The Canon City record with which is consolidated the Canon City cannon., 1916-03-23
The LAW OF TIE ROAD.
PART OF A PAPER READ BY A. |. TAYLOR BEFORE
THE UNIVERSITY CLUB.

or less interest SIN the memory OF
. man runneth not to the contrary" but
Ms become very live question since
the advent OF the motor vehicle; and
it is with relation to the advent of
the motor vehicle and its rights upon
the public highway that shall ad-
dress my remarks on this occasion.
The Law of the Road" is like all
Law questions--peo. le have varied
opinions and peculiar views. If you
. were to watch some people who hap
pen to own an AIT mobile as they so
down street whistiing or blowing their
horn for a pedestrian to get out of
the way you would come to the eonclu-
sion that the driver not only owned
the automobile. but the earth and the
fallness thereof; when as matter Of
fact. as well as law the pedestrian
las just as much right to halloo at the
driver OF the machine TO get out Of
the way and let him PASS as the autoist
has TO blow for the PEDESTRIAN to va
cate the road.
No pedestrian is under any LEGAL
obIigation to run in order to get out
{ OF the way OF machine One hss just
as much right to the road as the 9TH
er. but each are Under mutual and
LEGAL obligations to avoid injury or
accident. but the automobile being an
engine capable OF doing much greater
damage than pedestrian. the driver
of such an engine is held TO strieter
observance Of the Law OF the road than
the pedestrian.
In the case Of Miller vs.. TaAicab Co..
reported in 100 \. Y. Supplement. at
page 500. apIi.es the same law to
all parts OF the Iosi or street ami
holds that n pedestrian has the riEht
to 20 upon any part OF street or road
and does not have to seek oct the spe-
ciaI made crossings. In the case OF
Foster vs.. Curtis. decided; hy IN
Massachusetts supreme court and re-
ported in solumn si3 at page 80. the
court said: There is no law or prin-
cipie OF Law or OF reason which con.
fines foot passengers TO any particular
crossings. Such restriction would be
very inconvenient and annoying. Ths
street should he kelt in such oondi-
Ttion that foot passensers may be abia
20 cross. using care themselves, at sn,
and all places. The necessity OF this
might be illustrated very fully by ref
erence To the common and ordinary
course OF business. person who Is
left by vehicle in the middle OF the
street should be able TO 70 in safety
to the sidewalk Mt the nearest p,int
and not be compelled to make his way
among the carriages in the middle OF
the street TIL he can reach place par
ticuiariy set apart and designated for
the purpose OF crossing"
The above is n very clear cut de-
cision and lays down tho PRINCIPLES IL
law governing the road so well that
: all persons shotld be made f.miiiar
with Il. This same doctrine has been
held to apply to children. blind md
lame persons. end the law has been
upheld by all the courts OF thu codn-
try.
The Law applies to and controls
teams and wagons upon all highways
as well as automobiles. but an auto
mobile running at Freater speed calls
for much greater watchfulness and
viii he held to stricter compliance with
the law than the slower traveiins con.
,eyancc. The courts are very nnifnrm
oh tusir ruhhe oh uiis f"s"' NJ" wi
a very able dec.sien wherein this d,c-
trine is laid down reference is na1c
to the case of Williams VS.. Benson.
is Kansas reports. page l2i.
Up to the present time but lI,;lc Iii.
cation has been had In this state by
which the rieht of the road or the law
OF the road could be jndiciaily dc,