Richmond daily palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1876-1904, 1899-02-03
BICYCLE NO VEHICLE
Pennsyfvanil Court - Declares Whom the
Question of Right of wav IL Involved.

Question of Right Of WAY Is Involved.
Take recent decision by the Penn
sylvania Supreme Court. says The
Wheel. Il is decided that whenever it
Is a question OF right OF way between
the vehicles of the Traction Company
which company. by the way. carries
Philadelphia in its capacious pocket
that the bicycle ceases TO be a vehicle
In the eyes OF the wonderful legal gym
nasts who ladls out alleged law for
Philadelphians. The case in which this
weird verdict was rendered was as fol-
lows:
The plaintiff was riding his bicycle
on his way home from work down
Broad street. Philadelphia, and turned
into Dauphin street Rain was falling.
making the streets wet and requiring
care on the part of plaintiff to avoid
slipping. He rode slowly down Dau-
phin street A cart drawn by a single
horse was on its way up Dauphin
street. The plaintiff and the cart APP
preached each other, each evidently
claiming, or acting on the theory that
he had the right of way. When it was
too late for the plaintiff to do so safe
ly, be turned OFF and he, or his bicycle.
was struck by the cart, or the horse
and plaintiff sustained injuries, to re-
cover damages for which the action
was brought The cart belonged to
the defendant and the driver was in his
employ. Verdict WAS directed below
for the defendant, and a motion for a
new trial denied. The judgment of
the lower court was affirmed upon the
opinion thereof, which is in part a.
follows:
THE other ground is that the plain
tiff had the right of way. To sustain
this point, reliance Is had upon the
statute which gives to a bicycle the
character of vehicle, and also to an
ordinance of the city which, in ordin-
airy cases, gives to vehicles the right
OF way upon the tracks of the passen-
ger railway companies in the direction
in which the cars ordinarily run. The
obvious reason of this ordinance, how
ever, is that II was intended to give to
the vehicles making use of the rails Of
the tracks a convenient and settled
right of direction and occupancy upon
those rails. / do not think it has any
bearing whatever upon the rights OF
riders of bicycles
Nobody. l presume. would dispute
the proposition bat in the ordinary &C.
cupancy of streets, and under ordinary
the drivers of vehicles
drawn by horses and the riders of b..
cycles must regard the ordinary rules
OF the road for each others convent
think that such a rule would require
that, in an open, unobstructed high |
way, a vehicle like a cart, for instance.
should be driven to one side in order
that the rider of a bicycle might be
relieved of the necessity of deviating
from straight line Good sense and |
a reasonable regard for the peculiar |
tiles of such cases ought to be re-
quired, both of the drivers OF vehicles |
and of the riders of bicycles. This il |
Is hardly necessary to say.
''The experience of almost every one
n his own family, II not from lis own |
: =. s|----- 49, - ss--,ciA empt za.---
the Importance Of proper and reasona- |
BILE regulations for the protection of the |
many thousands of people who use the |
modern vehicle known as the bicycle. |
At the same time, it is also to be borne |
In mind that that vehicle is much |
lighter and more under the control of |
Its rider than the vehicles Of the other |
sort, which are drawn by horses In |
many cases. therefore. 1t Is the duty OF |
the rider of the bicycle to regulate his |
course, and to make concessions, which |
possibly the driver of a vehicle Of bur-
den ordinarily would not be obliged to
DO.
I'm this particular case 1t Is quite
evident that the plaintiff, under the
notion that he had a right to compel
ne driver of the cart to leave the track
n order to give him free and unob-
;tructed passage, remained in his on
ward course SO long that the collision
which occurred was unavoidable In
his he was at fault He brought the
upon himself by his ow-
oily. In our judgment, there was moth
ng in the circumstances Of the case
IT in his duty which required the
iriver of the cart to leave the track
q make room for the plaintiff.
We are, therefore. of the opinion
hat the plaintiff made out no case,
md that the instruction OF the trla,
Judge to the jury 20 render a verdict
n favor of the defendant was proper,
md shorld be sustained. The rule 10
herefcve discharged"
A sober Fact.
When a mans troubles drive him TO
rink. the drink brings on more
-oubles that drive him to drink again
!