slim_77

This story is in today's Tribune.

Sum: Police did a sting with a cop posing as a pedestrian in a crosswalk. They pulled over everyone that did not yield and issued warnings. The Chicago police dept has many "bike cops" and I imagine that with the "3' passing ordinance now in effect they may do a similar sting.

Anyway, nice to see pedestrian issues making the front page...

Also of note was this story about a cyclist who was knocked into traffic by an open car door, he was then struck and killed by a moving vehicle. Absolutly tragic.

maddyfish

Enforce it youself. Get a bike flag, mount it sidewides across your handlebars, sticking out to the left side 3 feet. If you are more aggressive, attach a nail to the end to enforce close passes on a cars paint job. It does eliminate filtering though.

BarracksSi

Kinda playing devil's advocate, kinda tired of pedestrians who don't even look before walking into traffic and/or walk against the light...

Did this cop knowingly and dangerously walk in front of oncoming traffic? The video on the Tribune page isn't clear enough (they look like honest-to-goodness civilians, not plainclothes cops).

slim_77

^^I agree, I was wondering the same thing...I don't know, but that one assumption a driver had ("I thought he was drunk") means it was definitly a "sting," as in borderline entrapment.

banerjek

They did an enforcement like that in our area recently. The plainclothes cop they had acted like a businessman on a cellphone who was paying no attention whatsoever to the cars -- he'd just step out and lollygag on the crosswalk. They were pulling over people left and right.

The law here requires motorists to yield to peds, but some peds act like total jerks. Some of them go out of their way to inconvenience motorists and quite a few make no effort to establish eye contact or any other sort of communication with drivers.

I avoid driving whenever I can, and don't like using cars to get around. However, I have no sympathy for inconsiderate people, regardless of how they get around.

sonnyred

They announced the locations ahead of time on the news and radio ahead of time. It;s during the day. How many drunks can you say are out walking across streets during the day? The police are using a good idea to try and make the motoring public aware of pedestrians, and right aware, someone questions how they do it. The initial tickets are also just warnings.
This topic should be in FOO

BarracksSi

A few years back, a local TV news reporter would wait for traffic to approach -- on a four-lane divided main road, mind you -- then start across as they were getting close. He'd stop them and interview them on camera, asking them if they knew they were supposed to stop for pedestrians.

The only practical reason I can think of for DC's always-yield-to-stupid-peds law is because, on some days, half of the pedestrians down here are tourists, who tend to treat streets as regular walkways (as if everything within sight of the Mall is one big park and not a living city).

Unfortunately, like you noted, people take it too far and believe that they're entitled to saunter across any street at any time. I had a friend who would do that, and she refused to listen to my reasoning -- "What if they're not looking? What if they're on a cell phone or something stupid like that? You may be legally correct if you get hit, but you're still going to be laying on a bed in intensive care."

BarracksSi

Drunk, high, stoned, yelling at their phone, belligerent (see my last post)... Stupid people do not hide during the day.

TeleJohn

A&S Jong!

CyLowe97

If only they could get Chicago cops in their cruisers to stop running stop signs and red lights for no apparent reason, I'd think progress was being made.

Tulex

Wow, I love how people on here can turn anything around.

BarracksSi

I have very little tolerance for people making asses of themselves just to prove a point, namely those cops or the TV reporter I mentioned. I don't think either of the pedestrians (civilians, to be fair, and not part of the sting) in the video were crossing on their signal, let alone at an actual crosswalk -- so they're being dangerous and unpredictable, even if they're "legally protected".

People here ***** about cars not following the rules. How about, "Look both ways before you cross the street."? Doesn't anyone teach that to their kids anymore? WTF?

AEO

We get these sorts of stings near school zones occasionally, main difference is that it's for speeders.

40km/h limit in school zones, anyone caught going over the limit can choose between children reading out what could possibly happen when you hit a child at the speed they were going or paying a fine and geting demerit points on their driver's license.


and as per above, A&S.... don't have a clue what it has to do with road.

slim_77

Lots. Sometimes me.
Never said it was a bad idea, borderline entrapment is not entrapment. Also, this being the road cycling forum, we all know how fuzzy the "fault line" is between pedestrians, cyclists and cars. This I think is why they choose this particular format as a means of reeducating drivers no the rules of the road. In fact, I was wondering if I would have been cited (probably). It is still a good idea especially with all the pedestrian/cyclist deaths in Chciago recently.

A&S sure; but foo,I disagree.

Tulex

Because, the bottom line is it doesn't matter why someone is in the road, it doesn't make them any less dead when they get run over. I don't imagine it's any easier to deal with running over someone if you find out they were at fault. Yeah it pisses me off that people don't take responsibility for their own safety. But that's the world we live in. I'm hoping the next time I'm in a fog and do something stupid, the guy coming down the road doesn't stop and think if I'm at fault before he decides to not hit me.

The police are trying to make drivers aware of pedestrians. I don't get how anyone can write that off as a bad thing just because there is a flaw in how they went about it. And, it pertains to road because the OP is hoping that they start doing stings with cops on bikes.

BarracksSi

Which makes it even more important that pedestrians behave with some responsibility.

The trouble is, they DON'T. I see it every friggin' day.

slim_77

I agree. With both sides acually. The driver while the may be the direct cause of injury/death can also be a tragic victim of someone elses mistake. Take the other link I posted. think about the driver of the car that actually killed the poor kid--NOT his/her fault, but he/she still will live with some terrible guilt, or I would at least. That sucks.

ALL actions have consequences: BE friggin' CAREFUL!

jccaclimber

Are you saying that it's ok to come to close to them if they are drunk? What if they are being ignorant? What if they are on a bicycle? At what point is it ok to be too close when passing?

BarracksSi

Right, which is why it kills me to see people automatically defend cyclists and peds at every conceivable opportunity, even though everyone needs to be smart and not put themselves in a position of imminent death.

Nobody should get a free pass just because they're not driving.

BarracksSi

What the driver was saying was, what the hell was that guy doing wandering in front of traffic?

BarracksSi

Besides -- does anyone here really think that people are driving around looking for someone to hit?

Tulex

That is plain crazy talk. There is a reason you need a license to drive a car, and not one to walk or bike. It's a huge responsibility to drive a car. Part of that responsibility is yielding to pedestrians, regardless of why they are in your path. What the hell is the difference between a drunk staggering out in front of you, a 3 year old kid chasing a ball, or someone walking across the street? As a driver, you have the same responsibility to watch for and avoid any of these people. As a driver, if you can't accept that, you don't belong behind the wheel. It doesn't matter why someone is there. You gave them that free pass when you accepted your license.

BarracksSi

How the **** is it crazy to expect everyone to treat the roads as dangerous as they are? Cars, trucks, bikes, peds, baby strollers, loose dogs -- who the hell gets to wander around without fear of consequences?

You'd better get a god damned grip on reality before we read about you being the next one smeared on the pavement under a dump truck.

BarracksSi

"Stay out of the street!"

"Look both ways before you cross the street!"

These are phrases that I've heard all my life. They're EASY. They keep people out of trouble. They keep people from being killed.

How ****ing DIFFICULT is it? Have you got a ****ing answer for that?

slim_77

I think I said what I meant pretty clearly.
to answer your questions:
1. no
2. dosen't matter
3. 3 feet --it is the law in Chicago and the state of Illinois.
4. the phrase "too close" is subjective and makes your question less powerful***


***I race and have no problem with other cyclists bumping me and riding a few cm from my bars. To another cyslist this is cause to freek out and may cause a crash.

My point being, that at times tragic accidents happen resulting in injury or death on the street (I cited one above.). At times pedestrians make avoiding contact resulting in said injury/death impossible (cited above), and at other times it is the vehicle that makes avoiding contact impossible. Both are tragic and unacceptable and if we are to "share the road" we, society, by necessity, place a great deal of responsibility on both peds and drivers to avoid and minimize number and frequency of accidents. I believe there is responsibility inherent in walking about just as there is responsibility proportional to the severity of risk inheret to operating a 1000lb moving vehicle.