"Safe Streets" Supreme Court Decision
Jim Baross
Key Points of the Decision: Cities are responsible for maintaining safe roads.
The court ruled that cities cannot hide behind waivers or argue that cyclists are solely responsible for their safety.
Cities must prioritize road maintenance:
.
The decision emphasizes that cities must prioritize road maintenance to ensure safe conditions for all road users, particularly vulnerable ones like cyclists.
The case returns to the Alameda County Superior Court:
.
While the Supreme Court upheld cities' responsibility, the case is not fully resolved and will return to the lower court for further proceedings.
Focus on Safe Streets:
.
The decision underscores the importance of safe streets for encouraging people to cycle, walk, and use public transit.
Implications:
The ruling has significant implications for how cities approach road maintenance and the safety of vulnerable road users.
It sends a message that cities cannot ignore the need for safe streets and will be held accountable for injuries caused by unsafe conditions.
The decision is expected to encourage cities to invest more in road maintenance and infrastructure upgrades.
The ruling could also positively impact public health and safety by promoting active transportation.
Scott Mace
A veteran cyclist in the Bay Area cautions that the hazards in question must be reported to authorities, or they may escape from liability for the hazard. So file those hazard reports!
Some may recall that back in 2021, I reported a hazardous asphalt
berm in the city of San Jose at the curb of San Felipe Road, and
after review, the city removed the berm several months later.
(Many years ago, this berm had been placed next to a curb cut with
the intention to move cyclists from the conclusion of a cycletrack
to a sidewalk, instead of allowing them to continue onto the
cycletrack-less street, as they are free to do so now.)
Scott Mace
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CABOforum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to caboforum+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/caboforum/CAG28zXeeoSXCjQczXXaVrNBd%2Biq%2BRb89aS6VKPC%3Dzbr2cBJ_Ag%40mail.gmail.com.
Alan Forkosh
John Cinatl
Alan Wachtel
Do either of you have a name for this recent court case/decision - if I doesn't get overruled we may someday in the future need to reference it by name.
The case is Whitehead v. City of Oakland. You can read and
download the opinion in a number of places, such as here
and here.
Since this is a newly issued opinion that hasn't yet been
published in the official case reports, no case citation is
available yet. Until then, it's known as Case S284303.
~ Alan
