Victory For "Take the Lane" Case At Trial

A few weeks ago an Ohio group, Consider Biking, successfully defended a bicyclist's right to take the lane. The defendant was cited by a Columbus police officer for riding in the middle of a lane of traffic rather than along the far right side of the roadway. The relevant local ordinance stated, “Every person operating a bicycle upon the roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable…." (2173.04). However, the attorneys defending the cyclist at trial emphasized the exceptions to the rule set forth in the statute which allowed cyclists to take the full lane when doing so offer the safer course.

Though the case sets no legal precedent outside of Columbus, it is, in my opinion, an important result nonetheless. Many American cities, Chicago included, have similar ordinances. Spreading word of how that case was handled and won will hopefully spread the message to law enforcement and to bicyclists that taking the lane is not only permitted, but advisable, necessary and legal under certain circumstances.

Video Shows Buses and Bicycles How To Share The Road

Below is an excellent video created via a partnership between the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) and the Chicago Department of Transportation about buses and bicyclists sharing the road. The video was made for bus operators and bicyclists to highlight safety issues and offer practical guidance on how to avoid accidents. Along with the recently created bicycling video created by the Chicago Police Department, the CTA video should be required viewing for all city motorists and bicyclists. It is also important viewing for attorneys representing bicyclists in as much as it evidences what the CTA considers the standard of care to be for its bus operators when dealing with cyclists on the roadway.

Share the Road - Buses and Bicycles from Chicago Bicycle Program on Vimeo.

Personal Jurisdiction Over A Foreign Bicycle Component Part Manufacturer

Bicycle components can and do fail, sometimes causing serious injury to the cyclist. Imagine flying down technical single track and having your stem break. Try to wrap your brain around what it would be like to have your steering tube fail while in a packed peloton. How horrifying to attempt to stop your fixed gear bike in city traffic and your chain breaks. When incidents like these occur causing serious injury a product liability lawsuit may be filed against the manufacturer of the failed component. Such lawsuits offer challenges aplenty to even the most experienced personal injury lawyer. One significant challenge is establishing personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer in Illinois.

Many, if not most, bicycle parts are manufactured overseas, often in Taiwan, China and Japan. That not necessarily a bad thing for the consumer. By my observation a lot of high quality parts are made in Asia, notably Taiwan and Japan. However, for the attorney attempting to haul one of these manufacturers into an Illinois courtroom, a defendant with such a far flung home base may present a challenge. One cannot simply decide to sue someone, whether an individual or corporation, in any old place. There must be some connection between the person or entity being sued and the place where the lawsuit is filed. It is the burden of the person filing the lawsuit, the plaintiff, to establish that the court where the suit is filed has personal jurisdiction over the defendant manufacturer. Without personal jurisdiction a court has no power to render a judgment against the putative defendant. A corporation need not have its headquarters in the state in order to be hauled into court here. A foreign corporation may submit to the jurisdiction of Illinois courts by simply doing some business in the state. 735 ILCS 5/2-209. The corporate defendant must have minimum contacts with the state to be sued here. In March, 2009 the Illinois Appellate Court had the opportunity to determine whether an Illinois trial court had personal jurisdiction over a bicycle component part manufacturer located in Taiwan. In Dickie v. Cannondale Corporation, et. al., 388 Ill.App.3d 903 (1st Dist. 2009), the court found that personal jurisdiction had not been established. The plaintiff in that case had been riding his cyclocross bike with "CODA" clipless pedals, a product of Cannondale Corporation, that were manufactured by Wellgo Corporation when he crashed and was thrown forward over the handlebars. He allegedly suffered injuies to this left hip and leg which twisted because his left foot did not disengage from the pedal. He sued Wellgo in Illinois for negligence in the way it designed and manufactured the pedals. Wellgo moved to have the claim against it dismissed on the basis that it had no minimum contacts with Illinois and that the court, therefore, had no jurisdiction over the corporation. In support of its motion to dismiss, Wellgo submitted an affidavit from its sales director which stated that:

Wellgo is in the business of designing and manufacturing bicycle pedals, including the clipless pedals in the case at bar. Wellgo's pedals are manufactured at a Wellgo facility in Taiching, Taiwan. After being manufactured, the pedals are sold and shipped to Cash Crest Co., and Wellgo has no further involvement with the distribution of the product. . . Wellgo is not licensed, authorized or registered to do business in any state of the United States. It further states that Wellgo, in Illinois, has never sold or shipped products, executed a contract, provided services, paid taxes, possessed assets, maintained a telephone or fax number, employed any individuals, attended trade shows or meetings, advertised, or otherwise solicited business in Illinois. 388 Ill.App.3d at 904-5.

In response, the plaintiff argued "that personal jurisdiction existed over Wellgo under a 'stream of commerce theory'." 388 Ill.App.3d at 905. He asserted that though Wellgo's entire operation was located outside of the United States, it was well "aware that Cannondale was an American company that distributed its products throughout the United States," including Illinois. In other words, Wellgo must have known its products would be marketed and sold in Illinois, thereby establishing minimum contact with the state. The appellate court was unpersuaded by this argument. It noted that "no evidence shows that Wellgo was otherwise aware of specifically where and how Cannondale's products were marketed or sold. Wellgo sold the pedals to Cash Crest Co., a Taiwanese trading company, and from there had no control over or knowledge regarding the distribution of the pedals." Id. at 908. The court also noted that "Wellgo never shipped the subject pedals directly to a distributor in the United States. . . Wellgo has no presence in Illinois." Id. Wellgo's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was, therefore, upheld.

What Illinois lawyers representing injured bicyclists may take away from Dickie is that in order to establish personal jurisdiction over a component part manufacturer, the corporation must have some contact with the state greater than simply releasing its product into the general marketplace. When no such minimum contact exists, however, there is another option. In Illinois, a component part supplier can be held liable for distribution of a dangerous product into the stream of commerce under negligence and strict product liability theories. (A seller may not be held liable under a strict product theory, however.) Lewis v. Lead Industries Ass'n, 342 Ill.App.3d 95 (1st Dist. 2003). It is not clear from reading the Dickie decision whether Cash Crest Co. was added as a defendant to the lawsuit. But it apparently had direct contact with Cannondale thereby perhaps establishing contact with Illinois, where Cannondale certainly does a great deal of business. In any event, an inability to bring a remotely located component part manufacturer into the case does not mean that all is lost.

Headphones Are Legal But Not Smart

Yesterday, the Active Transportation Alliance, a Chicago based bicycle advocacy group, started an informal online discussion regarding the legality of riding a bicycle while wearing music headphones. While I do not wear headphones while cycling, I realized I was not quite sure myself what the law actually was. I knew it was illegal to wear them while operating a motor vehicle (625 ILCS 5/12-610). I recalled that it was illegal to bike with headphones somewhere. But, what about here? As it turns out, neither the Illinois Motor Vehicle Code nor Chicago Ordinance prohibit wearing headphones while bicycling. (I do not know of any other local municipalities in the state that prohibit them either, though I have not searched every local ordinance.)

One might argue that if drivers are prohibited from wearing headphones, bicyclists are too. Afterall the Vehicle Code states that, "Every person riding a bicycle upon a highway shall. . . be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle." (625 ILCS 5/1502) True enough. However, the state statute dealing with headphones (the law refers to them as "headset receivers") is quite specific. It states that, "No driver of a motor vehicle on the highways of this State shall wear headset receivers while driving." Under the law, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle. Therefore, the prohibition of headphone use does not apply to bicyclists.

So you may legally listen to your iPod while riding your bike in Chicago. The law says nothing about wearing a blindfold while cycling in the city either. Right; not a good idea. There are so many things the urban bicyclist must be attuned to while riding in the city: Trucks, cars, buses, potholes, pedestrians, lights, signs, little dogs, the weather, etc. I think it is crazy to diminish one of your senses while navigating a bicycle through this gauntlet of hazards and distractions. By plugging your ears and pouring music into your fully occupied brain while biking you are just asking to get into an accident. Just leave the iPod at home. Or, better yet, if you really must have music, sing while you ride. Maybe then the pedestrians with their little dogs will hear you coming.

Amendment To Law Protects Illinois Bicyclists And Pedestrians

On August 11th, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed into law an amendment to the Crime Victims Compensation Act providing compensation for bicyclists and pedestrians injured or killed in a motor vehicle accident. The Act allows for a victim, or anyone dependent upon the victim, to receive compensation for for pecuniary loss or support caused by a "crime of violence." Violations of portions of the Illinois Motor Vehicle code are now considered crimes of violence under the amendment where they cause injury or death to a pedestrian or bicyclist. Compensation under the Act is permitted only after other sources of compensation, i.e. insurance or governmental benefits, if any, have been exhausted. There are also certain reporting requirements in the Act that need to be followed. The Amendment to the Act is effective immediately. To read the Act click here.

This is an important and welcome recognition that vehicular crimes against bicyclists and pedestrians are a very serious matter. Such incidents are all too common on Illinois roads and they often impart significant financial, as well as physical and emotional, consequences to victims.

For more information about the crime victims compensation program visit the Illinois Attorney General's website by clicking here.

New Anti-Texting Law Will Do Little To Keep Illinois Cyclists And Pedestrians Safe

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn has signed a new law that bans texting while operating a motor vehicle. The complete statute can be read here. The law will take effect on January 1, 2010. It is a good thing, I suppose. It helps create awareness of this dangerous activity. At the risk of seeming cynical, however, I do not expect this law to change much. Illinois motorists were always exposing themselves to potential liability for causing an accident because they were operating a mini-typewriter while driving rather than watching the road. With the new law, the police can start issuing tickets. But it is going to be awfully difficult for officers to catch people texting and driving. Just keep the phone in your lap and you'll never get caught. Also, the new law has some significant gaps. First, it does not prohibit the use of "a global positioning system or navigation system or a device that is physically or electronically integrated into the motor vehicle" while driving. So motorists can still screw around with the little computer monitors built into their cars to find directions, locate the nearest Thai restaurant or search their 300 or so XM satellite radio stations without violating the Act. Secondly, the law allows a driver to use "an electronic communication device in hands-free or voice-activated mode" to send messages or access the internet. If you access the internet with your voice -- which anyone with the Google App on their iPhone can do-- will you not then look at it, diverting your attention from the road. Is it merely the use of the motorist's thumb for a non-driving purpose that the statute seeks to prohibit? If so, here is a simple way around the Act for those who do not have voice activation capability on their phones:



Thirdly, the law does not apply to police officers and operators of emergency vehicles. Unless they have received Jedi training, police officers and ambulance drivers are no better at driving while not watching the road than anyone else.

The new law does no harm, I guess. But I'm disinclined to get terribly exciting about it. It seems like a bone -- one without any meat -- thrown to bicyclists and pedestrians who are at most risk from texting, emailing, sports score checking, XM surfing, navigation fiddling drivers. What I would like to see is a public ad campaign with billboards, radio and television spots that addresses the danger posed by texting and driving. Make people aware of the horrible consequences that can be caused by not paying attention to the roadway. Also, let's not mess with the civil justice system. In my view, making sure drivers understand that they will be held liable for any injury or damage caused by their conduct offers a better disincentive to negligent driving than does the remote possibility that a cop will issue a ticket.

Two Chicago Wards Will See Increased Enforcement Of Bike Rules

Beginning this Friday, August 7th, Chicago Police and Mayor Daley's "Bicycling Ambassadors" will be hitting the streets of the city's 25th and 44th wards searching for "teachable moments" for cyclists and motorists. These areas include Pilsen and Lake View. Warnings will be issued to cyclists who run red lights and tickets will be issued to motorists who stop or park in bike only lanes. Read the full story in the Chicago Sun Times.

Five Things You Should Never Do On A Bicycle

I am holding myself out as an expert in what not to do while bicycling in the city. I declare myself such not because I consider myself an exceptionally skilled urban cyclist; nor do I do so because am I a boyscout when it comes to following the rules. It's just that I have violated most of what a good urban biker should do and have paid a price for having done so. Thanks, therefore, to my foolishly acquired knowledge of bad biking, and my legitimately acquired knowledge of the law, I share with you in no particular order 5 things you should never, ever do while riding a bike in the city:

1. Don't salmon: I have borrowed this term from blogger Bike Snob NYC who is known for deriding this practice. Salmon, of course, are hardwired to swim against river currents. Similarly, some bicyclists are inclined to ride the wrong way on one way streets. Not only does this practice violate Chicago Municipal Code, it is truly one of the more dangerous things you can do on a bike. Motor vehicles tend not to notice cyclists on city streets when they ride with traffic. If you are doing something wholly unexpected like riding in the wrong direction you are really asking to get hit. Furthermore, if you are in an accident with a vehicle while salmoning and you are seriously injured your chances of recovering from the driver in a lawsuit are slim to none. A jury will likely see your injuries as being the result of your own negligent conduct.

2. Don't ride on the sidewalk: In Chicago "no person shall ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business district." A business district is an area of the city zoned for retail shops, service and commercial use. Outside such districts you must be younger than 12 years old to legally ride on a sidewalk. Frankly, unless you are a small child, riding on the sidewalk is dangerous and plain annoying to other walkway users. Bicycles are to be ridden in the street, period. If you do not feel comfortable riding in the roadway find a bicycle designated path on which to ride. Do not infringe upon pedestrians' use and enjoyment of city sidewalks.

3. Don't ride without lights at night: Several years ago I was hit head on by a motorist while salmoning at night without lights. I was not hurt but I did become a candidate for the dumbass biker of the year award. Even without doubling down on the danger by riding against traffic, riding without a light at night is dangerous. Of course, the city never really gets all that dark thanks to street lighting. But the city is full of distractions for all roadway users, so the purpose of riding with lights is to help motorists see you. The relevant Chicago ordinance states, "Every bicycle when in use at nighttime shall be equipped with a head lamp which shall emit a white light visible from a minimum distance of 500 feet from the front and with a rear red reflector capable of reflecting the head lamp beams of an approaching motor vehicle back to the operator of such vehicle at distances up to 200 feet or a rear lamp emitting a red light visible from a distance of at least 200 feet from the rear."

4. Don't skitch: Some of us may recognize this term from childhood. This practice can involve grabbing onto a car bumper on an icy road to go along for the ride. I've seen many bicyclists in the city grab onto taxis and other vehicles in order to get a free ride. To call this activity dangerous and stupid would be an understatement. Don't even think about it.

5. Don't carry an extra person: I often see adolescents carry a second bike rider on their handlebars. It always makes me cringe. The other day I even saw an adult carrying a very young child on his bicycle in this way. It is very dangerous and against the law. Unless you're riding a bicycle built for two (and please don't do that either. It just looks silly.) avoid this unsafe practice.

There are, of course, other common unsafe ways to ride a bicycle in the city. I wear a helmet while riding and I think others should too. I, and many others, tend to weave through stopped traffic, but those not used to doing so should avoid it. However, the practices I've noted above are in my opinion 5 things no one, regardless of their skill or comfort level, should attempt. Enjoy your bike in the city, but be safe and curtious and no one gets hurt.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Rules of the Road Are Everyone's Responsibility (streetsblog.org)

Bicycles Are Traffic

Let's be frank, many of us who frequently ride our bicycles in the city tend to follow few set rules. It's not because urban cyclists are a bunch of arrogant jerks (although there are surely some within our ranks); it's just that the reality of the constantly changing landscape through which we travel requires constant innovation. Cars, pedestrians and the streets themselves are unpredictable, so we dart, dash, swerve, squeeze and skid about the city because we have to (and because it's fun). The rhythm of the city and the traffic that pulses through it often has little to do with the rules of the road. Nevertheless, it is prudent to understand what the law requires of us as urban cyclists. When a collision occurs, you may need to look to the law for help.

There are several statutes and ordinances which govern how the Chicago bicyclist is supposed to conduct himself or herself. Both sets of laws can be found in the "Links" list along the right side of this blog. For this post I address the law that dictates where exactly you are supposed to ride your bike on the roadway. Should you ride in the middle of traffic? On the right? On the left? Where do you belong? The bottom line is that you belong in the safest part of the roadway given traffic and roadway conditions. The relevant statute states:

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 to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following situations:

1. When overtaking and passing another bicycle, motorized pedal cycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction; or

2. When preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway; or

3. When reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including, but not limited to, fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, motorized pedal cycles, pedestrians, animals, surface hazards, or substandard width lanes that make it unsafe to continue along the right-hand curb or edge. For purposes of this subsection, a "substandard width lane" means a lane that is too narrow for a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

4. When approaching a place where a right turn is authorized.

(b) Any person operating a bicycle or motorized pedal cycle upon a one-way highway with two or more marked traffic lanes may ride as near the left-hand curb or edge or such roadway as practicable.

625 ILCS 5/11-1505

If you are riding at about the same speed as traffic, as is sometimes the case in a congested urban setting, then you may ride within a lane as if you where riding a motorized vehicle. You always have the same rights, and also the same duties, as a driver of a motor vehicle. 625 ILCS 5/11-1502. If cars and trucks are moving much faster than you are then you must travel "as close as practicable" to the right side of the road. You may pass a slower bicyclist. You may leave the right side of the road to make a left turn, assuming of course that it's safe to do so. You may also leave the right side of the road to avoid hitting stuff like swinging doors, little dogs on leashes, pedestrians on cell phones, giant potholes and the like. Do not feel like you must force yourself to ride in the gutter. It is often not safe to do so, and the law does not require it. Remember, we are traffic.