The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-05-30
RULES OF THE ROAD.


1t isn't very often that bicyclists are
so foolish and headstrong as to dis
pute the right of way with loaded
wagon. their common sense telling
them that they should turn because
of the ease with which they can and
the difficulty a loaded team has in
turning. But occasionally there is a
bicyclist who is more bull-headed than
sensible.
A case was decided in Philadelphia
the other day which defines the right
of the road when laden carts and BIZ
cyclists meet, at least so far as Penn
sylvania is concerned.
The plaintiff was riding along home,
rather slowly, when, as he turned a
corner. not far distant he saw a heav-
lily laden cart coming along. The cart
was occupying the tracks Of the Pas
senger railway company; the plaintiff
was riding between the rails; the plain
tiff kept on his course and so did the
driver. each evidently claiming or act
ing upon the theory that he had the
right OF way When it was too late
for the plaintiff 10 do it safely, he
turned off; the plaintiff or his bicycle
was struck by either the cart or the
horse and he was thrown and injured
The cart belonged to the defendant
company and the driver was in their
employ. The plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages for his injuries. The
court. in deciding the case said, in
part:
The other ground is that the plaintiff
had the right of way. To sustain this
point, reliance is had upon the statute
which gives to a bicycle the character
of a vehicle, and also to an ordinance
OF the city which, in ordinary cases,
gives to vehicles the right of way upon
the tracks of the Passenger railway
companies in the direction in which
the cars ordinarily run. The obvious
reason of this ordinance, however, IS
that it was intended to give to the We
hiclss making use of the rails of the
tracks a convenient and settled right
of direction and occupancy upon these
rails l DO not think it has any bear
ing whatever upon the right of the
riders Of bicycles. Nobody, 1 presume,
would dispute the proposition that, in
the ordinary occupancy OF streets and
under ordinary circumstances, the drlV-
ers OF vehicles drawn by horses and the
riders of bicycles must regard the ordi-
nary rules of the road, for each others
convenience and safety. l do not, how
ever think that such a rule woulu re-
uuire that in an open, unobStructed
highway, a vehicle like cart, for in
stance should be driven to one side in
order that the rider of a bicycle might
be relieved of the necessity of deviating
ft,-1,4 NJ
reasonable regard for the peculiarities
OF such cases ought to be required,
both of the drivers of vehicles and of
the riders of bicycles. This is hardly
necessary to say
In many cases, therefore, it is the
duty of the rider of the bicycle to reg
ulate his course and to make conces-
sions. which possibly the driver of
vehicle of burden ordinarily would not
be obliged to do. In this particular
il is quite evident that the plaintiff,
under the notion that he had a right
TO compel the driver of the cart to
leave the track in order to give him a
free and unobstructed passage, Re
NAMED in his onward course so long
that the collision which occurred was
In this he was at fault;
he brought the consequences upon him
self by his own folly. In our judg-
ment there was nothing in the circum-
stances of the case or in his duty which
required the driver of the cart to leave
the track to make room for the plain
tiff We are, therefore, of the opinion
that the plaintiff made out no case,
and that the instruction of the trial
Judge to render a verdict in favor of
the defendant was proper and should
be sustained.
The rule is therefore discharged.
The decision is certainly proper one
and will receive the Endorsement of
the great majority of bicycle riders.
William E. Curtis tells a very anus
ing story of the most remarkable ex-
perience Mark Hanna has yet had. and
he has had some rather remarkable
ones.
For several days an old gentleman
lad been pursuing the senator wherever
i a. Ill