranian Village) where one street has no stop sign and the other does. I've never gone through it at more than 25 mph. Since last summer when I moved in, I have come extremely close to hitting (or have they come close to hitting me) no fewer than 5 cyclists running through that stop sign. Two of them at the same time. I would say a less intelligent and/or more intoxicated man would have killed any one of those cyclists. I completely agree that if they want to be treated like cars, they need to obey the same laws that drivers do. I won't feel bad at all, and will have no problem pressing charges or filing suit, when the day comes that they slam into the side of my car after running that stop sign.