19th Century Traffic Law:
One of the recurring issues in the body of criminal caselaw involving driving violations (such as speeding and drunk driving) is what counts as a "vehicle." If a law prohibits speeding in a vehicle, or driving a vehicle while intoxicated, courts eventually have to grapple with what counts as a "vehicle." These cases pop up from time to time, asking such profound jurisprudential questions as whether a horse counts as a vehicle, or perhaps a wheelchair, or maybe a lawnmower.
In light of this recurring issue, I was amused to come across a 19th Century case, Bly v. Nashua St. Ry. Co., 32 A. 764 (N.H. 1893), that seemed somewhat similar. The case involved a New Hampshire traffic law that stated, "no person shall ride through any street or lane, in the compact part of any town, on a gallop or at a swifter pace than at the rate of five miles an hour." The question in the case was whether that law applied to a railway that went through the town of Nashua, New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the statute did in fact apply to the railway:
In light of this recurring issue, I was amused to come across a 19th Century case, Bly v. Nashua St. Ry. Co., 32 A. 764 (N.H. 1893), that seemed somewhat similar. The case involved a New Hampshire traffic law that stated, "no person shall ride through any street or lane, in the compact part of any town, on a gallop or at a swifter pace than at the rate of five miles an hour." The question in the case was whether that law applied to a railway that went through the town of Nashua, New Hampshire.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the statute did in fact apply to the railway:
The statute was enacted in 1792, and has been re-enacted in every general revision of the laws substantially in the same form. Street railways were unknown in 1792. The mode of conveyance for persons then in general use was on horseback. A gallop is a favorite gait for such riding. But the mode of conveyance was a mere incident of the mischief to be remedied. This consisted of the danger to which the life and limbs of persons using a street or lane were exposed by the fast riding of others, whatever be the mode of conveyance. The object of the statute was to remedy the mischief; and it was to be accomplished by preventing fast riding generally, not fast riding on horseback in particular. The words used are general: “No person shall ride * * * at a swifter pace,” etc. The means of riding may be any that is in use while the statute is in force.
The driving of cars over steel or iron rails is attended with greater danger to others using the streets than the driving of ordinary vehicles over their uneven surfaces. As cars are heavier than ordinary vehicles, and there is less resistance to their motion, their momentum is not so easily controlled, and causes more serious consequences when they come in collision with objects. Being confined to a fixed track, they cannot be turned aside to avoid collision. They have a tendency to frighten horses, especially when propelled by steam or electricity. . . .
If the general law does not apply to the defendants, they may drive their cars at any rate of speed, however great, until the mayor and aldermen establish regulations for their government, while a person riding upon horseback or in a carriage cannot drive across, along, or in the vicinity of their tracks at a swifter pace than five miles an hour, without subjecting himself to liability to be fined or imprisoned. Such inequality would be arbitrary and unreasonable.
Seems to me that there isn't much danger to people walking about in town so long as they know where the tracks are precisely because of the above-quoted reason. Apart for a train jumping the tracks (was this a more often occurrence back then?), the risk to the public is far less, even if a train of this era is at top speed (guessing around 55 mph at full tilt?)
There appears to be no dispute that there was a collision; the cow was not insured at the time of the collision; and that the cow caused the collision. The dispute in this case is whether the cow was a “land motor vehicle” as defined in the policy.
Mayor v. Wedding 2003 WL 22931354, 2 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.)
Surprisingly, a cow somehow isn't considered a 'motor vehicle.'
Where I owned cows, the driver would have been at fault and owed me for my cow. :) Even black cows on the highway in the middle of the night have right of way in open range land.
I suspect there is much more open range in Idaho than there is in Ohio.
Once the railway was determined to fit within the statue; since the law discussed "riding" more than 5 mph, I am seeing this as a bonanza for Nashua (maybe for the state, depending on who got to keep the fines). Not just the railway company who can be fined. Everyone who rides the train gets fined as well. Ka-ching!!
See Heffernan &Stecker, New Hampshire: Crosscurrents in its Development, University Press of New England, 1996, (pp 151-156).
This case is from 1893.
Passenger rail was pretty quick in the 1890s.
World Rail Speed Records:
I routinely discuss the issue of what is a vehicle with idiots on Segways and motorized (electric and gas) bikes, although I give people in motorized wheelchairs a pass.
Proving once again, with over 100 years of hindsight from this stellar example, that the rational basis test doesn't necessarily have to be either "rational" or have much of a "basis."
Data: http://www.oli.org/statistics/collisions_casualties_year.htm
A conductor once chided me for riding my bike on the platform. I resisted the urge to point out that despite millions of bicycles on the road, covering far more miles than trains ever do, no pedestrian or motorist has ever been killed by a bicycle. Which surprises me. How do you have a non-fatal collision with a train? In 2003, there were 2,928 collisions between a train and a non-train, but only 324 deaths.
"'Parents' cause of death?' Got in my way."
-- Montgomery Burns, filling out a form
Yeah, that train hauling bicycles to bike shops, or ore or steel to a bicycle factory. If bicycle production had to rely on pedal power, you'd be driving to work. Most holier-than-thou folks ain't so holy when a little logic is applied.
I suspect that most of those were unoccupied vehicles that had either been trapped on the tracks or parked too close to the tracks.
But I was involved, as a passenger, in a non fatal collision. We hit a pickup truck that had mistakenly turned down the tracks. The train which was probably going around 40, knocked the truck out of the way. After stopping to determine the driver's condition, it was determined that he was not badly injured and the train was allowed to proceed. It only cost us about 1/2 hour.
It was much worse when a car occupied by an elderly couple crossed in front of us and was hit by two trains, both going 70mph in opposite directions. The Lord must have wanted them in His presence NOW.
Does this number include street railway or streetcars? The Green Line in Boston whacks a half a dozen or so cars a year with no fatalities.
Riding Lawn Mower DUI Arrest
World Rail Speed Records:
102.8mph. 165.4kph. 9/5/1893. Steam.
Empire State Express. (US.) first 100+ mph World record.
For a street railway? I doubt they had streetcars zooming through town that fast. If anything, Observer's guess of 55mph is on the high side.
I think this is the right approach. Wheelchairs are a stand-in for walking for people unable to walk; unless legs are a vehicle, wheelchairs can't be. Motorbikes are vehicles, just as a golf cart or automobile would be. Segways are only "replacement legs" for lazy douchebags.
Eakin, J., dissenting:
Of course, as tempting as it is, it doesn't seem right to base the definition of "motor vehicle" on whether or not we think the operator is a lazy douchbag. And other that douchbaggery, it's hard to find a reason to call segways "motor vehicles" and not electric wheelchairs.
if a segway is a wheelchair, then where does one sit?
The answer to both questions is that legislators still do a horrible job in drafting rules that we're supposed to follow.
lol many appoligies for my ambiguous phrasing.
You're not suggesting we base our definition of "motor vechicle" based on whether or not the driver/rider is disabled? Maybe if electric wheelchairs are motor vehicles, there should be an exception allowing disabled folks to use ped paths in them.
Specific exceptions to specific restrictions may be the more sensitive way to go. Prohibiting motor vehicles on pedways, but allowing low speed transport for the disabled, makes sense. This could be written to permit wheelchairs but prohibit motorcycles. Obviously, there's a lot of deviltry possible in the details.
I disagree. Horses can mow your lawn same as goats or sheep. And they require less care than sheep in the winter with snow, and they are tastier too (and despite a couple of states' lunacy, it is quite easy to import Canadian horsemeat)!
As for the wheelchair bit, I suppose if you help the guy on and off, it could serve a similar role when outside of a dwelling or other building.
It doesn't have to be open range. When I was growing up in Vermont cows had right of way on state highways. The relevance of this was that cows often needed to travel some distance along the highway in order to get from the barn to pasture in the morning or to get back in the evening. A commuting herd of cattle would block the road for a while. No matter - the cows had the right of way.
And apparently His taste runs to small pieces, too.
Of course, we should all ride fairly renewatradable peace-loving Gaiacycles instead.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.