John Boyle
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:48:22 -0700
|
This
is interesting although I have found no reference to the definition of “self-propelled
vehicle” in the Pennsylvania Statutes From
Inside Triathlon a snippet from an article about bicycle cops and the law - http://www.insidetri.com/news/fea/2357.0.html
…A
somewhat different situation cropped up in Philadelphia a year later (2001) in Harding v. City of Philadelphia. Bicycle
Officer Ferraro was riding on the sidewalk while following a suspicious subject
when he ran into an elderly lady. Normally, Philadelphia does not permit
bicycle riding on its sidewalks in its business district. The woman sued the
city for her injuries. The city sought to have the case dismissed, claiming
that they were immune from suit under a Pennsylvania statute that prohibited
negligence suits against governmental agencies for accidents arising from the
negligent operation of official vehicles. (This sounds more draconian than it
is--typically, the effect of the law is to force injured parties to sue a
municipality's insurance carrier instead of the agency itself.) The
Commonwealth's high court ruled that the city did not have immunity under the
statue. It pointed to Pennsylvania law that defined a vehicle as a
"self-propelled vehicle." Because a police bicycle
is propelled by its rider, it is not a vehicle and thus the court concluded
that it cannot be an "official vehicle." These
are the only two cases I have come across so far dealing with police bicycles.
As they become more popular states will probably have to deal with them through
legislation, much as they have had to grapple with issue of whether police dogs
are police officers. (Usually, no, although you can pass special laws to
protect them.) Until then, its probably going to be, legally speaking,
"anything goes." Bob Mionske
has more information about Bicycle Law at www.bicyclelaw.com Contains an interesting article about what to do in a
bicycle crash http://www.bicyclelaw.com/html/articles/crash.html |