The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1896-02-26
Th ad1ha Daily d0leanesdau 1onio Eebruary

section of the ordinance complained of
is as follows:
Section l. 1t shall be unlawful for
any person or persons, to use any BIZ
cycle or tricycle. on any street, avenue
or public park, within the city of En-
poria, unless there is securely attach
ed thereto a good and sufficient bicycle
or tricycle. repeating alarm bell. not less
than 2h inches in diameter. Or 10 use
any such vehicle in the night time I'M
less there be also attached thereto a
good and sufficient bicycle or tricycle.
lamp or lantern, well lighted for a warn
ing Of approach, upon approaching any
and all crossings, or Cross walks at the
intersection Of Commercial, Mechanic
and Merchants streets, with Second,
Third. Fourth. Fifth, Sixth, Seventh
Eighth avenues. and at a reasonable
distance therefrom every person so US
ing any such vehicle shall ring the
alarm bell SO attached whether or not
pedestrians be thereon at the time, and
upon approaching any and all other
crossings in this city whereat, or where
on pedestrians may at the time be,
every such person shall ring such alarm
bell in such manner, and at such dis
tance. as fully to warn such pedestrians
of the approach
Another section of the ordinance pro-
Vides that whenever a person using a
bicycle meets a horse, or horses driven
by others that the bicycle shall turn out
of the road, while it does not require
that the persons using the horses shall
take any precautions whatever against
danger.
Mr.. Wagner, it seems from the
agreed statement of facts, admits that
he inO IF Ia ct
where it was made his duty to ring his
bell whether there was any pedestrian
there or not, and there being no one 10
warn he forgot to ring his bell, and
was arrested and taken before the po-
lice court and fined the minimum fine
81 and coSts-the ordinance providing
for a fine of not more than SO nor less
than 81 for any violation of the ordin-
ance. After judgment against him in
the police court he appealed to the dis
trict court, where his attorneys moved
to quash the warrant because the ordin-
ance was discriminating in its charac-
ter against a certain class of the citi-
zens of the state, claiming that the BIZ
cycle had the same right to the use of
the public road as any other vehicle,
subject only to the use Of proper care
and all the rules which govern vehicles;
claiming that the duty of ringing bell,
and carrying a light, was a dtScrimina-
ton, unless it was imposed upon all
kinds of vehicles, and that under the
decisions of our own supreme court the
bicycle had the same rights to the use
of the public roads as other vehicles,
but the district court over-ruled the mo-
ton, and tried the case and upon the
trial three witnesses were examined,
and testified that the ringing of a bell
nd
harm than it did good, as it would fire.
quently cause the pedestrian TO stop, or
turn and thus cause a collision, when
If the bell was not sounded the pedes-
trian would pass on, and the bicycle
would go around him; that the bicy-
clist as rule did not want the pedes-
TRAN to pay any attention 70 him as he
could easily go around a team, or pc
destrian; that the wheel could be quick
ly and easily turned, and could always
better look out for themselves and the
persons to be warned than such per-
sons could de themselves; that a wheel
could be stopped in two or three feet
when running at the rate of eight miles
an hour, and that the signals required
of the bicyclist was a source of danger,
rather than a matter of security to the
pedestrian
The defendant claims that no greater
restrictions should be placed upon BIZ
cycle riders in the use of the roads than
any other vohicle and that all vehicles
should be required under the rules of
the road, to use the same precautions
and each to give a part of the road and
to turn to the right, for the other. This |
case is evidently test case brought for !
the purpose of testing the power of a !
city to make such an ordinance, which !
he aafandant ct14opolU 1rGpS P9nnnt he !
done.
4 great many local bicyclists were |
about the case last night and |
one of them said: "1f councilmen would !
ride bicycles a day or two before they |
make ordinances concerning them, they
would legislate more wisely than they |
would otherwise do. The fact is that |
when it becomes necessary for d man
TO carry a light on a bicycle he will
carry it for his own protection. 1t is
the same way with bell. Experience |
will teach any man that there is no
fun in running into a horse and wagon |
with a bicycle. In fact legislation is en-
tirely unnecessary to keep a wheelman |
from doing it, and as for running into |
another person. a bell will not save one. |
On the contrary a bell is conducive of |
collisions. If a wheelman has no bell |
he will take more care TO avoid dlsas- |
ters than he would if he had bell. |
Bells are a nuisance and every wheel |
man knows it They scare a pedestrian |
10 death and when they are rung the pc
iestrian is just as liable to jump in |
the very path of the bicycle as not. An |
expert bicyclist can wheel around pc
iestrian on seconds notice and nom |
expert is just as careful against col |
islon as the pedestrian is. We have no |
objection to bicycle legislation II 1t is |
wisely enacted but the idea of law !
protecting bicyclists from collisions OF
their own making is absurd.
HE'S FORCING THE SEASON