tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37712842.post5501962499322101097..comments2024-03-12T15:49:33.657-04:00Comments on Vision Zero NJ: Op-Ed: Polzo vs. Essex County decision - Part 2: The bad. The REALLY bad!!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37712842.post-51464935992929156362014-08-20T14:34:32.039-04:002014-08-20T14:34:32.039-04:00Thanks for reporting on this! As I read the ruling...Thanks for reporting on this! As I read the ruling re the county’s potential liability for surface defects on the shoulder that the now-deceased cyclist was riding on, they found:<br /><br />1. The depression caused the tragic fatality.<br /><br />2. “The Motor Vehicle Code provides that a “roadway” is the portion of highway generally used for vehicular travel; the “shoulder” borders the roadway and is for emergency use; and “vehicles” are not bicycles. Bicyclists are directed to ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable. While they may be inclined to ride on the shoulder, they have no special privileges if they do.”<br /><br />3. “Public entities do not have the ability or resources to remove all dangers specific to bicycles.”<br /><br />It might have been nice if the ruling ended here, since it’s clear to this point – cyclists riding on the road or shoulder may not expect a standard of care specific to bicycles. <br /><br />Unfortunately they muddied the waters by examining if the actual depression was a dangerous condition under the law, which allows for a standard of care “on a roadway when it is used for its generally intended purpose.” <br /><br />They might have stayed with the logic that cyclists riding on the shoulder have no special privileges, because the law says shoulders are not part of the roadway, and only roadways are generally intended to be used by bicycles under the law (what I thought the ruling said based on your reporting). But no, they said:<br />4. “Plaintiff offered no evidence that the shoulder was routinely used as a bicycle lane, which might implicate a different standard of care.”<br /><br />So a shoulder that is “routinely used as a bicycle lane” might be expected to be held to a “different standard of care,” though presumably not to the extent as to “remove all dangers specific to bicycles.” <br /><br />Since evidence of routine use may determine generally intended purpose and trigger a different standard of care, a distinction between shoulders and bike lanes is unnecessary. Perhaps the plaintiff’s lawyer should have introduced NJDOT standards for bicycle compatible shoulders as evidence of intended purpose, but in any case Essex County now has a Complete Streets policy that clarifies that bicycling is an intended purpose for county roads.Jerryhttp://wwbpa.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37712842.post-51372907660328178882012-04-11T22:15:48.123-04:002012-04-11T22:15:48.123-04:00If NJ ever does require license plates for cyclist...If NJ ever does require license plates for cyclists, I want the "Garden State" motto to be replaced with "Separate But Equal"Max Powernoreply@blogger.com