Driver sentenced for 45 years in Chicago road rage case

[Hammer]

Clearly, you didn't read the thread. What arguments of mine do you find laughable and disturbing? And show me any example of a personal attack that was not in response to one? If you still can't see it, then you have the problem.




<< I did read the entire thread. From what I can see you have displayed a consistently hostile, combative tone, and frankly I would find your arguments laughable were they not so disturbing. People with attitudes like yours put cyclists in danger (and, at least occasionally, in morgues) every day. >>

 

[Nitemare]

<< Hey Nitemare, man.. you are so dense. My point is both bike & car have to right on the road. Just because you are in a big bad car does not mean you have the rigth to the road over the little guys on the bike. My point with the truck is the same way, if you see how stupid that statement are, then I would hope at least how stupid your statement are. >>



trucks, cars, motocycles, and nice mopeds obey the speed limit. Bicycles are incapable of going the posted speed limit, so they shouldn't be there. If they can't obey the speed limit sign, do they have to pay attention to stop, yields and no left hand turns? Where do you draw the line? Speed limits are posted for a reason after all

 

[Jzero]

<<

<< Hey Nitemare, man.. you are so dense. My point is both bike & car have to right on the road. Just because you are in a big bad car does not mean you have the rigth to the road over the little guys on the bike. My point with the truck is the same way, if you see how stupid that statement are, then I would hope at least how stupid your statement are. >>



trucks, cars, motocycles, and nice mopeds obey the speed limit. Bicycles are incapable of going the posted speed limit, so they shouldn't be there. If they can't obey the speed limit sign, do they have to pay attention to stop, yields and no left hand turns? Where do you draw the line? Speed limits are posted for a reason after all >>



You seem to be confused on the definition of "speed limit." It's a maximum speed, not a minimum. "Obeying the speed limit" is actually going SLOWER than the speed limit. If you are going faster than the speed limit, then you are disobeying it.

In some places a minimum speed is posted, but not always.
Perhaps you mean "Keeping up with traffic?"

 

[Croton]

man...
it's like saying this:

a girl walks in a dark alley. she gets assaulted.

it's her fault for walking in a dark alley.

no it's not her fault, but she should have known better.


and if bikes aren't allowed on the road, why is there driver's ed that teaches this?

 

[rahvin]

<< trucks, cars, motocycles, and nice mopeds obey the speed limit. Bicycles are incapable of going the posted speed limit, so they shouldn't be there. If they can't obey the speed limit sign, do they have to pay attention to stop, yields and no left hand turns? Where do you draw the line? Speed limits are posted for a reason after all >>



People like you make me VERY ANGRY. You think the world is only for YOUR use and not others. Let me introduce you to a concept, it's called a PUBLIC road. This means any form of transportation is allowed to use that road. Speed limits are NOT speed minimums, that's what Freeways with limited access are for. If you actually believe that someone is justified is running someone over for using the PUBLIC roads then you should lose your privlidge to ever operate a motor vehicle again. In nearly every state in the US Bicycles are treated the exact same as a car. They have equal access to any public road (excluding freeways) and they must obey the traffic laws. In addition they are treated the same as a motor vehicle in the traffic stream, you CANNOT pass a bicycle in the same lane and MUST yeild to them in every situation you would yeild to an auto.

 

[Fausto]

<< trucks, cars, motocycles, and nice mopeds obey the speed limit. Bicycles are incapable of going the posted speed limit, so they shouldn't be there. If they can't obey the speed limit sign, do they have to pay attention to stop, yields and no left hand turns? Where do you draw the line? Speed limits are posted for a reason after all >>



Damn, that is just a stupid thing to say. It's a speed limit, not a minimum speed. Minimums are only on limited-access highways (illegal to bikes). And yes, we do have to obey stop signs, yields, etc. The only difference in the laws is that we are to ride as close to the right side of the road "as is practical". We are allowed by law to take an entire lane (for our own safety as a matter of fact) if there is insufficient room for cars to safely pass as well.

You're still not getting it through that cyclists (serious ones anyway) need access to roads. Doing 60 miles by riding around a park or neighborhood 40 times is just asinine.

Fausto

 

[Nitemare]

Au contrair...there is a minimum speed limit although it is seldom posted, else why could someone receive a ticket for impeding traffic. I think the rule of thumb is 10 miles per hour under the posted speed limit unless the vehicle is a school bus.

"minimum speed limit" on google pulled up over 1100 hits

 

[Fausto]

That would make it illegal for bikes to be on the road and thereby in contradiction of the laws currently on the books. Read the laws a little more carefully before you get all excited about such a big number of results on Google.

Fausto

EDIT- here ya go...see what reading carefully gets you? Try it some time.



<< 28-704. Minimum speed limits; requirement to turn off roadway

A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. >>



See? Motor vehicle. Not any vehicle.

 

[Nitemare]

Arkansas
Texas

Hell even Germany on just the front page alone

* Note *
these mention highways as well as interstate and freeways

 

[Jzero]

<< Au contrair...there is a minimum speed limit although it is seldom posted, else why could someone receive a ticket for impeding traffic. I think the rule of thumb is 10 miles per hour under the posted speed limit unless the vehicle is a school bus.

"minimum speed limit" on google pulled up over 1100 hits >>


As if the number of hits returned by google ever had any meaning. What do those 1100 articles actually say?
Here is the NJ Speed Laws Courtesy of NHTSA.
All it says is that you can't go so slow that you obstruct the reasonable flow of traffic and that if you're in a passing lane that you don't obstruct traffic there.

There's no rule of thumb. I'd say a bike going 10 MPH in 25MPH zone in a residential area is hardly obstructing traffic.

 

[Nitemare]

<< That would make it illegal for bikes to be on the road and thereby in contradiction of the laws currently on the books. Read the laws a little more carefully before you get all excited about such a big number of results on Google.

Fausto

EDIT- here ya go...see what reading carefully gets you? Try it some time.



<< 28-704. Minimum speed limits; requirement to turn off roadway

A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law. >>



See? Motor vehicle. Not any vehicle.

>>



You try and do 45 mph on a bike

If bicycles want to share the road, why not abide by the same laws? It is only fair

 

[Jzero]

<< Arkansas
Texas

Hell even Germany on just the front page alone

* Note *
these mention highways as well as interstate and freeways >>



The Arkansas link doesn't menton mimimum speeds.
The Texas one does not specify motor vehicle, nor the NJ one I posted.

 

[Fausto]

*blink* Show me where in those links is a minimum speed law regarding bicycles. You're just being stupid now, there is not a law on the books requiring a cyclist to go a certain speed...it's not physiologically possible.

From the TX link:

<< No person shall drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Tran. Code §545.363(a)
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. Tran. Code §545.051(b) >>



"drive". Read it again. It says "drive", doesn't it? As in "drive" a motor vehicle. What part of the distinction between bikes and cars don't you get?

FWIW- "ignorant doofus" pulls up almost 700 hits on Google. Big numbers on a search engine doesn't mean you're right.

 

[Nitemare]

10-15 mph in a 25 is fine even a 35 mph, 15-20 would be acceptable.

All I'm saying is don't get on a 45/55 mph road doing 10 mph, 35-45 mph under the speed limit is not acceptable. Especially if there is no passing lane.

You argue about the bikers rights, what about the drivers rights of passage down the road. The biker is interfering with his rights to get from point A to point B.

 

[Jzero]

<< *blink* Show me where in those links is a minimum speed law regarding bicycles. You're just being stupid now, there is not a law on the books requiring a cyclist to go a certain speed...it's not physiologically possible.

From the TX link:

<< No person shall drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. Tran. Code §545.363(a)
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall drive in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. Tran. Code §545.051(b) >>



"drive". Read it again. It says "drive", doesn't it? As in "drive" a motor vehicle. What part of the distinction between bikes and cars don't you get?

FWIW- "ignorant doofus" pulls up almost 700 hits on Google. Big numbers on a search engine doesn't mean you're right. >>


Oh, but I see what Nitemare is saying--if cyclists can share the road, they have to abide by all motor vehicle laws, and I agree. If a cyclist is obstructing traffic, he is guilty of a moving violation same as anyone in a car.
I agree there. I just disagree on what constitutes an obstruction.

 

[Fausto]

<< You argue about the bikers rights, what about the drivers rights of passage down the road. The biker is interfering with his rights to get from point A to point B. >>



How long does it take you to get around a cyclist? Honestly? 30 sec at the very upper limit? How often do you come across them? Every day even? Give me a fvcking break. Think about who impedes you more...cyclists or the zillion other motorists that are causing the gridlock that you are stuck in. They should take mass transit because they're impeding your and your precious point B. You would get to work and back a lot faster if more people took advantage of alternate means of transportation and quit cluttering up the road with their wonderful SUVs. Think about the big picture for a change.

Fausto

EDIT- Jzero, my previous post regarding the minimum limits laws was directed at Nite, not you. Sorry.

 

[Gaard]

This happened in Illinois, right? I think that's where Cook County is.
link - Illininois bicycle laws.

 

[Nitemare]

<< The Law and Bikes

Bold indicates a generalized interpretation of Oklahoma law. The appropriate Title and Section is cited in
parentheses for reference of the actual law. Italics indicate additional information or advice for safety.

Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. Although not defined as a vehicle, a bicyclist upon a roadway shall
have all the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle operator, except when specifically regulated otherwise. Yet, some
regulations may not apply to bicycles because of their nature. (Title 47 Section 11-1202) Most laws applicable to
motor vehicle operators also apply to bicyclists. Inquire with local law enforcement officials to determine the
application of specific laws not addressed in this manual.

Bicyclists must obey all traffic control devices and signs, as a motor vehicle operator would. (Title 47 Section
11-201) >>

Oklahoma law

 

[bozack]

I would have rather just kicked the bikers ass than ran him over...beating the heck out of him would have been much better for stress relief.

The driver got what he deserved..feel bad for the biker but one should know better than to hit another mans car or any type of property, just isn't right

 

[Fausto]

What's that old saying about giving a man enough rope and he'll hang himself with it?



<< Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles. Although not defined as a vehicle, a bicyclist upon a roadway shall have all the rights and responsibilities of a vehicle operator, except when specifically regulated otherwise. Yet, some regulations may not apply to bicycles because of their nature. >>



I'll reiterate the important part so you don't miss it.



<< Yet, some regulations may not apply to bicycles because of their nature. >>



Which regulations might those be? Hmmmm....I wonder. Surely not the minimum speed because Google said so.

You are wrong. Give it up. If you don't agree, ask a cop to cite the first cyclist you see on your way home today and report back to us on what he says.....mmmnnkay?

Fausto

 

[Nitemare]

<<

<< (625 ILCS 5/11-1505)
Sec. 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 to the
right-hand curb or edge of the roadway except under the following
situations: >>

>>

Do we know for a fact he was doing this when he got squeezed..Nope, we don't



<<

<< (625 ILCS 5/11-1512)
Sec. 11-1512. Bicycles on sidewalks. (a) A person propelling a
bicycle upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a
crosswalk, shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian and shall give
audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. >>

>>

It all could have been avoided if he had been on the sidewalk instead as Illinois says it is legal unless posted otherwise.



<<

<< 625 ILCS 5/11-1502-- Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles
Sec. 11-1502.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. >>

>>

So speed limit signs as well as minimum speed limits aren't traffic laws?

Furthermore an Illionois court decision stating that bicycles weren't intended to be on a bridge pr road..

Boub v. Township of Wayne, 291 Ill.App.3d 713, 684 N.E.2d 1040, 226 Ill.Dec. 44 (2nd Dist. 1997), aff'd., 183 Ill.2d
520, 702 N.E.2d 535, 234 Ill.Dec. 195 (1998). Bicyclist who was injured in a fall while riding on a bridge which was
under repair and was in an unimproved condition sued township for negligent maintenance of the bridge. Supreme
Court held that bicyclists were not "intended" users of the road in bridge in question, and that therefore, the
township did not owe the Plaintiff a duty of ordinary care to maintain the roadway in a reasonably safe condition
for bicycle use. The Court noted that bicyclists were "intended" users of the roadway only where special markings
(such as a painted bike lane or bike route signs) indicated an intent that bicyclists use the road in question.

 

[crystal]

Nitemare, what you are posting is cyclist must obeys the traffic laws. If they are not allow on to the road (as you implies because they slow down traffic), then why are there laws that applied to them in the book (or wherever you pull the quoted from)? Make you wonder ism t it... Could it be they have the right to use the road as any other drivers??? It only re-enforced my point that they have to same right as you do in use the road.

 

[shifrbv]

<< where McBride had rapped on Fitzpatrick's Chevy Tahoe and abused him after being pushed close to the kerb >>

Abused him = flipping him off? I probably would've done the same thing if I was pushed to the curb.

As someone who actually had this happen to me (not on a bike but in a vehicle) I completely agree with this. I was riding with my friend when he didn't see a biker and almost ran him off the road into a rather steep ditch. When we came to the stop sign, the biker came up and rapped on the back of our car and called us a-holes. We felt bad and apologized and drove on. There's absolutely no excuse for continuing to follow someone and harrass them. This guy in Chicago should be somewhere thinking about this for some time and it sounds like he will be.

 

[Gaard]

anybody want to read more of the story?

 

[Fausto]

<< Do we know for a fact he was doing this when he got squeezed..Nope, we don't >>



I like how you edited out the rest of that bit of the law...the part about avoiding obstacles and taking the whole lane when there's not enough room for car + bike. It is NEVER acceptable to squeeze a cyclist. Ever. Period. I don't care how narrow the road is, they have a right to be there and you have no right to endanger their lives if their prescence is offensive and inconvenient to you. Now if they run a light or sign and you nail them....different story. But that's not the topic at hand.



<< It all could have been avoided if he had been on the sidewalk instead as Illinois says it is legal unless posted otherwise. >>



You clearly have no idea what it's like to ride a bicycle amongst pedestrian traffic. There would be injuries and lawsuits like you have never seen if cyclists (especially messengers who are hauling ass to get their stuff delivered) rode on sidewalks exclusively. Even a moderately-trained cyclist can maintain 18-25mph....and you think they should do that on sidewalks? That is totally absurd....and weren't you the one who stated "It's legal to ride a goat down the middle of the road as well, but nobody does it either now do they?"

Fausto