• Skip to main content

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers

Client-first legal representation for injury victims. Injured? Free Consultation:

(312) 376-3812

  • Home
  • About Us
    • Attorneys
      • Ken Levinson
      • Jay Stefani
      • Vanessa A. Gebka
    • Practice Areas
      • Truck Crashes
      • Bus Collisions
      • Auto Accidents
      • Child Injuries
  • Firm News
  • Library
    • Articles
    • Cases
    • Law
    • Video
  • Blog
  • For Lawyers
    • Focus Groups
  • Free Case Review

Chicago Reader

Partner Jay Stefani talks with the Chicago Reader

October 3, 2016 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Jay_End-Distracted-Driving
Partner Jay Stefani

Recent crash deaths have shaken the city’s cycling community to the core, and it may be time for lawmakers to start prioritizing ways to protect them, according to experts like our own Jay Stefani.

As reported by the Chicago Reader, four cyclists have recently been killed in incidents related to “right-hook” crashes that involve large trucks.

“The truck blocks your path, you’re stuck, and you fall under the massive vehicle. The rear wheels roll over your body, causing severe, likely fatal, injuries,” writes reporter John Greenfield, also editor at Streetsblog Chicago.

That sums up a nightmare scenario that has become increasingly problematic in big cities like Chicago, whose residents rely on bikes as a primary mode of transportation. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg, as Jay pointed out to Greenfield, specifically with regard to protective side guards—features installed on the sides of trucks that could potentially prevent these kinds of fatalities from happening at all.

From the article: “What makes the truck right-turn incidents all the more tragic is the refusal of lawmakers to require side guards,” [Stefani] said. “Sadly, to make them mandatory here, there needs to be a tipping point where enough people are fed up with the deaths.”

The U.S. continues to lag far behind European countries like the U.K., which have adopted stricter safety regulations and implemented the side guards that Jay mentions. Will Chicago’s City Council soon do the same? It seems obvious that they should.

Read the Reader’s complete coverage here.

When it comes to wearing bike helmets, there is no debate

June 16, 2016 by Jay Stefani Leave a Comment

Divvy

Do they look great? No. Do they save lives. Yes 

I’ll confess: my profession skews my view of the world. We don’t handle cases involving people who safely got from point A to point B. We don’t represent clients who went for an incident-free bike ride. We help people whose lives have been changed—for the worse—because someone else was careless or reckless. It’s that view that colored my reading of a recent article in the Chicago Reader.

“Promote helmets or prevent crashes? Some advocates say it’s time to shift,” by John Greenfield, looks at the debate amongst cycling advocates on whether promoting bike helmets deters cycling. Greenfield spoke with a number of biking supporters to discuss varying approaches to bike helmet usage. Some of those people believe that pushing others to wear helmets is having a depressing effect on potential riders—they either don’t like helmets or they feel they’re unnecessary. Others take the approach that helmets save lives and minimize injuries. Frankly, I think it’s a bit of a silly—and reckless—argument.

The folks against strict helmet usage allege that slow, urban cycling can be “quite safe” without a helmet. One opponent, a consultant from Denmark, argues helmets send a message that cycling is dangerous, and it can discourage others from taking part. Recent studies have concluded that there might not be as large of a difference in terms of the severity of head injuries—noting helmets might only reduce the risk of a head injury by 25-55 percent. If you were given a chance to reduce the risk of cancer by 25-55 percent, wouldn’t you gladly take it?

The problem—the naïve and dangerous problem—with this rationale is it assumes the cyclist is the sole person responsible for crashes. If you’re riding slowly and safely, you have little to worry about. By that logic, if you’re just driving in your neighborhood, why bother wearing a seatbelt? The harsh reality is you don’t have any control over what other drivers are doing. In a car, you’re at least enveloped by a highly engineered, crumple-zone, steel wrap. In a bike, it’s you—and hopefully your helmet.

I lived—and cycled—in Chicago for over a decade. Not once did I consider riding without a helmet. Even riding at a slow pace (5-10 mph), you’re constantly aware that someone in a parked car could open a door in the blink of an eye. Your options are to veer into traffic (which is coming from behind you) or hit the door. Wouldn’t you want to be wearing a helmet?

A bicyclist’s own speed has no bearing on a truck blowing a stop sign or a red light. No matter how safe a bike rider is, how alert he or she may be, it won’t prevent a random car quickly pulling out of an alley or driveway. The point of wearing a helmet—the same as wearing a seatbelt in the car—is you’re taking a simple precaution to protect against someone else’s carelessness.

Too many times I’ve seen the aftermath of a bike, car, or truck crash. Crashes—especially bike crashes—happen in an instant. The speed of the cyclist, the alertness of the rider, and the setting of the crash have little effect on the outcome. We don’t always have control over our surroundings, which is why we control what we can. Wearing a helmet is something we can control, and it may save your life.

Levinson and Stefani Injury Lawyers in Chicago / Attorney Advertising