Illinois Bicyclists - action needed

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bob Kastigar, Feb 15, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob Kastigar

    Bob Kastigar Guest

    ACTION ALERT - please take a few minutes to help bicycling!

    Attention all cyclists (please forward this to other cyclists, too),

    Your help is needed now to pass a bill that affects bicycling conditions throughout the state. You
    may know of CBF and LIB's "Boub legislation" from past newsletters, etc. We have new bills this
    year, and the House bill is scheduled for committee this Thursday the 20th! House Bill 1248 and
    Senate Bill 275 would correct the negative impacts of the 1998 Illinois Supreme Court Boub vs. Wayne
    decision, which has been a disaster for on-road cycling in the state. Until the bill gets passed:

    · Towns that want to improve on-road bike safety through signage or bike lanes are penalized with
    liability, whereas towns that do nothing get immunity; · Bicyclists are discriminated against by not
    having the on-road liability protection that motorcyclists and motorists have; · Long-distance
    bikeways like the Grand Illinois Trail and Mississippi River Trail, and MANY other local plans, are
    being stalled; · We're the only state with this bizarre and powerful disincentive for improving
    on-road bike safety.

    PLEASE CALL YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS BY TUESDAY THE 18TH! Find out their name and phone number at
    www.biketraffic.org/boub_search.html We *especially* need calls to the committee members: HOUSE -
    Fritchey-11, Bailey-6, Berrios-39, Brosnahan-36, Cultra-105, Froehlich-56, Hamos-18 (bill sponsor),
    Hoffman-112, Hultgren-95, Lang-16, Mathias-53, May-58, Nekritz-57 (bill sponsor), Osmond-61,
    Rose-110, Sacia-89, Scully-80, Wait-69. SENATE - Cullerton-6 (sponsor), Clayborne-57, Dillard-24,
    Haine-56, Harmon-39, Obama-13, Petka-42, Roskam-48, Silverstein-8, Winkel-52

    Identify yourself as a bicyclist in the district and ask for support of HB1248 and SB275. Use the
    points above if you wish. You may leave a message during non-business hours, if necessary.

    Please make this very short call and forward this to your biking friends. The voices of individual
    bicyclists are VERY important in passing the bill, just as this bill is critical to improving
    bicycling in the state.

    Thank you!

    Go to:

    http://www.governmentguide.com

    where you'll be given an opportunity to enter your ZIP code. If the 9-digit ZIP code is required,
    you'll be given a link to the USPS site to enter your address and that will return your 9-digit ZIP
    code if you don't know it.

    From the governmentguide.com website, you'll find the state (not federal, this is an Illinois issue)
    senate and house districts you live in. More clickable links, and you should find the Illinois House
    and Senate people who represent you, and a local telephone number for their office.

    Then call them up, asking them to support HB1248 and SB275, following the directions in the
    original post.

    Especially if you live in the following Illinois districts:

    Illinois HOUSE - Fritchey-11, Bailey-6, Berrios-39, Brosnahan-36, Cultra-105, Froehlich-56, Hamos-18
    (bill sponsor), Hoffman-112, Hultgren-95, Lang-16, Mathias-53, May-58, Nekritz-57 (bill sponsor),
    Osmond-61, Rose-110, Sacia-89, Scully-80, Wait-69.

    Illinois SENATE - Cullerton-6 (sponsor), Clayborne-57, Dillard-24, Haine-56, Harmon-39, Obama-13,
    Petka-42, Roskam-48, Silverstein-8, Winkel-52

    Often nobody knows the names of their state representatives, but these are the guyz and galz CLOSEST
    to us, so by a concerted effort we can have the greatest effect.

    --
    Bob Kastigar; mailto:[email protected] Home: http://www.neiu.edu/~rkastiga Work:
    http://www.wgntv.com School: http://www.neiu.edu Play: http://www.neiu.edu/~stagectr Union:
    http://www.ibew1220.org (Chicago, IL USA) finger [email protected]

    "Sweet Old Bob" (or just the initials)

    ______________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com <><><><><><><>
    The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><
     
    Tags:


  2. schikerbiker

    schikerbiker Guest

    "Bob Kastigar" <[email protected]_THISneiu.edu> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > · Bicyclists are discriminated against by not having the on-road liability protection that
    > motorcyclists and motorists have;

    How do you figure this? Are you in favor of bicyclist having to purchase mandiatory insurance like
    cars and motorcycles already have to do?
     
  3. Hunrobe

    Hunrobe Guest

    >[email protected]

    wrote:

    >How do you figure this? Are you in favor of bicyclist having to purchase mandiatory insurance like
    >cars and motorcycles already have to do?

    Liability protection has nothing to do with liability insurance. Do a search for the Illinois
    Supreme Court case "Boub vs Wayne Township". BTW, I thought you'd decided this NG was populated by
    kooks and crazies so why are you still posting in it?

    Regards, Bob Hunt
     
  4. John Everett

    John Everett Guest

    On 15 Feb 2003 15:07:52 GMT, [email protected]_THISneiu.edu (Bob Kastigar) wrote:

    >House Bill 1248 and Senate Bill 275 would correct the negative impacts of the 1998 Illinois Supreme
    >Court Boub vs. Wayne decision, which has been a disaster for on-road cycling in the state.

    While I agree with the intent of this posting, I believe the above is just a little too overly
    dramatic. I've ridden thousands and thousands of miles on Illinois roads both prior to and since the
    Boub decision. I've even ridden across the now infamous bridge where Boub crashed, leading to his
    initial lawsuit. I've noticed absolutely NO difference in cycling conditions, so how has the
    Decision been such a disaster?

    John Everett - Aurora, Illinois

    jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
     
  5. Kevin Lutz

    Kevin Lutz Guest

    The decision is a disaster because it is somewhat similar to cleaning the snow off your sidewalk.
    If you clean your sidewalk, you're liable if someone gets hurt. If you do nothing, you're not
    held liable.

    Under the new law if a town makes improvements for bicyclists (e.g., bike lanes, signage, or
    anything) they are legally liable. If they do nothing, they are not liable. Therefore, towns are
    incentivized to do nothing to help bicyclists because it would create a liability for them if
    something happens while riding on the improvement (e.g., bike lane). If you were riding on the open
    road and were hurt of killed, they are imune.

    We want the law changed so that if they make improvements (e.g., bike lanes) they are not held
    liable just because you happen to crash or get hit by a car while riding on it.

    "John Everett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > On 15 Feb 2003 15:07:52 GMT, [email protected]_THISneiu.edu (Bob Kastigar) wrote:
    >
    > >House Bill 1248 and Senate Bill 275 would correct the negative impacts of the 1998
    > >Illinois Supreme Court Boub vs. Wayne decision, which has been a disaster for on-road
    > >cycling in the state.
    >
    > While I agree with the intent of this posting, I believe the above is just a little too overly
    > dramatic. I've ridden thousands and thousands of miles on Illinois roads both prior to and since
    > the Boub decision. I've even ridden across the now infamous bridge where Boub crashed, leading to
    > his initial lawsuit. I've noticed absolutely NO difference in cycling conditions, so how has the
    > Decision been such a disaster?
    >
    > John Everett - Aurora, Illinois
    >
    >
    > jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
     
  6. "Kevin Lutz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > The decision is a disaster because it is somewhat similar to cleaning the snow off your sidewalk.
    > If you clean your sidewalk, you're liable if someone gets hurt. If you do nothing, you're not
    > held liable.
    >
    > Under the new law if a town makes improvements for bicyclists (e.g., bike lanes, signage, or
    > anything) they are legally liable. If they do
    nothing,
    > they are not liable. Therefore, towns are incentivized to do nothing to help bicyclists because it
    > would create a liability for them if something happens while riding on the improvement (e.g., bike
    > lane). If you were riding on the open road and were hurt of killed, they are imune.
    >
    > We want the law changed so that if they make improvements (e.g., bike
    lanes)
    > they are not held liable just because you happen to crash or get hit by a car while riding on it.
    >

    Bike lanes are not neccessarily a good thing.
     
  7. Trent Piepho

    Trent Piepho Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, Kevin Lutz
    <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >We want the law changed so that if they make improvements (e.g., bike lanes) they are not held
    >liable just because you happen to crash or get hit by a car while riding on it.

    Often what a city considers an "improvement" isn't one from a cyclist's point of view, but rather
    from a cager's. Cities which try to force cyclists to get off the road and to ride in an unsafe
    manner should be held liable.

    By letting cities off the hook for anything they choose to call an improvement, you're giving them
    an open invitation to shit all over you.
     
  8. Jim Boyer

    Jim Boyer Guest

    "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kevin Lutz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > The decision is a disaster because it is somewhat similar to cleaning
    the
    > > snow off your sidewalk. If you clean your sidewalk, you're liable if someone gets hurt. If you
    > > do nothing, you're not held liable.
    > >
    > > Under the new law if a town makes improvements for bicyclists (e.g.,
    bike
    > > lanes, signage, or anything) they are legally liable. If they do
    > nothing,
    > > they are not liable. Therefore, towns are incentivized to do nothing to help bicyclists because
    > > it would create a liability for them if
    something
    > > happens while riding on the improvement (e.g., bike lane). If you were riding on the open road
    > > and were hurt of killed, they are imune.
    > >
    > > We want the law changed so that if they make improvements (e.g., bike
    > lanes)
    > > they are not held liable just because you happen to crash or get hit by
    a
    > > car while riding on it.
    > >
    >
    > Bike lanes are not neccessarily a good thing.
    >
    Easy now...It's not just bike lanes but can simply be signage for bike routes or wide curb lanes
    installed during road improvements.
     
  9. John Everett

    John Everett Guest

    On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:51:35 GMT, "Kevin Lutz" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The decision is a disaster because it is somewhat similar to cleaning the snow off your sidewalk.
    >If you clean your sidewalk, you're liable if someone gets hurt. If you do nothing, you're not
    >held liable.
    >
    >Under the new law if a town makes improvements for bicyclists (e.g., bike lanes, signage, or
    >anything) they are legally liable. If they do nothing, they are not liable. Therefore, towns are
    >incentivized to do nothing to help bicyclists because it would create a liability for them if
    >something happens while riding on the improvement (e.g., bike lane).

    So the towns do nothing and this constitutes a disaster?

    Hurricane Andrew was a disaster. This is merely unfortunate.

    jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...