May 2, 2008
Ask Chicagoist: Who Has Right-Of-Way?
Dear Chicagoist,
I recently got into an argument with my boss about who has the "right of way" on the road - bicyclists or motorists. While I am not advocating bicyclists to have blatant disregard for motorists, I subscribe to the idea that the slowest mode of transportation should always have the right of way - i.e. cars yield to bikes, bikes yield to pedestrians. My boss says cars have the right of way. What do you say?
JE
Unfortunately, this is a sadly appropriate question considering the number of bicyclists killed recently in Chicago -- including a woman in Logan Square on Wednesday.
But, sorry, JE. We think your logic makes sense, but in Chicago, bikes lose.
City law specifically states that everyone on the road is more important than bicyclists (perhaps in not so many words...), and they need to yield right-of-way.
Paragraph 9-52-040 of Chicago Municipal Code is titled "Yielding right-of-way" and outlines how bicycles have to yield to both pedestrians and vehicles when entering the roadway, pedestrians when riding on the sidewalk (which is almost always illegal anyway), and "other moving vehicles" when riding on the road. No word yet on if bicycles have to yield to motorists driving on the sidewalk.
So this all pretty much means that bicycles yield to everyone all the time: "Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction and at all times giving the right-of-way to other moving vehicles."
Outside of Chicago it's less specific. Illinois' state regulations indicate that neither cars nor bicycles have automatic right-of-way based on the chosen mode of transportation. Bicyclists are required to adhere to the "rules of the road," and cars are expected to do the same, and not blatantly run bicycles off the road (or into their cars). That last part applies to Chicago, too.
The state law says that "traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle." The law doesn't mention right-of-way specifically by name when discussing bicycles and motor vehicles, except to say that bicyclists definitely have to yield to pedestrians.
Right-of-way or not though, motorists still are required to follow traffic guidelines and maintain a little common sense to avoid putting bicyclists in danger. Bicyclists have to follow traffic regulations -- but so do motorists. Right-of-way has to do with yielding in the flow of traffic, not putting bicyclists into harm's way or driving (or riding) like a moron.
Also important: don't get hit by cars.
Image via ciscel
Taking off the training wheels? Need some advice? Email ask(at)chicagoist(dot)com.
|
Here we go in 3, 2, 1....
Sparky: I don't see why we should have a firestorm on this.
The law is clear and sensible for both drivers and bikers. Anyone--a biker, a walker, a driver--who breaks the law should face punishment. All groups should obey the law, have common sense and offer courtesy. If someone thinks the law is wrong, that person should work to change the law through our republican (not Republican) system, not brazenly break a law designed to protect others as well. Debate over.
Let us not forget to consider Segways, which the law says anyone can point and ridicule or run over at any time, anywhere in the city. It is a just and fair law.
It is true that in unmarked streets vehicles have the right of way over bikes. HOWEVER, there are several streets that have bike lanes or that have shared lanes where bikes *do* have the right of way. There are also the occasional lanes that are designated for city buses and bikes only. See: http://www.chicagobikes.org/whatarebikeways.html
I'm thinking about buying a bike soon... this spree of accidents concerns me. Is it too dangerous to bike in Chicago?
@rigoberto:
Everything in life carries inherent risk. Like the time I went on a sex tour of Africa. Good times!
No rigoberto. Just be smart and wear a helmet.
If you go to your local secretary of state, you can pick up a pamphlet on safe bicycling, and it clearly states that as a biker, you are just another vehicle. You are to follow the laws like everyone else and you are supposed to have the same rights as any other car.
What's stupid is the fact that both the city and the state seem to disagree about everything with bicycles. Even the hand signals for turning prescribed by the state in it's pamphlet are different than those given by the city on its bicycling map.
Screw cars. I feel this was an inappropriate article; even if in specific situations cars have a slight edge, in 99.9% of situations, they do not and must respect bikers. This article will allow cars to think they have power over bikes. They do not. We are their equals, not their subordinates.
I think Bike activits are designing three ghost bikes to mark the two women killed on that corner( Amritage and Kedzie) as well as the young Columbia College student killed on Western two weeks ago. Hopefully Chicagoist will post a photo.
I was always taught "Bike/pedestrian vs. car, bike/pedestrian wins."
What a bummer to find out it's not that way...ah well. I'll still yield to them. I mean, think about it. 1 ton hunk of moving metal versus an unshielded human being.
@rigoberto
I tend to bike on less-trafficked streets when I can. The accidents in Logan Square are, sadly, not very surprising as that's a very high traffic area with a great deal of traffic flow issues.
I don't get the antagonism between cyclists and motorists at all. I've been biking since I was about 7 and lived in Chicago my whole life. I've had more close calls behind the wheel of a car than on my bike.
Many motorists try to share the road but I've heard a number of drivers say that riding with a cyclist nearby makes them 'nervous'. It's a trick of the brain that they're more nervous about a person on a bike than they are about the 2000 pound cars all around them!
I do think there are some cyclists who don't respect the law and endanger themselves and others. Seeing some guy dressed like Lance Armstrong blowing through a red light causing cars to slam on their brakes is reckless and dumb.
Basic consideration for others and sharing the road with everyone regardless of how you get around, sound sadly polly-anna doesn't it?
cars don't have right of way in bike lines.
AlbanyParkist
I have a 140 pound dog who understands that she weighs 140 pounds so she tends to be gentle with small dogs, cats, children, etc. I wish we lived in a society were car drivers acted this way with their 2000 pounds of steel. Even on My Vespa I am super deferential to cyclist. Why? Because my scooter is faster and stronger. People that ride bikes help the environment. I wish we lived in a country that respected them more. But again our car culture is connected to our materialistic shallow egos.
Pedestrians and cyclists ALWAYS have the right-of-way over cars. Period.
spook, bicyclists aren't respected by many drivers, because bicyclists (in general) don't follow traffic laws. it's not a difficult concept - and it's akin to drivers not respecting other drivers that fail to follow traffic laws.
widdly - Screw cars. I feel this was an inappropriate article; even if in specific situations cars have a slight edge, in 99.9% of situations, they do not and must respect bikers. This article will allow cars to think they have power over bikes. They do not. We are their equals, not their subordinates.
if you want to start talking about feelings, let's start with how i feel you need to grow up and get the chip off your shoulder.
And bicyclists have the same rights as cars. The roads are shared, cars do not trump bikes.
I love scaring the shit out of bike riders.
I hate those assholes.
I drive super close to them. I've clipped one or 10.
...spook, bicyclists aren't respected by many drivers, because bicyclists (in general) don't follow traffic laws.
The same can just as easily be said for drivers--not using turn signals, speeding, coasting through 'Stop' signs, talking on cell phones, DWI, etc.--it goes both ways. And before you make the argument that by default, the cyclist is the one who will ultimately pay the price either way, do you really want to be the one at fault behind the wheel when a cyclist is killed? Either way, two lives are destroyed...
As for me, I'm generally too much of a pussy to ride my bike unless on side streets or late at night when there's less traffic...
Jimbo, so its that why Logan Square becomes NASCAR Central every summer? Is that why folks in our community have to beg for speed bumps?
Sounds like you're the one with the chip on your shoulder, Chip-O
p.s
Oh and the teacher killed two days ago was wearing a helmet, which did little good against the uninsured driver who was speeding.
spook, i don't know of the incident you speak of, but on its face it sounds like the driver was at fault. it's ignorant to bring in the fact that the bicyclist was a teacher or was wearing a helmet though - it's just irrelevant.
pinko - the point is that drivers do not want to hit bicyclists. we can go back and forth for however long you want, but rationalizing the blatant disregard for traffic laws that bicyclists show by comparing them to drivers is shallow. the two aren't even comparable in the levels of "lawlessness" displayed.
This is one of the most misinformed posts I have ever read on this site. The section of the law you quoted is for entering and exiting the roadway, which is similar to cars, not for traveling on roads. And this is would also be a matter of common sense, because it does not matter who had the right away. You still got hit by a car.
Also you should point out recent changes to both Chicago and Illinois law.
Illinois law
"625 ILCS 5/11-1505. Position of bicycles and motorized pedal cycles on roadways -Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.
(a)Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a roadway at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall ride as close as practicable and safe to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations:"
The keyword being and safe
furthermore, you forgot to mention that several new laws went into effect recently.
It is now illegal (both city and state) to pass a cyclist with in three feet.
finally, the city recently passed ordinances making the "left and right hook" and dooring specifically illegal.
next time you should re read the law and post correct and up to date information
Thank you
why do i read this: Good point on the new ordinances, those are a good addition.
However, that section of Chicago code about right-of-way does still apply. Section (a) of that code has to do with, as you said, entering traffic. Section (b) has to do with riding on the sidewalk. Section (c), however, is about "operating a bicycle upon a roadway."
"9-52-040. Yielding right-of-way.
(a) The operator of a bicycle emerging from an alley, driveway or building shall, upon approaching a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across any alleyway, yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk or sidewalk area and, upon entering the roadway, shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway.
(b) Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian.
(c) Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction and at all times giving the right-of-way to other moving vehicles."
I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's what it says.
Jim-boesky
The incident in which I speak is the incident above. And I brought up the fact that she was a teacher because people tend to make it seem like any one who gets killed on a bike is a rabid bike messenger.
This woman was a teacher at a church school. I mention the helmet because when some one gets killed on a bike often they are blamed for not wearing a helmet. This was also readily apparent when the 14th distirct police commander said about this accident that all cyclists should ride responsibility and wear protective gear, even though this was not the cyclist’s fault. And why not warn drivers to slow down and watch for cyclist too?
spook, i don't know of the incident you speak of, but on its face it sounds like the driver was at fault. it's ignorant to bring in the fact that the bicyclist was a teacher or was wearing a helmet though - it's just irrelevant.
@Spook:
"People that ride bikes help the environment. I wish we lived in a country that respected them more. But again our car culture is connected to our materialistic shallow egos."
I ride my bike because it's cheap, it's exercise and I like it. I don't feel the need to politicize every action or frame people in automobiles as evil monsters out to kill and maim me while drinking the blood of mother earth.
It's just that kind of myopia that engenders bad blood between cyclists and drivers. Why not discuss this like adults and not over-heated teenagers?
spook, the fact that she was a teacher is completely irrelevant, and the fact that you have to throw something like that in there speaks volumes for your (in)ability to decipher what is and what is not important. the helmet, again, has nothing to do with the real issue here - the driver was driving recklessly. nothing more needs to be said about it - it's most likely his fault. i hate to keep busting your chops, but the fact that the driver was uninsured has no bearing on this either.
warning drivers to slow down and watch for bicyclists isn't a terrible idea - because i think we all know that bicyclists appear seemingly out of nowhere, since they have no respect for traffic laws.
It's simple really:
Share the Road, Share the Rules.
I know it's been mentioned before, but there's a large difference between a car drive talking on a cell phone and a bicycle rider blowing through stop lights / signs.
As for AlbanyParkist saying "Many motorists try to share the road but I've heard a number of drivers say that riding with a cyclist nearby makes them 'nervous'. It's a trick of the brain that they're more nervous about a person on a bike than they are about the 2000 pound cars all around them!"
I'm nervous when passing bikers because if I graze against them, we're looking at serious hospital time. If I graze a car or SUV, we're going to the paint shop. I'm not nervous because I fear getting hurt, I fear hurting others.
I have a lot of friends who ride bikes everywhere and I think it's a great solution to getting around in our city. But everyone involved has to be sensible and respect the rules of the road.
I think this is needlessly confusing too. The city's Safe Bicycling in Chicago manual says,
"When to Ride In the Middle:➏
It’s safest to ride in the middle of the lane when: (a)You’re moving at the speed of traffic; (b) the lane’s too small for cars to pass you safely; (c) you’re avoiding potholes or the doors of parked cars. If you’re riding in the middle and traffic starts to move faster than you can, move toward the curb if there’s room."
Bicycles are supposed to yield right-of-way to faster vehicles approaching in the same lane (please note, drivers, that this may not be an instantaneous action).
The implication of this post seems to be that cars can run bicycles off the road, and that's not true.
Jimbo,
Don't you feel a little cartoonish there, admonishing spook for what he said and then completely proving his point by saying something completely retarded like you did below? Sorry I had to point that out to you but the irony was so palpable.
navin, you are hardly one that should be using retard to describe another. i'm impressed that this thread is around 25 comments, and you haven't found racism yet.
To clarify a bit about right-of-way.
No one "has" right-of-way. It can only be given.
Thank you traffic school.
Jim,
I'll take it that you agree with my assessment of your post.
[quote]Many motorists try to share the road but I've heard a number of drivers say that riding with a cyclist nearby makes them 'nervous'. It's a trick of the brain that they're more nervous about a person on a bike than they are about the 2000 pound cars all around them![/quote]
It's not really a trick of the brain at all- when someone in a car is making a stupid move, it's typically easy to predict (of course, not always, but typically). When someone on a bike makes a dumb move, it happens really fast and can be very difficult to predict and therefore avoid an accident. THAT makes me nervous. For those of us that want to share the road, it can be a daunting task when people ride their bikes erratically, and those are the people who make me nervous. FWIW, I'm equally nervous about people who do things like flinging car doors open into bike lanes without checking to see if someone is coming up on a bike, swerving around someone waiting to turn without making sure a bike isn't behind them, etc.
Hmm, isn't it obvious that the one trying to get into the lane or turn onto the roadway(car, bike, OR pedestrian) has to yield to oncoming traffic until it's all clear if there's no signal saying otherwise? You'd think the human survival instinct would be enough to settle this debate. Surely nobody with any brains would think that because you're on a bicycle you can automatically cut off drivers that are at an unsafe distance or vice versa, right?
Hate to once again bring it all back to most people being assholes, but it's still true. It doesn't matter the means of transportation some jerkoff is using, the rest of us have no choice but to watch our asses.
It's just awesome when people make overheated generalizations about other groups, and even more awesome when one group projects violent fantasies about another. The subject of bikes versus cars strikes this dynamic EVERY time it's broached and god is it tiresome.
Anytime an article is posted about a bike related accident on the Trib's site or elsewhere, I can predict the arc of comments for the next two days. Before the facts are even determined, a legion of bitter, anti-bike blowhards come out and focus their keen insight on just how the biker deserved TO DIE because aren't all bikers irresponsible scumbags who get in the way of a pleasant commute.
Then, comes a volley of posts from self satisfied, reckless bike advocates who try to deflect any criticism in one of a few predictable ways. Either they make glib remarks proclaiming their superiority just for being cyclists, or make all kinds of excuses for why bikers don't need to obey traffic laws, or ignore the genuine issues at hand and try to shut down debate by trying to shame those who attempt to use a circumstance involving someone's death as a platform for discussing related safety issues.
In response come sick fantasies of drivers stating how they wish they could just harrass bikers at will, even run them over in their SUVs, hit them with their doors, or otherwise do them bodily harm. Often they include vivid details replete with allusions to blood and brain matter. The mindset is truly disturbing. Rinse, repeat for days, with the rare appeal to reason from the few who just want to find some solutions tossed in and usually ignored.
Why is this such a volatile issue? Are drivers so myopic that they focus on every perceived transgression by cyclists while blithely ignoring the absolutely insane behavior practiced by many drivers? Are bikers so self indulgent that they can't understand why drivers have some reason to be pissed because way too many bikers operate their vehicles as if they play no role in maintaining their own safety? There are clearly overlapping misunderstandings and unclear expectations ON ALL SIDES in terms of what is lawful, safe and practical. While I realize that a certain amount of hyperbole and sensationalism is a feature of debate on amost any issue online, this particular issue, in Chicago at least, is characterized by such an unreal amount of rancor and exaggeration you'd think the groups involved were engaged in a sworn blood feud.
Just to clarify, because I could not agree more, irony- when I say it's easy to predict that a driver is going to do something stupid, I meant as another driver. A person on a bike stands little chance against the transgressions I mentioned above. I just don't want to be adding fuel to the (totally ridiculous) fire that gets started every single time this topic comes up.
People in cars sometimes do stupid things that put people on bikes in serious jeopardy. People on bikes sometimes do stupid things that make it impossible to avoid injuring them. The argument devolves when people insist that drivers are never responsible for their disregard of bikers, or that bikers should be allowed to do whatever they want because they're on a bike.