Legal aspects of connecting disconnected subdivisions

[Atlbike]

I previously wrote a post on how connecting many of the disconnected
subdivisions in Atlanta (or other cities) could provide many safe
biking routes at a fraction of the cost for paths. The article is on my
website at http://www.atlbike.net. Here is the post with all the
comments:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/browse_thread/thread/c9e455db256bea9a/97ee18f4d8ff6d10?q=connecting+disconnected&rnum=1#97ee18f4d8ff6d10

Thanks for all the great comments. The biggest concern I saw when
reading your comments was the problem land owners would have with the
possibility of putting a trail or path next to their yard. Here's my
question and I would love to get some comments, especially from the
legally savvy.

Can't a driver sue the local government if something on the road caused
it to be unsafe? Say a driver wrecks on a blind curve. Can't the driver
sue the DOT and force them to make the turn safer? I was wondering if
this same principle could apply to bike routes. Say someone just
doesn't have a safe bike route to their job, and this happens alot in
Atlanta. Could the cyclist potentially sue the local government to make
a safe route for him/her? Could the small strip of land next to an
individuals property be taken with Eminent domain because it could
provide a safe route for cyclists?

Thanks for any comments.

Sincerely,
Jack Younkins
Atlanta Bike Commuter
"Get out of traffic and ride!"
www.atlbike.net

[Zoot Katz]

On 1 Dec 2005 22:01:56 -0800, "Atlbike" >
wrote, in part:

>Could the cyclist potentially sue the local government to make
>a safe route for him/her?

Their surviving families possibly could if that includes several high
priced lawyers and a few congressmen or Miss America, maybe.

Here, in Vancouver BC, the city used land held by the Engineering
Department to connect previously disconnected streets designated as
"Bike Routes" for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles. They
made mini-parks that are popular with the neighbours.
--
zk

[[email protected]]

Eminent domain can certainly be used.
In Springfield IL IDOT was helping convert an abandonded railroad right
of way to a trail. One section had been bought by an adjacent
landowner who wanted a huge amount for the land. Took several years
but finally got it done. And this is a public use by a public entity,
so the various proposed limits on eminent domain will not apply.

http://sj-r.com/
Last news item was June 2004 for Interurban trail.
Family name is Pedigo that fought the taking.

Once the trail is owned by a government entity, they would be liable.
In Illinois, there are laws that make the owner immune from liability
for 'recreational use' and very tough standards to sue governments for
accidents because of defective roads or bad designs.

Atlbike wrote:
<deleted>


>
> Can't a driver sue the local government if something on the road caused
> it to be unsafe? Say a driver wrecks on a blind curve. Can't the driver
> sue the DOT and force them to make the turn safer? I was wondering if
> this same principle could apply to bike routes. Say someone just
> doesn't have a safe bike route to their job, and this happens alot in
> Atlanta. Could the cyclist potentially sue the local government to make
> a safe route for him/her? Could the small strip of land next to an
> individuals property be taken with Eminent domain because it could
> provide a safe route for cyclists?
>
> Thanks for any comments.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jack Younkins
> Atlanta Bike Commuter
> "Get out of traffic and ride!"
> www.atlbike.net

[andy gee]

"Atlbike" > wrote in
ups.com:


>
> Can't a driver sue the local government if something on the road
> caused it to be unsafe? Say a driver wrecks on a blind curve. Can't
> the driver sue the DOT and force them to make the turn safer? I was
> wondering if this same principle could apply to bike routes. Say
> someone just doesn't have a safe bike route to their job, and this
> happens alot in Atlanta. Could the cyclist potentially sue the local
> government to make a safe route for him/her? Could the small strip of
> land next to an individuals property be taken with Eminent domain
> because it could provide a safe route for cyclists?
>

These are interesting questions -- although as an article writer, you
should have a crack research staff at your disposal!

I think states have sovereign immunity from being sued. I think that in
New York, the legislature has to approve such a suit, although it's
pretty pro forma.

I don't think an unsafe route for bicycles would prevail. In most
states (perhaps all) bikes are vehicles and if there is no bicycle
reservation, they have to take their chances on a road. They can hold
up traffic to be safe in a lane, and a driver is liable if they hit a
bike, but I don't think we have the right to a bicycle reservation.

I'm guessing that the only way such a right might emerge is if the only
road is limited access, especially a toll road. I remember hearing
something about a right to travel to Washington or your state capital
without being impeded or having to pay a toll.

--ag



> Thanks for any comments.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jack Younkins
> Atlanta Bike Commuter
> "Get out of traffic and ride!"
> www.atlbike.net
>

[Will]

Atlbike wrote:
> Could the small strip of land next to an
> individuals property be taken with Eminent domain because it could
> provide a safe route for cyclists?

Might be cheaper, easier, and quicker to offer an annual tax credit or
some other form of personal property tax relief to get this done. I
would imaging getting a 50% personal property tax credit and immunity
from injury litigation would interest quite a few home owners,
especially those with expensive property.

Will

[max]

In article >,
andy gee > wrote:

> I think states have sovereign immunity from being sued. I think that in
> New York, the legislature has to approve such a suit, although it's
> pretty pro forma.

in illinois cities and gov't agencies (park districts) have immunity. In
particular Illinois law addresses, for example, snow and ice issues.

I do know of one case, however, where a cyclist was seriously injured, sued
a city and won.

The City of Geneva Il posted signs along route 31 directing bikes to use a
sidewalk (see innumerable other discussions on the merits of such a course).
BUT, they failed to post signs warning cyclists of a small stairway at the
crest of a rise, making it virtually impossible for a cyclist traveling more
than 12 mph i think, to stop in time.

Thus a cyclist one day found himself flying through the air, waiking up in a
hospital with a face full of bone screws. He sued for medical bills, proper
signage or removal of the stairs and prevailed: the city replaced the steps
with a nice flat sidewalk.

This was a clear incontrovertable case of dumbass on the city's part,
however, not a run of the mill cycling hazard like parallel storm grates or
potholes.

..max

[Matt O'Toole]

On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 23:59:28 -0800, Zoot Katz wrote:

> On 1 Dec 2005 22:01:56 -0800, "Atlbike" > wrote, in
> part:
>
>>Could the cyclist potentially sue the local government to make a safe
>>route for him/her?
>
> Their surviving families possibly could if that includes several high
> priced lawyers and a few congressmen or Miss America, maybe.
>
> Here, in Vancouver BC, the city used land held by the Engineering
> Department to connect previously disconnected streets designated as
> "Bike Routes" for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles. They
> made mini-parks that are popular with the neighbours.

Vancouver is unique because so much property is held by the city, and so
many developments are essentially public/private partnerships. These also
tend to be large, key plots, which makes implementing a master plan a lot
easier.

Matt O.

[Rick]

Atlbike wrote:

> Can't a driver sue the local government if something on the road caused
> it to be unsafe? Say a driver wrecks on a blind curve. Can't the driver
> sue the DOT and force them to make the turn safer? I was wondering if
> this same principle could apply to bike routes. Say someone just
> doesn't have a safe bike route to their job, and this happens alot in
> Atlanta. Could the cyclist potentially sue the local government to make
> a safe route for him/her? Could the small strip of land next to an
> individuals property be taken with Eminent domain because it could
> provide a safe route for cyclists?

Whether or not one can sue due to cycling hazards is often a no in
Illinois and in some cases a no in California at the moment. In
Illinois the case of Boub v the Township of Wayne led to an Illinois
State Supreme court ruling that more of less took away any liability of
government if a resource is not primarily designed and intended for use
by bicycles. The net effect of that is that cities, towns and counties
have legal reason to not make bicycle paths and lanes as by not doing
so they have legal immunity from torts. See
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/SupremeCourt/1998/October/Opinions/HTML/84246.htm
..

In California, the cases of Farnham and Prokop in Los Angeles have led
to court decisions that Class 1 bicycle paths, even if paved, are the
equivalent of dirt paths on unimproved property. State law gives
immunity from tort for injuries sustained on dirt paths on unimproved
property, so the precedent is that even paved bicycle trails offer
immunity from torts for cities, towns, and counties.

- rick

[[email protected]]

Jack Younkins writes:

> Can't a driver sue the local government if something on the road
> caused it to be unsafe? Say a driver wrecks on a blind curve. Can't
> the driver sue the DOT and force them to make the turn safer? I was
> wondering if this same principle could apply to bike routes. Say
> someone just doesn't have a safe bike route to their job, and this
> happens alot in Atlanta. Could the cyclist potentially sue the local
> government to make a safe route for him/her? Could the small strip
> of land next to an individuals property be taken with Eminent domain
> because it could provide a safe route for cyclists?

I have witnessed three major and easily identified dangerous road
segments where people involved in crashes tried to sue the state. The
first was in Stuttgart (D) on an expressway that had a dog's leg curve
on which many people crashed. The curve was well known to locals as
"Die Hundekurve". The state responded in court that the curve was
safe and met the design criteria for such curves.

The second was a southbound overpass ramp to SFO on which the sidewall
in the middle of its 170 degree curve was nearly solid black from car
impacts. Some cars went over the side and fell 50 feet to the northbound
lanes of US101 below.

The third was a curve on HWY84 a mile or so above La Honda on which
there were regular spin-outs and some of these took out a power pole
on occasion.

The same argument was raised by the state on each of these, that the
curve is no sharper than many others that also meet the design
criteria. What was overlooked was that the appearance of he curve or
that its apex was beyond the visible limit is what made these curves
dangerous.

All three of these curves have been replaced or modified and no more
incidents occur there. The most striking is the HWY84 curve that
merely got a bit of superelevation so that now it looks like a curve
instead of a flat continuum. I think the power company was behind
that modification. The airport approach-maze was completely rebuilt
to the waste of $1.5 billion, disguised as a BART to the airport
transit project... which it isn't although the aerial double track wye
carries trains toward the airport, they don't get there. Travelers
must change to a SkyTrain to get to the terminal, which could have
been done directly from the old train station, a quarter mile away.

This is the kind of defensive argumentation that comes out in such
actions against unsafe roads, bolstered by road building EXPERTS that
defend the status quo. In the case of Alma Street parallel to the RR
in this area, the answer is that there are other routes available
(which is true). The only thing I see coming out of such a challenge
is new signs that prohibit bicycling on that road in that direction.
There is no problem northbound where there is a usable shoulder and a
parking strip.

Jobst Brandt

[Rick]

wrote:
> The airport approach-maze was completely rebuilt
> to the waste of $1.5 billion, disguised as a BART to the airport
> transit project... which it isn't although the aerial double track wye
> carries trains toward the airport, they don't get there. Travelers
> must change to a SkyTrain to get to the terminal, which could have
> been done directly from the old train station, a quarter mile away.

For those outside the area, the airport to which Jobst refers is SFO.
And this information is not quite accurate. BART *does* go to the
airport terminal, but just the International terminal. The SkyTrain is
needed to go to the domestic terminals. And the biggest reason I see
for having BART go to SFO is that it then gets to Millbrae, and one
travelling between the peninsula and SF can do transfer from CalTrain
to BART to get more to the west side of SF than they can on CalTrain.
Or to transfer to BART and get to Berkely, Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, or
a host of other destinations. Extending the SkyTrain to the old
Millbrae station would not have accomplished any of these other transit
connectivity objectives.

- rick

[Fritz M]

Atlbike wrote:
> Say someone just
> doesn't have a safe bike route to their job, and this happens alot in
> Atlanta. Could the cyclist potentially sue the local government to make
> a safe route for him/her?

Since you're writing about taking property for paths, I assume you mean
provision for a completely alternate transportation grid for cyclists
when you write about "safe routes."

This is NOT the same as a driver suing the state for unsafe road
conditions after an accident has occurred.

RFM