Bicycle

A two-wheeled vehicle propelled by the rider. To ride a bicycle in the ordinary manner on a public highway for convenience, pleasure, or business is lawful. A person driving a horse thereon has no rights superior to a person riding a bicycle; Thompson v. Dodge, 5S Minn. 555, 60 N. W. 545, 28 L. R. A. 608, 49 Am. St. Rep. 503. It has been held that an ordinance which attempts to forbid bicyclists to use that part of the street which is devoted to the use of vehicles is void as against common right; Swift v. City of Topeka, 43 Kan. 671, 23 Pac. 1075, 8 L. R, A. 772; City of Emporia v. Wagoner, 6 Kan. App. 659, 49 Pac. 701; but see Twilley v. Perkins, 77 Md. 252, 26 Atl. 2S6, 19 L. R. A. 632, 39 Am. St Rep. than the sidewalk; State v. Collins, 16 R. I. 371, 17 Atl. 131, 3 L. R. A. 394; and statutes and ordinances in some states declare tiieir use upon sidewalks unlawful; l v. Forrest, 170 Pa. 40. 32 At!. 652, l".» l. i;. A. 365; Mercer v. Corbin, 117 Ind. -C N. E. 132, 3 L. R. A. 221, 10 Am. St. Rep. 7(5. It has been held that, even in the an ordinance prohibiting it, one riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk takes the risk of any injury he may thereby cause to pedestrians; Fielder v. Tipton, 119 Ala. 608, 1U South. 9S5, 8 L. R. A. (X. S.) 1268, 123 Am. Sr. Rep. 69, 13 Ann. Cas. 1012; and that permission under municipal ordinance is not justification for violating a statute prohibiting riding a bicycle on a sidewalk; Millett v. City of Princeton, 107 Ind. 5S2, 79 N. EL 909, 10 L. R. A. (X. S.i 785. A municipal corporation, however, is not liable for injury to a person struck by a bicycle ridden by another on a sidewalk because of failure to enact or enforce an ordinance prohibitin_r the riding of bicycles on sidewalks; Jones v. City of Williamsburg. 97 Va. 722, 34 S. E. 883, 47 L. R. A. 294. Where a rider was injured by a defective sidewalk, it was held that the use of a bicycle thereon was not unlawful and that he could recover; Lee v. City of Port Huron, 128 Mich. 533, S7 X. \V. 637, 55 L. R. A. 308. Bicycles may be left standing in the street while the owner is calling at a residence or place of business, as any other vehicle may: Lacey v. Winn, 3 D. R. (Pa.) 811; Lacy v. Winn, 4 id. 409. Whether a bicyclist who leaves his wheel standing against the curbstone in front of a horse and wagon is negligent in failing to ascertain whether the horse was unattended and unfastened is a question of fact for the jury; Wagner v. Milk Co., 21 Misc. 62, 46 X. Y. Bnpp. 939. An innkeeper is liable for damages where a bicycle belonging to a guest is stolen from the yard of the inn; 2S Ir. L. T. & S. J. 297. A municipality has power to require bicyclists to carry lights when using the streets after dark; City of Des Moines v. Keller,. 116 la. 648, 88 X. W. 827, "7 L. K. A. 243, 93 Am. St. Rep. 26S. A person who rides a bicycle without a light or signal of warning in a public thoroughfare at a time when objects can be discerned readily at a distance of but a few feet is. as a matter of law, guilty of negligence; Cook v. Fogarty, 103 la. 500, 72 X. W. ('.77. 39 I.. K. A. -l^s. Where a statute declares that bicycles artentitled to the same rights and subject to the same restrictions as are prescribed in the case of persons using carriages, the rider of a bicycle must turn out for a heavy vehicle; Taylor v. Traction Co.. 184 Pa. 40". 40 Atl. 159, 47 L. K. A. 289, following the rule of the road established in earlier de- Foote v. Produce Co., 195 Pa. 100, 45 Atl. 934, 40 L. R. A. 764, 78 Am. St. Rep. S06. A bicyclist has a right to insist that: the highway shall be maintained in a reasonably safe condition of repair; if not so maintained the corporation is answerable for injury to him or his vehicle; Geiger v. Turnpike Road, 167 Pa. 5S2, 31 Atl. 918, 28 L. R. A. 45S. Though, on an ordinary country road, he is exposed to greater danger than a person in a vehicle drawn by horses, the commissioners of highways are not bound to any higher obligation to him, but only to maintain such road in reasonably safe condition; Sutphen v. Town of North Hempstead, 80 Hun 400, 30 N. Y. Supp. 128; Fox v. Clarke, 25 R. I. 515, 57 Atl. 305, 65 L. R. A. 234, 1 Ann. Cas. 54S. Bicycles are carriages under the tariff act; Adams, Tariff 99; so for the purpose of collecting tolls; Geiger v. Turnpike Road, 167 Pa. 582, 31 Atl. 91S, 28 L. R. A. 45S; and under an act forbidding furiously driving a carriage; L. R. 4 Q. B. Div. 22S; and an act requiring carriages to turn to the right; State v. Collins, 16 R. I. 371, 17 Atl. 131, 3

A carriage within driving, but not within of toll on a highway.

Held to be a "carriage," within a statute forbidding fast driving. m Not a "carriage" liable to toll, imder the English Turnpike Act of 1883." A tricycle capable of being propelled by the feet, or by steajn as an auxiliary, or alone, was held to be a "locomotive," within the English Highways and Locomotive Act of 1378. >= The park commissioners of New York, in their discretion, may prohibit bicycles in the parks of that city. An ordinance to that effect may be a " regulation " intended by the statute creating their oflaoe.i' 1 Senger v. Sanger's Executor, 81 Va. 698 (1886), Richardson, J. 2 Haskell v. Sargent, 1J3 Mass. 343 (1873). s Stoutenburgh v. Moore, 37 N. J. E. 69 (1883). « Revere v. Leonard, 1 Mass. *93 (1804). s Bunco V. Reed, 16 Barb. 363 (1833); 5 Mete. 640. « Hedderich v. State, 101 Ind. S70 (1884). ' F. biais a slant, slope: inclination to a side. L. L. bifacem, one who looks sideways.

— Skeat. » [Willis V. State, 12 Ga. 449-50 (1853). 0 1 Whart. Ev. §§ 408, 566. 1" Taylor v. Goodwin, L. E., 4Q. B. D. 328 (1879). " Williams v. Ellis, L. E., 5 Q. B. D. 176 (1880). An act which forbids the use of bicycles on a certain road, unless permitted by the superintendent of the road, is not unconstitutional. ^ In the absence of legislative prohibition, riders of bicycles would seem to have the same rights on highways as those using any other vehicle.'