Laws governing paths

[LittleBigMan]

What actual laws govern the use of paths, other than "Motorized Vehicles Prohibited?" On the path, in the event of a collision/injury, what determines fault? Is it just "Pay your money and take your chance?"

I got to thinking about this after speaking to a local resident who used the nearby public path to let her dogs run loose. I know that's illegal by itself, but it's what got me wondering. Anyone know?

If I'm on the road, certain right-of-way laws determine fault in a collision.

[LCI_Brian]

Other than the occasional setting of speed limits, there's no laws governing the use of paths in my state.

[bluebottle1]

I think generally, you're looking at standard negligence law and common law, not any sort of statute. Depending on the locality, there may be particular laws that address public parks, which is where many of the MUPs in my city are located. However, when it comes to collision and injury, that's generally always a creature of common law.

[sggoodri]

Cary, NC has very few actual ordinances for greenways/bike paths. These are listed below. Issues such as speed limits are rules set by the parks and rec department. Violation might result in eviction from the property at worst, unless someone gets hurt, in which case it probably comes down to tort law in a personal injury case.

Cary used to have a law requiring that cyclists use "usable paths" next to roads, but we got that law repealed.

-Steve

Sec. 28-6. Placing objects on streets, sidewalks, greenways, etc.
No person shall maintain, place or cause to be placed any brick, stone, wood, vehicular gate or other substance or material which will obstruct the free passage of persons and vehicles in any public street, alley, sidewalk, greenway, or bicycle path, nor shall any person, place, or cause to be placed, on or in any street, alley, sidewalk, greenway, or bicycle path or in any portion of the right of way, any structure, boxes, crates, casks or barrels of any description, or any other obstruction of any kind. However, vehicular gates may be allowed on greenways or off-street bicycle paths to limit access to vehicles.


Sec. 28-7. Assembly on streets, sidewalks, greenways, etc.
All persons are forbidden from assembling, collecting together and standing so as to obstruct any street, sidewalk, greenway or bicycle path, and all persons so assembling, collecting together or standing shall disperse and move upon the demand of any police officer.

Sec. 34-15. Operation of vehicles on trails, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to ride or otherwise operate a motor vehicle, motorcycle, motor-driven cycle, or off-highway motor vehicle upon any trail, or bicycle trail designated as greenway which is publicly owned and maintained, or to which public access has been granted in any manner by any private property owner. This shall not include the operation of motor vehicles engaged in property maintenance or in other services authorized by the town.

Sec. 34-255. Bicycle helmets required.
(a) Every person 15 years of age or under operating a bicycle, inline skates, roller skates, skateboard, scooter, or other similar vehicle or device on a public street, sidewalk, greenway, or other right-of-way or on any property owned or controlled by the town shall wear a protective helmet on his or her head, with the chin strap securely fastened under the chin. Such helmet shall be fitted to the size of the operator and shall meet or exceed the standards for bicycle helmet use and wear as set by ANSI (American National Standards Institute) or the Snell Memorial Foundation.
(b) No passenger 15 years of age or under may ride on a bicycle on any of the locations enumerated in subsection (a) without wearing a helmet as described in subsection (a).
(c) No parent or guardian of any juvenile operating, or a passenger of, any vehicle or device described in subsections (a) and (b) above shall knowingly allow a violation of this section.

Sec. 26-4. Littering and illegal dumping.
(a) Illegal dumping. No person shall throw, drop or deposit, or cause to be thrown, dropped or deposited, on any street, avenue, alley, highway, greenway, footway, sidewalk, park or other public place or on any land in the town not owned by the person in question (vacant or occupied), any waste, including, but not limited to, refuse, yard or leaf waste, land clearing debris, building debris including material used in building, construction, repair, remodeling, demolition and excavating operations, dead animals, putrescible matter, paper, drinking cups, broken glass, and anything injurious to health.

[SirMike1983]

Certain paths also fall under the jurisdiction of various Parks departments. For example paths within Federal Lands tend to fall under the administration of the Parks Service. But, this is not all paths obviously.

[CB HI]

It really does depend on the locality. Most laws are probably from a city ordinance. If none exist, then I agree with bluebottle1 that standard negligence law and common law are primary.

Without any laws, I would follow standard rules of the road guidelines.

The Pearl Harbor Bike Path in Hawaii (and other paths built on easements) have a set of special
rules resulting from the easement agreement with the Navy. Basically, almost anything other than cycling, police enforcement or maintenance are prohibited by city ordinance on the path. Of course the city refuses to enforce the ordinance for fear of the political backlash. But at least if a cyclist hits anything or anything hits the cyclist on the path; other than a cyclist, police or maintenance person; it is their fault, because they were breaking the law by being on the path in the first place.

[closetbiker]

I know bike lanes are subject to the rules of the road that the lane runs beside, but bike paths (MUP, trails, separate from roadways) have no rules other than what the local municipality passes as by-laws.

next to my house is a wonderful trail that'll take me almost directly to my work, but I never use it because the people and dogs are terrible and if I hit a person, I'll be at fault because the local by-law says cyclists must yeild to pedestrians. If their dog causes me to crash I have to prove it was the fault of the owner etc. etc.

I'll stick to the street because the rules are clear and behavior is more predictable. Plus I can get big cash if someone hits me and it's their fault.

[Golf XRay Tango]

In the Province of Ontario, the Highway Traffic Act doesn't say anything about MUPs or sidepaths, except to prohibit bicycles from being ridden in any crosswalk. The end result is that every sidepath or MUP that I've seen here has 'Stop' and 'Cyclist Dismount' signs at every road crossing. This makes sidepaths effectively useless.

In my city (Mississauga, ON) the MUPs and sidepaths are governed by city bylaw that only sets the speed limit at 20km/h, prohibits motorized vehicles, and assigns right of way to pedestrians.

[DCCommuter]

Virginia recently had a case that litigated the matter. The case hinged on whether a cyclist was negligent for ignoring a stop sign on a MUP. The cyclist successfully argued that state law gives cyclists the rights and duties of pedestrians when using pedestrian facilities lawfully. Therefore a cyclist on a MUP is subject to pedestrian rather than vehicular law and there is no requirement for pedestrians to stop at stop signs -- or do much of anything other than exhibit common law levels of care.

[FastFreddy]

I got to thinking about this after speaking to a local resident who used the nearby public path to let her dogs run loose. I know that's illegal by itself, but it's what got me wondering. Anyone know?



Are you referring to the Atlanta-Stone Mountain “Path”? I’ve wondered about certain legal issues relating to it:

Some signs state that it’s closed from dusk to dawn, others say 11pm to 6am. Is that legally binding?

There are stop signs at road crossings which virtually nobody obeys when there isn’t a car. Are those binding on cyclists? How about pedestrians?

The signs give several, somewhat vague “rules of the path” – are those binding?

Regarding your question about a collision… now I’m not a lawyer but it’s hard to imagine how any criminal charges could result from an accidental collision between two path users. If somebody was seriously injured, there certainly could be a civil lawsuit.

[LittleBigMan]

Are you referring to the Atlanta-Stone Mountain “Path”?
Yes, the limited-access part that runs past the Carter Presidential Center on Freedom Parkway downtown.

[yes]

Steeve,
Aren't there 10mph limits on many greenways in Cary? I think that is the case on many in Raleigh, though it's not marked very well.

[N_C]

Here are the city ordinances in Sioux city. The reason I am posting all of these is because some of the trails intersect with alleys & driveways & there are sidewalks that are legal to ride on as trails.

Section 10.52.040 Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.


1. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.
2. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
3. Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
4. Bicycles are hereby prohibited from riding or traveling on any portion of Interstate Highway 29 within the corporate limits. (Ord. R-12185, 1961).

Here is the ordinance about riding on sidewalks:

Section 10.52.050 Riding on sidewalks.


1. A person shall not ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk within a business zone or a school zone.
2. A person shall not ride a bicycle upon a sidewalk located on any bridge and shall not ride on the sidewalk approaches to bridges within a distance of twenty feet (20') from either end of the bridge sidewalk.
3. The Chief of Police is authorized to erect signs on any sidewalk or roadway prohibiting the riding of bicycles thereon by any person. Said restrictions, if any, are in addition to the absolute restrictions in 1 and 2 above.
4. Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk, such person shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian and shall give audible signal before overtaking and passing such pedestrian. (Ord. 88/T-6735)

Ordinance on speed:

Section 10.52.060 Speed.


No person shall operate a bicycle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. (Ord. R-12185, 1961).


Alley & driveway ordinance:

Section 10.52.070 Emerging from alley or driveway.


The operator of a bicycle emerging from an alley, driveway or building shall upon approaching a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across any alleyway, yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians approaching on the sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering the roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway. (Ord. R-12185, 1961).

[sgtsmile]

In the Province of Ontario, the Highway Traffic Act doesn't say anything about MUPs or sidepaths, except to prohibit bicycles from being ridden in any crosswalk. The end result is that every sidepath or MUP that I've seen here has 'Stop' and 'Cyclist Dismount' signs at every road crossing. This makes sidepaths effectively useless.

In my city (Mississauga, ON) the MUPs and sidepaths are governed by city bylaw that only sets the speed limit at 20km/h, prohibits motorized vehicles, and assigns right of way to pedestrians.

I took at look at a brochure for Waterloo Ontario, and saw nothing but an echo of what the MTO says. There seem to be no speed limits or anything like that, but there is a give right of way to peds.

Regarding the silly stop and dismount signs, we have them too, and they are universally ignored as being moronic by the local cycling community.

[UmneyDurak]

I saw two motorized scooters on a path the other day. :mad: Two ass wipes were ridding them with full motorcycle helmets. I was ridding the path back and forth (not really proud of it, but no real choice unless I want to spend two hours in rush hour traffic and stop lights every hundred feet). It ends at this parking area in a local park. Which is where they caught up to me I slowed down to let them pass, then accelerated .... hard. Lead guy (I think a father) tried to drop me, ha ha good luck! I was about to sprint around him when he slowed down and pulled over. Probably realized he was racing a guy on a bycicle and how stupid he looked. Not saying that I am a brightest bulb around for pulling a stunt like this, but I was pissed.

[LittleBigMan]

Here are the city ordinances in Sioux city...

Section 10.52.040 Riding on roadways and bicycle paths.

3. Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway bicycle riders shall use such path and shall not use the roadway.
This is an unnecessary law. It's sufficient to allow a cyclist to decide for him/herself whether to use the road or the path. This law is not limited to Sioux City.

[closetbiker]

...The end result is that every sidepath or MUP that I've seen here has 'Stop' and 'Cyclist Dismount' signs at every road crossing. This makes sidepaths effectively useless.

In Calgary last year a woman was riding her bike home in a helmet and on a path when she was hit by a truck where the path intersected with a road.

I talked with the Alberta Cycling Association and they said,

"That multi-use recreational pathway has a multitude of driveways & road crossings... We suspect the truck driver was not expecting to have moving traffic approaching his truck from his right. He was making a rt. turn from a stop sign out of the driveway likely (?) looking for traffic approaching from his left... We can't understand how she could have missed seeing that truck... Our municipal law is quite clear - cyclists dismount at crosswalks. The realities of that dismount occurring is another matter."

The newspaper had the story on the front page with quotes from the police saying it was a "freak" occurrance and "there was nothing that could have been done to prevent this" which was all bull-pucky of course.

[LittleBigMan]

In Calgary last year a woman was riding her bike home in a helmet and on a path when she was hit by a truck where the path intersected with a road.
I have a problem with paths that are adjacent to roadways and have dozens of driveways crossing them. At even normal intersections, the cyclist loses the right-of-way that he/she had on the road, making the cyclist at-fault in a collision, unless walking through a crosswalk. The cyclist also often loses right-of-way even to pedestrians on the path itself.

[DCCommuter]

I have a problem with paths that are adjacent to roadways and have dozens of driveways crossing them. At even normal intersections, the cyclist loses the right-of-way that he/she had on the road, making the cyclist at-fault in a collision, unless walking through a crosswalk. The cyclist also often loses right-of-way even to pedestrians on the path itself.

There's a name for paths like that: sidewalk.

[closetbiker]

I have a problem with paths that are adjacent to roadways and have dozens of driveways crossing them. At even normal intersections, the cyclist loses the right-of-way that he/she had on the road, making the cyclist at-fault in a collision, unless walking through a crosswalk. The cyclist also often loses right-of-way even to pedestrians on the path itself.

...and with my local by-law that says cyclists must yeild to pedestrians, that means even if a pedestrian steps out in my way and I hit him, I'm at fault.

Considering how pedestrians wander all over the path while being oblivious to others using the path around them (perhaps taking the entire, beautiful setting in) I stay away.

As in the story in Calgary on that path, it's easy to be fooled you're in a safe enviroment and your mind wanders, leading to a collision because you were unaware of potential problems.

Give me a road any day.