No it’s not. When you post such worthless cites (no statutes at all!), and make such stupid claims, like “running isn’t the same as walking”, arguing with you is like swatting flies. Next!!!
Jesus Christ, you have a hypothesis: It is illegal to run in the road. Test it. Easy test. As I suggested much eariler, call the cops and see what happens. If they cite the runner in any way shape or form, I will apologize to you and acknowledge that running on the road is illegal where you live. If they gently explain to you that the runner is quite all right where he is, I will expect the same.
Every card is on the table with this inane argument, and you can end it rather simply.
Fiveyearlurker, you are an idiot. Scylla, I know you’re not an idiot, bcause I’ve read too many of your posts where you have demonstrated otherwise. But you’re arguing like an idiot here.
Both of you:
-
Please provide me with a cite which contradicts what both Fear and I have said, with cites to actual Illinois statutes (you know, laws that have actually been adopted by the elected legislature).
-
You argument that runners aren’t pedestrians is not only contradicted by my statutory cite, but is logically ludicrous.
-
Using your logic (explicit in what Five says and implicit in what Scylla says), it’s legal for me to drive 5 mph over the speed limit, or run a stop sign on my unlighted bike at midnight. Neither activity is likely to result in an arrest in my state. But both activities are illegal. And if I engage in these acts, and collide with someone else, I might get cited. More importantly, my actions will constitute negligence that will count against me in any civil case that results. Same with running on the roadway.
How many drivers speed? If there are 150 million drivers in the US, I submit that there are at least 75 million speeders. There are at least 160,000.
If that’s the case, speeding must be legal, right?
Give it up. You’re too intelligent to do otherwise.
Not really. The idea that running on the roads is actually illegal is kind of ludicrous. The existance of road running clubs and joggers, and resources for the runners that engage in the practice, up to and including local law enorcement authorities, suggests that the practice is legal.
Well, first off, I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t where to find the particular statutes that apply, nor do I know how to interpret them. Secondly, I don’t live in Illinois. I live in PA. I’m in a roadrunners club here. I’ve run in races. Airman Doors actually once ran in a race with me. We’ve have policemen in the club. We’ve had policemen lecture us about how to run safely in the roads. Without having to consult statutes it seems clear to me that policemen aren’t supposed to be telling us how to engage in illegal activities. So, I am quite sure that running in the roads is legal. I am well-travelled and I run when I travel and I find that the same rules apply. I read magazines like Runner’s World that again occasionally discuss how to run in the roads. I run races with other Road Runners clubs which typically have organized club runs listed on the internet. Typically, these are on roads. Lawyers, policemen, Doctors, and other upstanding and responsible citizens participate. They are advertised. I have run thousands of miles on roads. I have run with many other runners. Never, have I heard of a runner being cited for running on a road, or told by an authority that it was illegal. Nowhere, until this thread has anyone ever suggested the proposition to me. When I was hit by a truck there was a police report filed. At no time was it suggested that I had broken the law, or in any way done anything wrong. In fact, it was the truck driver who was hard pressed to defend himself (though the accident was the fault of the opposing driver who was not identified.) It was clearly stated that I had the right of way on the shoulder and it was the driver’s responsibility to avoid me. He should have hit the opposing vehicle instead of me. That’s what the policeman said.
Yes. It does seem that way, doesn’t it. Yet nevertheless your cite seems very different then the actual law in practice. Therefore, I conclude you are misinterpreting these statutes, or are otherwise missing something. You have proven in a reasonable fashion that joggers are pedestrians, but clearly you’re missing something else.
No. There are not organized clubs that exist for the sole purpose of doing these things out in the open with the explicit cooperation of law enforcement. I was not cited in my accident. I am aware of other accidents and never have I seen the runner cited. The only exception to this that I am aware of is the insistence of law enforcement that joggers run facing traffic except in blind turns.
I am well acquainted the rules of running in roads as I’ve been doing it for a long time and recieve the information from organized running clubs and law enforcement authorities.
Nor, do your cites seem to contradict this directly. The best interpretation of the multiple cites that I’ve seen seem to say that one should run on the sidewalks where sidewalks are available and on the side of the road when they are not. The exceptions are when a reasonable person would deem the sidewalks to be less safe than the roads, such as when they are covered with ice, under repair, have obstacles, or impede vision or safety.
At no point do I see that it is legal to harass runners simply because they are in the road as Fear states he should do. In fact, my first cite pretty much says that harassment or other endangerment such as this should be repeated.
As a nonlawyer, nonpoliceman I take my cues for responsible legal behavior from law enforcement or from a hired legal representative, or from other organized sources that exist legally with the cooperation of law enforcement such as Road Runners clubs. I do not interpret statutes, nor search for them. I am not qualified to do so. The law enforcement cite I’ve shown seems to support my stance.
In the face of this overwhelming preponderance of support for my stance, I do not find the cite of a single statute or two from a foreign state which may or may not apply or which may or may not be interpreted correctly as particularly compelling.
Do yo find this unreasonable?
Kills brain cells, I’m telling you running kills brain cells. 
Fine, from the goddamn Illinois Secretary of Goddamn State’s goddamn website. There’s even a neat little picture showing how to safely be a pedestrian on the road. Are we fucking done?
From: http://www.sos.state.il.us/publications/rr/rr_chap09.html
JOGGERS and WALKERS: Joggers and walkers should use jogging paths when provided. On public roads, joggers should try to select wide roads with good shoulders. They should face oncoming traffic and remember to look and listen for cars. At night or anytime visibility is poor, joggers and walkers should be in well-lighted areas and wear reflective clothing.
Idiot. From your own link:
“ROADWAYS: Pedestrians must not walk on a roadway unless there is no sidewalk or shoulder next to it. Under these conditions, pedestrians should always walk as close to the outside edge of the road as possible. In two-way traffic, pedestrians should walk facing oncoming traffic.”
And to the extent there is a contradiction (which there isn’t here) between a website that paraphrases the law and gives safety tips (even one from a state agency) and the text of the actual state statute, guess which one prevails?
And, in case you’ve forgotten, here’s the statutory text, already quoted by Fear:
(625 ILCS 5/11‑1007) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑1007)
Sec. 11‑1007. Pedestrians walking on highways.
(a) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.
(b) Where a sidewalk is not available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk only on a shoulder, as far as practicable from the edge of the roadway.
© Where neither a sidewalk nor a shoulder is available, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall walk as near as practicable to an outside edge of a roadway, and, if on a two‑way roadway, shall walk only on the left side of the roadway.
(d) Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, any pedestrian upon a roadway shall yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(Source: P.A. 79‑857.)
(I trust that even you remember the statutory definition of pedestrian from my recent post above. If not, let me know. I’ll post it again.)
Well, yes. You can leave the sidewalk and venture onto the road to avoid any part of the sidewalk that is dangererous, because it’s under repair, etc. But that’s not really your practice, or your argument here, is it? You run on the road, generally. You don’t return to the sidewalk when the immediate obstruction ends.
Agreed. Did Fear really say otherwise? If so, I disagree with him. Although the driver has the right of way, he still must avoid the pedestrian, if possible.
Statutes aren’t always that mysterious. These certainly aren’t. You’re capable of comprehending them. If I were forced to choose between you and a random policeman, I’d bet your interpretation of any particular statute would be right more often that his. And if you do choose to take the word of someone other than yourself, maybe you should go with a lawyer over a cop?
I wasn’t the first person to bring up Illinois law. But fair enough: Here’s what appears to be the applicable Pennsylvania statute:
Cite: http://www.dot.state.pa.us/pedestrian/web/laws.htm
I wonder: Didd Illinois crib from PA, or PA from Illinois?
I’m not a runner. I am a bicyclist, though. In Illinois, although bikers must follow the rules of the road, including stop signs, etc., there is a limited exception for organized, govermentally permitted bike races with adequate alternative safety provisions. I’ve seen the statute. It’s possible there is a similar exception in PA for (running) races. I’d be shocked if there was a general exeption for all runners, though.
Was there a sidewalk? If so, I disagree with the cop. (I’m not saying that a driver has no responsibility to avoid the runner. He does. But all else being equal, the driver has the right of way.)
Let’s also be clear on the meaning of “illegal” in this context. It’s not illegal like armed robbery, it’s illegal like failing to use your turn signal when changing lanes. Nobody is going to Sing Sing for jogging next to a sidewalk. However, it IS clearly a violation of the vehicle code to be on the road when a sidewalk is available for use. As such, it is just as much fodder for a Pit rant as the guy who changed lanes without signaling or refused to get right so you could pass. And, if you wind up in court over an accident, your position could be comprimised if violating the vehicle code helped cause the accident.
You don’t see where they are differentiating “pedestrians” from “walkers and joggers”? You know, by listing them seperately? With different rules? Where pedestrians are told to stay on the sidewalk, and walkers and joggers are told to stay on paths or safely stay in the road? You truly don’t see that? You know what they are saying by doing that? “Pedestrians” are people strolling along, while “walkers and joggers” are people doing longer distances at faster speeds where walking on the sidewalk is not practicable.
Which is where the actual state statute comes into play:
“(a) Where a sidewalk is provided and its use is practicable, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.”
They are making an exeception, and a very clear one, for walkers and joggers under the issue of it not being practicable to use the sidewalk. Which nicely explains why walkers and joggers in the street are not getting tickets.
If the rules were the same, why bother to have a seperate section for walkers and joggers? Why not say, “Pedestrians, including walkers and joggers, must not walk…”
Time for dueling cites, from your cite’s table of contents (bolding mine)
The other side of the argument from you is quoting the law directly, you are not.
I am citing law. The law makes a very clear “practicable” exception. This seems to be common wording across much of the country. The word is not defined (where I can see, if you can find it, I’d be happy to consider), and is being interpreted broadly by both the Secretary of State, and apparently the police, as they are not ticketing people.
Truthfully, I was intrigued to see that the laws were not the way I had imagined them to be three days ago. But, it is pretty clear to me that the reason that road running is widely legal, is this exception under practicability (assuming that is a word).
There is absolutely no distinction between pedestrians and runners in the statute. Any such perception exists only in your mind.
“Not practicable” can hardly be stretched to include, “I can’t run fast enough because the sidewalks are too crowded.” Such specious logic could be used to justify driving on the median strip during rush hour, just because the traffic lanes were full of slow drivers. Would that be legal? “Not practicable” means there is a condition such as construction or damage that requires you to briefly use the road to avoid the obstruction. It does not give you license to use the road just because it is inconvenient to use the sidewalk.
It doesn’t specifically include skippers and breakdancers either, but the law prohibits those activities in the road. Pedestrians are defined in the statute as anyone on foot; walkers, runners, skippers, dancers, all God’s chillun’ who travel on two feet. It’s the law.
No, because there is no statute that says, “Drivers should stay off the median strip when practicable.”
You and I can argue about the interpretation of the word in the law, and I suspect we won’t get anywhere. All that would happen is I would politely explain why it isn’t practicable to jog on the sidewalk, and you would frothingly yell about hating joggers and call me an idiot. But, it is quite apparent that law enforcement is interpreting it broadly to allow for joggers.
Incidentally, many states define “roadway” as being exclusive from the shoulder of the road. So, when laws say that pedestrians should stay out of the roadway, they mean they should stay out of the actual lane, which is law I have no problem agreeing with.
Like Arizona (pdf, scroll to page 13):
I never called you an idiot; I called you an elitist. Which is even more apt now, when you insist that “practicable” is synonymous" with “convenient”, and runners have the right to avoid being inconvenienced at the expense of the public safety.
I apologize. I attributed invective to you that was not you, but another.
And what I insist on defining it as, or what you insist on defining it as is equally meaningless. Law enforcement sees fit to define “roadway” and “practicable” as allowing joggers on the shoulder of the road, presumably in the interest of public safety.
I just don’t understand why you can’t run somewhere else besides in traffic, which endangers others. Go to a park, go to the high school track, go to the woods, anywhere but in close proximity to vehicles who must swerve to avoid you. To insist you have the right to do it anyway smacks of selfish behavior.