Chicago Accident Lawyer Blog
At Zneimer & Zneimer P.C., we handle personal injury cases involving injured bicyclists throughout Chicago and Illinois and have learned from experience that visibility plays a crucial role in bicycle accident cases. Both Illinois law and Chicago’s municipal code impose specific duties on bicyclists to help prevent crashes and to ensure that, if an accident happens, the bicyclist does not bear legal responsibility for failing to follow the rules.
The Rules of the Road Apply to Bicyclists
The Illinois Vehicle Code requires bicyclists to follow the same traffic laws that apply to motor vehicle drivers. Under 625 ILCS 5/11-1502, every person riding a bicycle upon a highway “shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle,” unless a provision of the Code clearly does not apply. This includes obeying signals, yielding when required, and using lighting and reflectors for visibility at night. When bicyclists ride in traffic, the law treats them as drivers. That means the duty to avoid contributing to an accident is the same.
Chicago Ordinances Underline the Visibility Requirements
Chicago’s municipal code goes further. Under Chicago Municipal Code § 9-52-080, a bicycle used at night must be equipped with:
- A white headlamp visible from at least 500 feet in front,
- A rear red reflector that reflects headlights from up to 200 feet away,
- Or a rear red lamp that emits light visible from 200 feet,
- And a brake that can cause the braked wheel to skid on dry, level pavement.
These are not optional features. A bicyclist who rides at night without these elements violates the ordinance and may be found at fault in a collision. If the case proceeds to litigation, defense attorneys or insurance companies will likely use that violation to argue contributory negligence.
In addition, Section 9-52-100 makes clear that parents or guardians may not knowingly allow children to violate bicycle regulations, meaning that even adults who let their children ride without lights may face legal exposure.
Real Consequences in Real Cases
In Bolek v. West Shore Transport Co., a nine-year-old boy rode his bicycle at dusk and entered a street intersection where a tractor-trailer was turning. The boy had difficulty balancing the bicycle and did not have a headlamp. The trailer ran over him, causing fatal injuries. The plaintiff sued for wrongful death, arguing that the driver failed to keep a proper lookout or sound a warning. The court allowed the jury to consider whether the boy’s lack of a headlamp contributed to the collision. The jury returned a verdict for the defense. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, stating that the absence of a headlamp raised a valid question of contributory negligence. The court found that even though the driver may have failed to see the boy, the lack of a headlamp on the bicycle supported the defense theory that the boy’s visibility played a role in the accident.
In Savage v. Martin, a ten-year-old girl was struck by a car while crossing an intersection on her bicycle in Chicago. Her mother filed a personal injury lawsuit against the driver, alleging that his negligence caused the accident. According to testimony, the child was 20 to 30 feet outside of the crosswalk when the collision occurred. As she was outside of the crosswalk, this may have affected her visibility to the driver, who claimed he did not expect a bicyclist to cross mid-block or outside the designated area.At trial, the court directed a verdict on contributory negligence, holding that the child was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that her negligence exceeded that of the driver. The Appellate Court reversed that decision in part and remanded the case. The court held that the trial court should have allowed the case to go to trial and let the jury decide the percentage of contributory fault of the child. The appellate court explained that contributory negligence is almost always a question for the jury unless the evidence is so one-sided that no fair-minded jury could reach a different conclusion. This case shows that visibility involves more than just what a person wears or whether they have lights or reflectors. Visibility also depends on where a person chooses to ride their bicycle. The child in this case did not cross within the crosswalk but instead entered the intersection 20 to 30 feet outside of it. That choice affected her placement in the roadway and may have made it harder for the driver to anticipate or see her. Riding outside of expected or designated areas can reduce a bicyclist’s visibility to drivers, even in clear daylight. In assessing contributory negligence, courts and juries may consider not only whether the bicyclist was physically visible but also whether they positioned themselves in a way that made their presence foreseeable to others on the road.
In Krause v. Henker, a ten-year-old girl walked or jogged on a dark, misty roadway without streetlights. A driver claimed that he could not see her because of oncoming headlights and that she was wearing dark clothing. A witness testified that she was on the paved part of the road with her back to traffic. The girl sustained serious injuries when the vehicle struck her. The plaintiff sought a directed verdict, arguing that the driver was clearly at fault. The court denied that request and allowed the jury to decide the case. The jury found in favor of the driver. The appellate court upheld the verdict, finding that the questions of whether the driver saw her in time and whether her clothing and location on the road contributed to the crash should be left to the jury. The court held that even children must use reasonable care for their own safety, and the visibility of the pedestrian remained a central issue.
Other Safety-Related Rules Also Apply
These cases show that visibility plays a critical role in both preventing accidents and determining liability. Bicyclists must use proper lighting and avoid dark or inconspicuous clothing during low-light conditions. A failure to do so can weaken a case, reduce compensation, or prevent recovery entirely.
Beyond lights and reflectors, Chicago also regulates communication devices. Under § 9-52-110, bicyclists may not use phones or other communication devices while riding, unless they use a hands-free device or are stationary. If a bicyclist causes or is involved in a crash while using a device, the law allows for an additional fine of up to $500. A bicyclist distracted by a phone and lacking proper visibility could face serious legal consequences.
Visibility Protects Safety and Strengthens Legal Claims
All these laws share a common goal: to ensure bicyclists can be seen and can react safely on the road. When bicyclists fail to meet visibility standards, whether by not using a light at night, wearing dark clothes in low-light conditions, or using a phone while riding, they expose themselves not only to danger, but also to legal consequences that may limit or destroy a claim for damages.
At Zneimer & Zneimer P.C., we encourage all bicyclists in Chicago to equip their bikes with proper lighting, wear visible clothing, avoid distractions, and use designated bike paths and crossings. These steps not only protect your safety, they protect your legal rights. If you or a loved one has been injured in a bicycle accident, contact our firm. We will analyze all the facts, assess compliance with the law, and build a case to hold negligent drivers accountable while defending against any contributory negligence claims.