“The city of Chicago is openly proclaiming itself as a bike-friendly city. Is that an indication of the city’s intent?” Justice Liz Rochford asked a lawyer for the city.
“No, your honor,” replied Stephen Collins, Chicago’s assistant corporation counsel.
Any lie necessary to avoid reasonable infrastructure. Especially with bicycles banned on the sidewalk.
Stop stealing all the taxpayer money, and provide the bare fucking minimums.Alave filed suit later that year, arguing that the city meant for bicycles to be rented and operated in the area and city officials therefore had the duty to exercise reasonable care for intended road users, as required by state law.
The city isn’t trying to avoid building reasonable infrastructure, here, they’re trying to avoid liability for cyclists hitting potholes.
Their argument seems to be that unless a road is included on the official bike plan, it shouldn’t count as one intended for biking on for the purpose of legal liability, regardless of if there’s a nearby city-operated bike rental.
Honestly, unless the ruling were that “the city is liable for bike injuries anywhere in it”, holding the city liable here might produce perverse incentives to make bike infrastructure worse.
Lived in Chicago. The drivers there are fucking savages.
Uber driver side swiped me today on Rush St during my ride home from work.
=(
I also hope you’re alright and am sorry you experienced that.
Hope you’re OK!
What a shithole.
Chicagoan here: ride around in the Loop everyday. This is shitty to see and i can understand the City needing to defend itself against people crashing into pot holes for a paycheck.
Wish the language was different. This language disempowers the thousands of people who ride on Chicago streets.
You have to be pretty dumb to drive your bike into a huge and obvious pothole. At what point is a person responsible for their own safety?