Originally Posted by
exile
The case is actually pretty interesting. While I understand myrridin's point, it seems more complex than cyclist is at fault and wanted to blame someone else (if I am incorrectly paraphrasing feel free to correct me myriddin
).
1) a Bicycle is granted "all of the rights and . . . duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle" on roadways. 625 ILCS 5/11-1502. But that statute only makes the bicyclist a
permitted user of Illinois roads, not necessarily an
intended user of those roadways
2) "No special pavement markings or signs indicated that bicyclists, like motorists, were intended to ride on the road or bridge, or that bicycles, rather than vehicles, were the intended users of the route."
The issue i am wrestling with is "what makes vehicles then the intended users of this bridge"
? Was there a sign or pavement marking that indicated "motor vehicles" rather than anybody else is the intended user?
The slippery slope seems to be the assumption that all roadways are for motorists unless marked for others.
Doesn't seem much of a slippery slope given the age of the case quoted...
It is a simple fact that roads (or anything else) are designed for specific conditions. In the case of highways they are designed for vehicles of a certain size that exhibit certain characteristics... also known as motor vehicles. These criteria affect design issues, such as the width, signage requirements, etc... If the bridge in question was open to traffic, then certain requirements are in place to deal with any risks associated with construction on the bridge.
While I can't speak to Illinois law, in the jurisdictions I have worked the city/government is largely immune to such suits. The engineer and/or contractor are not. IF they didn't follow accepted practice for managing traffic in construction areas. In this case the bridge decking appears to have had significant gaps, which would likely have been safe for cars, but obviously not so for bicycles--much like railroad crossings...
It would have been better if the judge had simply denied the claim because of negligence on the part of the operator, but I assume he didn't in this case because of case law in Illinois that placed undue burden on the city...