bmclaughlin807

According to my (admittedly brief) research into the state laws governing bikes and roads in Georgia, the mall would appear to NOT have the authority to ban bicycles, private property or no. There is a lot of case law which would appear to show that malls are essentially public places and the owners/managers do NOT have the right to randomly ban groups of people. To the extent of property owners and managers losing cases where they tried to charge people with trespassing who were handing out religious or political handouts. Note that these were cases in which the owners and/or managers felt that they proved that the people involved were having a negative impact on other customers at the mall.

Bottom line is that the only way to find out for sure would be to take it to court and get a ruling.

capejohn

Let me guess. His clothes were too tight, and he a key caddy. Maybe a super sized sippy cup in the car too. Security is not there for security, they are there for insurance purposes, for the mall's to cover their asses. That's why they usually hire the type of people you see. The pay is usually very low, and like many times, you get what you pay for.

Bklyn

You're right. That was unfair of me to extract a worldview of a person based not even on his particular job but his general professional field. I apologize for that.
But I find our national mystical regard for private property to be exasperating. The idea that basic civil rights would be jettisoned when crossing the boundary from public to private spheres is just appalling. YOU did not make that argument, but some who were agreeing with you did, and I'm sure that I allowed that to merge with your stance. Makes a beefier target. Also unfair.
However, your tone of absolute certainty was a little off-putting.
Plus, in chipcom's favor: there's a cute dog in his icon.

TimJ

I'm not absolutely certain. Everything is "as I understand it", and everything is couched in context. People keep bringing up examples of how a private property owner doesn't have absolute dominion over their property or stuff like that, as a counter to what I'm saying and I don't even understand why they'd bother. I've never said that, in fact I've said just the opposite. I haven't been arguing any absolutes except this one: the mall can have a "terms of use" for everyone who enters on their property and as long as those terms of use do not conflict with any laws, they are perfectly legal. No bike riding, no skateboarding, etc., those are all perfectly plausible, in fact common I would guess, terms of use. All of this was to answer the OPs question which was basically "can they do that?" The answer is yes, they most probably can.

That speaks nothing to how that particular mall does it's business or even if they have a terms of use. It speaks nothing to what the local laws might be. It speaks nothing to whether or not the actual strip of asphalt the OP was on is covered because I don't know, I can only speculate if it is or not. What I do know is if the place he was riding is considered mall property, the mall could have a terms of use that said "no bikes" and the mall cop could be correct, because privately owned retail establishments, especially larger ones with grounds and what-not, can be granted the right to limit the use of their property. And it's my assumption the mall cop wouldn't have brought it up unless he at least thought they did have a "no bikes" rule that included where the OP was riding. That's all I've been saying. Everything else is just responding to challenges, often having nothing to do with what I'm saying.

That being said, thanks for apologizing.

chipcom 

Post #88

Edit: look, it's real simple. If the road has public utilities and thus public right-of-ways, which are normally a condition of running said utilities, the governing body of the municipality can dictate many terms of access for that ROW that are determined to be in their (ie public) interest and can litigate (and win) if they determine later actions of the property owner limiting access is detrimental to the public interest.

zeytoun

TimJ
Can you please show us one example of the legal basis for a mall banning bicycles from its roadways? We have not been talking about bike riding and skateboarding in the walkways, but bike riding on the roadways.

You have been whining that no one has furnished any examples, but this is because you are playing the game of dismissing any examples as insufficient for your needs. Meanwhile, you tell people they are wrong without any substantiation of your own. Now it's your turn. Provide us an example, please.

bmclaughlin807

....

No, the answer is they most probably CAN'T. CAN NOT. As in it's against the law. BUT it would most likely take a court case to prove that without a doubt.

TimJ

What does that have to do with the OP's question? I agree with you, of course a municipality can dictate certain terms of access. I've said the same thing myself already. How does that address the OPs question at all?

Really? We're talking about the "roadways"? And what do these roadways look like? Where are they located? Do they have lights there, or signs maintained by the municipality? I thought we didn't know, that's why I've been saying things like "It speaks nothing to whether or not the actual strip of asphalt the OP was on is covered because I don't know, I can only speculate if it is or not". So if you're familiar with this mall and the road then you'll need to argue with someone else, I do not know if where the OP was riding is considered mall property or not.

I've been asking for explanation. Explanation related to something known that relates to the question at hand. Chipcom finally put up something he knows but he still doesn't explain how it has anything to do with the OPs question or how it contradicts anything I've said. This has turned into some symposium on logic, reasoning and rhetoric and I've just about had enough, this is really, really ridiculous having to keep repeating myself over and over and over. But OK, here's some examples that speak to my assertion, which I guess I need to restate again, that the mall has the right to set a terms of use for its property as long as it does not conflict with local, state or federal laws or it's particular zoning ordinances, which could include no bike riding on mall property:

This doesn't relate specifically to bikes, and I doubt there's any lawsuits out there that do, but this is very good:

https://www.rcfp.org/places/accesstoprivateproperty.html

Essentially it's more or less left to the states (whom could leave it to countys or citys or districts if they wanted to) and there are general snippets on each state. Here's a snippet on Georgia:

I'm not going to argue because "nothing in the state constitution or state law gives private citizens the right to enter the mall to solicit signatures for a recall petition" that proves HE CAN'T BIKE RIDE, because it doesn't. What it does is illustrate the fact that a mall can determine who enters their property or for what reasons to a certain extent. They can have a terms of use.

Here's another:

https://www.fac.org/assembly/topic_fa...ivate_property

Shopping malls can have a terms of service for use of their property. That is a fact. What they can ban, or not ban, etc., is determined by the various laws that govern them. When it comes to things like this, if something isn't explicit in the law, for instance if no laws or agreements say you have to allow bicycles, or anything referred to as a "vehicle" in legal terms, then the mall can ban bikes. The only way this becomes illegal for them to do so is if it's challenged in court and they lose, and then that judgement will set precedent.

Again, last freaking time, if this "road" is considered part of mall property, the mall can have a "no bikes" policy because if the property is private (as opposed to leasing from the city or something), they are allowed to set the terms of use for their property, within the law. This is very basic. The arguments about "but a bike is considered a vehicle" aren't even relavent as far as I can tell. All of your personal rights in the public sphere do not transfer to private property, and being on top of a bike doesn't change that unless the zoning agreement, where it says how many parking spaces there must be, things like that, also specifies bikes must be accomodated. They are allowed to set terms of use for their property. I know of no general rights issue that would make a bicycle protected from any restrictions set by the mall. Do you?

zeytoun

The OP stated that he was on the roads connecting to the parking lots around the mall. See post 16.
Please do not defer to ambiguity.

You don't have to, you keep choosing to.

So your argument is that courts have ruled that malls can have some level of say about who comes to the mall, and what business they do there. I haven't argued against that notion. However you have failed to convince me that is anywhere in the same ballpark as deciding that they can deny a shopper or an employee access to their mall by their legally approved chosen means of transportation.

Now, here's a link https://www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com/...CSCarticle.pdf. As an example, page 2 of the links shows how the state of Florida decided that if the local government participated in any way in the construction, maintenance, or repair of roadways or parking lots (like perhaps the placing of utility lines under said roadways??? like Chip mentioned earlier) then the mall cannot restrict public access to those roadways.

EDIT: I meant to say that Chip mentioned the subject of utilities and public access, not that he specifically mentioned utility lines being placed under mall roadways.

Find any mall development plans submitted to the city, and you will find mention of access by cars, pedestrians and bicycles. Please, show me one that doesn't explicity mention bicycles.

Why aren't they relevant? Zoning plans have to be approved by the city. Have you heard of a plan submitted that excludes motorcycles, or green Chevys, or rusty pick-up trucks? Have you heard of a plan that excludes pedestrian access? Have you heard of one that excludes bicycles?

But we don't have to argue all day about this. We are not likely to find a court case wherein our topic is argued. Returning to the original thread, this is probably all moot, because in all likelihood the OPs mall doesn't have a written rule banning bicycles from the roadways surrounding the mall. Security guards are just dumb like that.

The only reason arguing the legal merits of this hypothetical rule is that, as an abstract concept like the United States, or the constitution, or BikeForums, its existence is sustained only by belief of the participants. The security guard believes it exists. Do you agree with him? If you do, then you have validated it in his mind. If you disagree and challenge his idea, you have given him cause for doubt. Does mall management believe that it exists? You can make them doubt too. Does the store at which the OP works? Do the local cops or municipal figures? Does the local news station? What about the public?

When you believe, argue for, or warn others about cockamamy rules that have no value, you enhance their ability to exist. Laws are shaped by society, society is comprised of individuals. We make the laws.

braingel

I'm pretty sure that banning bicycles from the roadway is in direct conflict with the law

chipcom 

It had nothing to do with the OP, but rather your insistence that the mall could do as they please, because it was privately owned, to anyone who speculated otherwise. If you look back you'll see exactly what I told the OP...which was pretty much that it wasn't worth pursuing. HTH HAND

txtricrossryder

Kinda reminds me of this show where these two boys were being messed with by the local law. Most of the time they "wern't meaning any harm". Was the mall security officer's name Roscoe and the Supervisor's name Boss Hog? Which Duke "boy" were ya playing?

They apparently had NOTHING BETTER TO DO!

yater

No one has mentioned common sense. Go above the security guard's head (not hard) and find someone with some authority. Tell them the situation (you work there and are there every day). When they see that you're not a punk, they'll make an exception. You gotta know how to wheel and deal in this world. Waiting on laws, court cases, cops, and everything else mention in this thread will take years. Use some common sense.

manual_overide

why do you hate america?

bmclaughlin807

A private landowner does NOT have the right to restrict access or travel on a public road. Georgia law is very broad in what comprises a 'public road' ...

Georgia Law applies to parking lots:

Note in the following section that vehicles transporting to or from stores on the property are specifically EXCLUDED:

bmclaughlin807

TimJ.... You're WRONG. Admit it and move on. Damn. I'm done... we've presented Actual laws, case law and legal precedents. The mall does not appear to have the right to block access to the roads leading to the mall, even if those roads are on private property.

outofthesaddle

I think that the examples that keep popping up relating to petitions and signature gathering at malls stem from a US Supreme Court case that was decided in the '70s called Pruneyard Shopping Center. That case dealt with protesting by some high school kids at a California mall. The mall told the kids to leave and the kids refused claiming a constitutional right to free speech. The court, while recognizing the property rights of the mall, decided that people can peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers. I believe that the Pruneyard decision has been narrowly applied by limiting the ruling to the particular facts of that case. Instead, courts seem to have come down on the side of the mall owners' ability to control activities on their property. I don't think that Pruneyard applies here because bicycling isn't consititutionally protected activity.

Fundamentally, I belive that TimJ has the right approach - the mall is private property and absent some federal, state, or local law or regulation, the property owners can decide what activity is/isn't permitted on their property.

bmclaughlin807

....

Are my posts invisible?

We are NOT 'absent some federal, state, or local law or regulation' it's pretty clear to me that Georgia state law precludes the mall from preventing someone from using whatever vehicle they please to access the mall.

zeytoun

That's some fine sleuthin' Mr. Mclaughlin. Hopefully that will be enough to settle it for the sane people on this forum... for the rest, well, someone's sig line once said something to the effect that the ignorant don't know enough to know that they're ignorant, and instead go around correcting everybody else.

deputyjones

Actually many did, but you have to check WAAAAY back in the first few pages to see it. That is to say before this whole thread broke down into a name-calling, ultra-legalistic, pissing contest that is of absolutely no practical use to the OP. Although, it is entertaining for the rest of us .

zeytoun

The pissing contest might have been a bit much. However had not several people argued with a few posts, the OP could have also gone his way thinking that the Mall did what they were entitled to, and that he was lucky just to have been granted the "privilege" of riding his bike on their holy autopia. And then the terrorists would have won here.

Carusoswi

TimJ:
For someone who thumps the legal bible the way you do, you are acting like a block head with regard to this question. The poster explained that the question was a rhetorical one (even though an explanation should not have been necessary). What about rhetorical do you not understand. The question is posed to you or anyone or the poster is thinking to him/herself out loud. Are you looking to turn an interesting thread into a debate on why [you think] the poster has directed this RHETORICAL question at you?

Caruso

Carusoswi

Zeytoun: I agree with the spirit of the approach you suggest. I would caution the OP to be factual in any claim he/she makes. He/she should not claim to be a courier if that is not true, and he/she should not assert that he/she is couriering a time-sensitive document if that is not the case. In my opinion, the true facts, simple as they are, run sufficiently strong to the OP's advantage in the situation described.

He/she is en route to or from his/her place of employment with an establishment that is a tenant of this landlord. Private or not, the parking lot/approach road is provided as feature for public accommodation. Unless the management has a formal policy in place banning bikes, and unless the existence of that policy is prominently posted at various points in this lot/approach road, except by literal interpretation of the written law, they will be hard pressed to enforce the arbitrary action of this 'rent-a-cop'.

I would not advocate for the OP to attempt to amplify the circumstances that put him on his bike in proximity of this 'cop'. The facts stripped bare are plenty strong. He uses this bike, a non-polluting, non-gas-guzzling alternative to an automobile, to commute to and from his place of employment.

I would be very vocal about this incident. Let the mall suggest how they might otherwise accommodate an employee who needs transportation at 12 AM. Perhaps the OP is riding a bike, not because he has no car, but because he is philosophically committed to making an individual contribution to the reduction of our nation's use of fossil fuels. Let the management defend their arbitrary harassment of him in light of such a personal commitment.

You can be assured that at the first hint of public embarrassment or negative press, management's commitment to such a poorly conceived, casually enforced policy will melt like a bar of chocolate in the rear window of a gas guzzling car parked on Peachtree Street (is there such a street) at noon in July.

Above all, do not drop this. You need to be a little creative in your approach, but this need not involve lawyers or ton's of money. Private property or no, US citizens deserve to have their voice heard where equal treatment that is reasonably expected has been denied or infringed upon.

This is a perfect example. The OP wasn't joy riding, was not performing acrobatics, the vehicle was legally equipped, and it was well within reason that the OP expected that, like any other vehicle, he/she would be within his/her right to use the lot/roadway for the purpose for which it was constructed.

Caruso

Benton

I fit were me I ould look for the highest ranking mall manager I could find. Their is usually someone who likes to walk around for public relations like a politition and to keep an eye things. Tell them about the situation. You seem to be able to be forceful and polite. Don't be an ass hole. You might be talking to the top dog. When they make their rounds they are trying to see what the customers needs are. Tell them about how nice it is to use the mall for everything and this ban on bikes would make you go elsewhere. This avoids lawers and courts and mere mention of the conversation with the managment (names) will make them back off in a hurry. My way may not promise sucsess but it will be resolved.
Peace
Benton

deputyjones

Agreed on both accounts. "Pissing Contest" only added here for comedic exaggeration.

Chances 1 in 1,000,000,000 in winning. All thoughts, musings and opinions expressed by poster deputyjones to be taken as a joke from heretofore non-liable parties, otherwise known as forum readers. Parties referred to as "bean counters" are not actually assumed to be counters of beans, but that the colloquial term "bean counters" is meant to describe those working in positions of the accounting type. It is this posters assertion that accusations made earlier that parties were lying about being a politician are ridiculous as who would openly admit to that, come on really? On BF you would be better to admit you were a pedophile