Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
9. A word from a State that permit biking on sidewalks....
Wed Sep 9, 2015, 06:10 PM
Sep 2015

Pennsylvania's law for decades said a Cyclist could NOT ride on a Sidewalk, period dot. Then out great state legislature decided to pass a law REQUIRING cyclists to ride on any bike path along a road and forbidding them to be on the road if a bike path exists.

That lasted just a few years, till a cyclists on a bike path in an Allegheny County Pennsylvania county park killed a pedestrian. The case never went to court, for it was clear the Cyclist was obeying the law going 25-30 mph on a bike path that followed an abandoned transit system. The problem the transit system had been an overhead system and the path followed the BASE of the system not the system itself (which had been torn down and removed). The subsequent bike trail ended up going up and down steep hillsides with tight blind turns. It was in one of these turns that the cyclist hit and killed the pedestrian.

As I said the case NEVER went to court for the simple reason the cyclist was obeying the law by staying off the four lane road beside the bike path, for that is what state law said the cyclist was suppose to do. Thus the Cyclist committed no crime. The Pedestrian was just staying in the path, which is also permitted, and thus was NOT committing a crime. The design of the bike path was at fault and sovereign immunity could NOT protect the people who design and built the bike path. From what I heard the county paid up, for it was clear the fault was the County design of the path for it violated most of the rules when it came to designing bike paths and roads.

One of the result of that debacle was the State of Pennsylvania rewrote its bike laws. It removed the requirement that cyclist MUST use bike paths. The new law also permitted riding on sidewalks EXCEPT in business districts. The law does NOT define business districts, that is up to the judge who hears the case, but most people know what a business district is.

Since that law was passed, it had worked well. I still tend to avoid riding on sidewalks for most contain hazards that have knocked me on the ground. The law makes it clear that cyclist must yield to pedestrians, but that has worked out well in Pennsylvania (please note most cyclist in Pennsylvania do NOT ride on any sidewalks, preferring the berm of the road, if one exists).

Thus the law should permit cyclists on sidewalks, but that they must get off the sidewalk or yield to pedestrian must be part of the law.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Public Transportation and Smart Growth»Sacramento Ponders: Where...»Reply #9