kingston 

That's pretty much what I would have expected to see from a wider angle.

I think those cadence sensing ebikes are more of a hazard than if they had an actual throttle. People just put it on the highest setting and spin the cranks so the motor puts out full power all the time. At least if there was a throttle people could ease off a little and slow down without having to change the power setting or hit the brakes.

CliffordK

Thanks for the wider area video. If only it had started a few seconds earlier. The cyclist appears to be more or less keeping up with the pace of the car, but at a reasonable 50 yards back.

The car is clearly visible before the rider arrives, and should have been visible for quite some time.

The door may well have been teleported from space.

And, that is the issue with the dooring incidents. By failing to react to the car, the cyclist put himself in a place going too fast in a restricted area when the door popped open.

Bmach

Oh oh someone will not like that vid.

That is exactly what I saw from the other vid but this view is way better.

Thanks for posting it.

sweeks

If you didn't see anything illegal, it's because you don't know the law. There is a section of the Municipal Code Of Chicago which deals with opening a door into a traffic space:9-80-035 Opening and closing vehicle doors.
No person shall open the door of a vehicle on the side available to moving traffic unless and until it is reasonably safe to do so, and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic, nor shall any person leave a door open on the side of a vehicle available to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload passengers.

The reporter who researched the "Caught on Camera" piece linked above did not get the penalty right. See below, MCC 9-4-025 (c)2. Bolded for your reading pleasure. Note the fine.

9-4-025 Bicycle safety violation - Penalty
(a)

1. Any person who violates subsection (e) or (f) of Section 9-16-020, subsection (c) of Section 9-36-010, or Section 9-40-060, of this Code, shall be subject to a fine of $150.00 for each offense.
2. Any person who violates subsection (e) or (f) of Section 9-16-020, subsection (c) of Section 9-36-010, or Section 9-40-060, of this Code, when such violation causes a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, shall be subject to a fine of $500.00 for each offense.

(b)

1. Any person who violates Section 9-40-160 of this Code, when such violation interferes with the movement of a bicycle, shall be subject to a fine of $150.00 for each offense.
2. Any person who violates Section 9-40-160 of this Code, when such violation causes a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, shall be subject to a fine of $500.00 for each offense.

(c)

1. Any person who violates Section 9-80-035 of this Code, when such violation interferes with the movement of a bicycle, shall be subject to a fine of $300.00 for each offense.
2. Any person who violates Section 9-80-035 of this Code, when such violation causes a collision between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, shall be subject to a fine of $1,000.00 for each offense.

(Added Coun. J. 3-12-08, p. 22781, § 2; Amend Coun. J. 6-5-13, p. 54983, § 1)
Sources:
https://www.chicagobikelawfirm.com/p...l-in-one-place
https://willhaley.com/blog/chicago-bicycling/
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/code...04#JD_9-80-035

CliffordK

The door was not opened into a traffic lane, nor a bike lane.

It was opened into a narrow buffer area marked as a door zone.

The law above doesn't apply.

kingston 

Thanks, Matlock. Let me know how it turns out.

I-Like-To-Bike

More info on that specific location, there does not appear to be any no stopping signs posted, and in fact it appears to be marked as a taxi stand on weekend evenings, at least as of Aug 2019 when this Google Street view was recorded.

For those unaware of the difference between no stopping, no standing, and no parking below is a helpful guide from https://www.myparkingsign.com/MPS/No...-Stopping.aspx

JoeyBike

The WORLD is a dangerous place to ride a bike, especially if you are inexperienced, tend to daydream, or think god is watching out for us. At best, it's a big mismatch of weight and size if we mess up. No matter who is at fault, the cyclist always loses.

sweeks

The signage on Lincoln avenue is that of a "shared" lane, as described here: https://chi.streetsblog.org/2014/12/...venue-barrows/
The symbol for the shared lane is visible in the news report as well as on Google Maps (annotated image attached). You can also see it in a post just above ^^. I can't find the "official" language, but I believe a case can be made that this is a sort of bike lane and at least a certain amount of "due diligence" is required for safety reasons.
This probably is moot, as I have yet to see any enforcement of traffic laws affecting bicycles.

Your sarcasm is duly noted.


Bicycle symbol implies that bikes are to be expected here.

I-Like-To-Bike

This "sort of bike lane" is a sharrow which does mean bicyles can be expected, but of course so is the collary, motor vehicles can be expected too. Most certainly any cyclist with a lick of experience or sense also can expect a vehicle slowing down and coming to a stop while pulling over to the right as seen in the video (and should have been seen by a sentient cyclist) will prepare for the high probability that a passenger will open a door. An oblivious bicyclst may suffer consequences that even a clever lawyer may not fix, let alone an oblivious lawyer with his own version of sort of bike lanes.

Bmach

The marked area to the left of the parked cars is a buffer zone. Cyclists are not supposed to be there because it is a buffer zone to protect cyclists from being DOORED! You have to look at the whole picture not just parts of it. Also no matter what you call it it is not a bike lane.

holytrousers

When i see that symbol over there, to me, the whole lane counts as a bike lane.

UniChris

But also a car lane.

What it really means is you're not supposed to pass each other in that lane (it's used where there isn't room for that), but rather use it serially one after another, unless you can leave the shared lane to pass the other party.

"Bicycles may use entire lane" is a much clearer sign for these situations, and has the same actual meaning (or if you want to quibble, "sharrows" change "may" to "should" by directing cyclists to a position that is literally "taking the lane")

J Palmer Cass

As an aside, just because people who sell rides call it ride "sharing" doesn't mean we are supposed to follow suit. Same goes for calling bicycle renting bicycle sharing. We are free to speak plainly and thruthfully.

I feel better now.

UniChris

IMHO you've misidentified the euphemism.

It's not the "ride" that is being shared - that would be a carpool, which apart from stretching the term to a small side business of pool hire rides isn't what these services offer.

In contrast, bike sharing really is sharing the fleet of bikes.

But then so is "car sharing" - both in the comparable zipcar type business and in traditional car rental.

Chistophe516

This is the problem with any bike lane. Like the painted lines of a bike lane will keep a person safe.

downhillmaster

Aww. You are out again?
After arguing with everyone didn’t you first announce that you were out back on page three?
Cya later, soon

GhenghisKahn

Started cycle commuting in 87 from Peterson and Western to the Rand-McNally facility in Skokie. 14 miles rt. 2 evenings and Saturdays to The Old Town School Of Folk Music on Armitage where I taught bass and guitar. 10 miles rt. Then Sunday to church in Evanston. 16 miles rt. That doesn't include incidentals like grocery runs, etc. So, I was doing between 115-150 miles per week. The learning curve was steep and fast. The thing is that I'd go weeks without seeing another cyclist. Never got doored in the 5 years I was carfree. Kept my head on a swivel. Best years of my life. There were no bike lanes, no cycling activists, no funding, no study groups, no cycling advocacy clubs. It was the wild west. Law of the jungle. lol The only thing that happened was my gf got doored because she wasn't paying attention. Fractured 2 fingers. You have to approach traffic like you're in a herd of rhinos. They don't see you, they don't like you and they weigh 4000 lbs. That's the reality.

SClaraPokeman

That the driver and passenger took off is infuriating. I can't believe that if the authorities were incentived that they couldn't identify these individuals. Video cameras abound; Lyft must have records of who was driving in that area that time of day; credit card charges should be able to narrow down who the passenger was.

That bicyclist seemed to be moving pretty fast--esp if that was not a e-bike. If the police wrote a report they would hold that against him (I know). I have to wonder if the Lyft had passed the bicyclist anytime previously. Drivers can adapt a attitude of once I pass a bicycle I can permanently forget about it.

My son lives in Seattle. He was going to college at UC Davis and rode a bike there. I have asked him not to get a bike in Seattle. The risks of big city biking just don't really feel worth it to me.

I-Like-To-Bike

Anyone read anything that updates this story? After the attorney for LegalRideShare went on the local news and made several statements about a Lyft vehicle being involved in a collision with his client on a bicycle (or possibly an e-bike) in a bike lane. The lawyer offered a $5,000 reward for information that leads to the arrest and conviction of two people in a ride share vehicle (Lyft?) responsible for landing a Lincoln Park cyclist in the hospital with severe facial injuries. There was much discussion on this thread about bike lanes and Lyft drivers and good cycling practice.

But since the initial publicity and press release back in early Oct initiated by LegalRideShare, I haven't seen anything more about it to include Google search and the quite active Facebook page for this law firm. LegalRideShare seems to specialize in suing and/or representing rideshare drivers, rideshare passengers, for their treatment of each other as well, and all sorts of actions and negative publicity about the rideshare companies themselves.

It certainly seems odd that this publicity seeking outfit has been unable to find any information about the alleged Lyft driver, even with a $5,000 offer.

Maybe the claim that a rideshare vehicle was involved was as accurate as ID'ing the collision location as a bike lane.

Anyone who is no longer interested in the outcome of this collision is welcome to not participate in this thread.

hotbike

Thanks for the fact checking, like2bike…
I started this thread, so I feel obligated to participate, but I thought the story had died. “Swept under the rug” as the saying goes…

I have very little confidence that we’ll see a favorable resolution to this situation.

I kinda think the cyclist was going too fast, and it also would have been better if the driver had went into the bike lane and blocked it, and the cyclist should have passed on the left.

It’s messed up because it’s Chicago town and it’s backwards, because here in New York the bike lanes are on the left side of the street, so it’s easier to make eye contact with the driver.