|
People tend to forget that most roads (i.e. with the sole exceptions of Limited access Highways) were designed for horse drawn wagons not cars. Since Cars started to operate on roads, roads have been improved, but even paving of urban roads predate cars (Most cities had their road paved by 1900, just to keep the dust down, in fact one of the big pushes for Streetcars in the 1890s and early 1900s was the streetcar operators would pave the roads the streetcars were to operate on). With the advent of gasoline taxes, highway improvements improved, but Streetcars still had duties to maintain and repair the streets such cars operated on (And was one of the main reason Streetcars were replaced by buses starting in the 1930s, Bus lines did NOT have to maintain the roadway, while Streetcars operators had to).
As to Sidewalks, Sidewalks started as wooden Sidewalks in urban areas to permit people go from house to house and business to business while staying out of the muddy streets as much as possible. By 1900 the movement was to Concrete Sidewalks, but Wooden Sidewalks lasted till the 1930s (As did wooded roads, often called "Plank Roads", such Plank Woods were good for horse-drawn wagons but as automobiles started to use them and needed "High speed" rubber tires, the nails that held such Plank woods together became a bother and were replaced).
Now sidewalks were NEVER intended for any high speed traffic, and what I mean by High Speed traffic is anything faster then a walking pace. In the 1990s Pennsylvania had adopted a law that if a bike path was along the side of a road all cyclists had to use that bike path NOT the road. This lead to a disaster in what Allegheny County Calls "South Park". The county had built a bike path along an abandoned right of way of an elevated rubber tire transportation system (Called Skybus, the Vehicles were never used as mass transit but the technology was used in the various people movers used in many modern airports). The posts for the elevated system was removed and the path the system followed was graded as a Bike Path. The bike path went up and down slopes and had some radical turns in them. Sight distances were limited do to these turns and hills. The path was fully capable of being used by people on foot or low speed bicycles but on any bicycle capable of going over 5mph, would lack the sight distance to stop before hitting someone. This combination lead to a cyclist, going full speed on his bicycle, going on the path, as he was required by the above law to do, hitting and killing a pedestrian who had stopped to talk to another on the trail, a common occurrence on sidewalks and other places where pedestrians travel. The County and the State were in a bind. Unlike local municipalities, County Governments are viewed as agents of the State, thus what the County does affect the state. In this case it was clear that the bike path violated any design rules for bike paths AND this had been brought to the County's attention when the trail was proposed. The fall back position that the cyclist was the cause of the accident for no speed limit had been posted AND the proximate cause of the accident was the lack of sight distance given the speed the cyclist was going. The county could NOT use the speed of the Cyclist as a defense, for it was while within speeds achieved on bike races and much higher speeds are designed into trails in almost all rail to trail paths. The final defense, that the Cyclist should have operated his high speed bike on the road was defeated by the above Statute REQUIRING him to use the path. Thus there was no defense and the county and the state had to pay (technically the person who designed the path had to pay for the state was exempt under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, but most engineers have a clause in their contracts with the state that if they are held liable the state will pay, especially if they note the problem with the designed and are overridden, which appears to be this situation in the above case).
Anyway, in response the State changed their laws as to Cyclist. Since the 1990s it is no longer required in Pennsylvania for any cyclist to use a bike path. Furthermore cyclist are permitted, but not required to use sidewalks except in business districts (Cyclist can NOT use sidewalks in business districts).
As to roads, cyclist has the same right as any other user of that road. People tend to forget that pedestrians have the right to use any road in the United States (With the exceptions of roads, designed, built and paid for by automobile operators, i.e. toll roads, interstate highways and other limited access highways). This reflects the right of movement long held by the US Supreme Court. If you are traveling on a four lane highway, not limited access, with no sidewalks pedestrians have the right to walk along that highway, including on the pavement. Now how the state try to enforce this right is strange. For example I live in Cambria COunty Pa. Through the middle of the County goes US 22. US 22 had originally been an indian path (Called the Rayston Path) and have been improved over the years and given various names (Northern Pike was a named used for it in the late 1800s for example). It has been know by its Present name "William Penn Highway" since the 1920s (When what had been called the "Southern Pike" became known as the "Lincoln Highway", US 30). As such US 22 has always been a road where pedestrian could walk. Now, starting in the 1950s the State started to upgrade the highway by making it a four lane highway, with part of it limited access. The then new limited access parts could exclude pedestrians if the existing parts survived for use by pedestrians. Some parts did, some parts did not. This leads to weird situations, for example if I take what the local calls "Old US 219" from Johnstown to US 22, I come to old US 22 first, then 100 feet further on "Old US 219" I come to US 22, a limited access highway with signs saying "No Pedestrians". Yet if I take old US 22 to where it merges with present US 22 no such signs exist. Why? Simple, where old 22 still exists, pedestrians have the right to use that road and the state has the right to exclude them from the new road, but where the new road goes over the old road and no alternative exists, pedestrians have the right to walk on new US 22.
I go into the above for if Pedestrians can travel on the road so can Bicycles (and horse drawn wagons, through local municipalities can require diapers or clean up if the horse disburses manure in the streets, just like the state can require your car meats minimal safely requirements). The only issue is minimal safety requirements, which can NOT be used to ban pedestrian traffic, but can be used to regulate bicycle, horse drawn wagon and even Automotive traffic (Including reasonable regulations that in affect ban that means of transportation, for example banning horses do to desire to ban shit in the streets). This safety concern can NOT be a fear that undesirable would walk to town, the Courts have long ruled that bans for such reasons are unconstitutional (The New Orleans suburb that did this during Katrina is being used on this issue, but we are talking damages for the closing of the suburb was to short to get a Court Order to stop it during the aftermath of Katrina).
I go into the above to show that the problem is, and has been, that automobiles have been permitted on roads never intended for such high speed vehicles and that the law still fully expect roads to handle low speed traffic such as pedestrians even in areas with NO sidewalks or even shoulders. Given that sidewalks are dangerous for anyone NOT on foot, and do NOT exist on most roads outside of urban areas, treating bicycles differently then automobiles is untenable. You have to treat bicyclist like pedestrians who use those roads (And that fact pedestrians do NOT use the road is NOT a factor it is the ABILITY to use the road the court is looking at NOT if it is used). The State can make adjustments to reflect the speed of vehicles but can not ban slower vehicles (Except on roads designed, purchased and built to operate only such high speed vehicles). Thus the problem has been Automobiles, but the state legislators all drive automobiles and thus do NOT want to outlaw them, but that is what is mandated by law if a conflict exists between Vehicles and pedestrians. Thus the problem is ignored and will continue to be ignored for no one wants to restrict Automobiles.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
