Territorial Space on Public Highways: Who Owns the Road?

Roads belong to all and need to be shared by all. However, there’s a long history of some road users believing they have priority over others as a result of humans’ inherited belief in territorial space.

| January 2015

  • Territorial Space on Public Highways
    Most modern road users associate personal territorial space with public highways because of some of the personal cues that surround them while driving a car or riding a bicycle.
    Photo by Fotolia/ivanbaranov
  • Roads Were Not Built for Cars
    Take a look at the history of highways and how cyclists, not motorists, initially brought well-paved roads to America during the late nineteenth century in “Roads Were Not Built for Cars” by Carlton Reid.
    Cover courtesy Red Kite Publishing

  • Territorial Space on Public Highways
  • Roads Were Not Built for Cars

Contrary to popular belief, it was not motorists who advocated for well-paved roads in the United States. In Roads Were Not Built for Cars (Red Kite Publishing, 2014), Carlton Reid shows how cyclists were the first to push for better roads and were also the pioneers of early motor cars. This excerpt, which discusses why cyclists and motorists have difficulty sharing the road, is from Chapter 4, “Who Owns the Roads?”

Territorial Space on Public Highways

Social scientists theorise that humans believe in three kinds of territorial space. One is personal territory, like home. The second involves space that is only temporarily available, such as a gym locker. The third kind is public territory, such as roads.

“Territoriality is hard-wired into our ancestors,” believes Paul Bell, co-author of a study on road rage. “Animals are territorial because it had survival value. If you could keep others away from your hunting groups, you had more game to spear, it becomes part of the biology.”

When they are on the road, some motorists forget they are in public territory because the cues surrounding them – personal music, fluffy dice, protective shells – suggest they are in private space.

“If you are in a vehicle that you identify as primary territory, you would defend that against other people whom you perceive as being disrespectful of your space,” added Bell. “What you ignore is that you are on a public roadway – and you don’t own the road.”

A standard quip from bicycle advocates, aimed at a certain type of mine-all-mine motorist, is “You own a car, not the road.”

Some motorists insist it’s cyclists who have the entitlement issues. “Cyclists think they own the roads,” is a typical retort, common on forums and in local newspaper letters pages the world over, but most especially in America, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. In July 2014, Courtland Milloy, a columnist for the Washington Post wrote, in all seriousness, that “biker terrorists” are “out to rule the road”. (He later apologised.)

Who Owns the Road?

Belief in road “ownership” – even if it’s just the few metres in front and behind the road user – leads to disagreements, but probably what many motorists and cyclists would agree on is that roads are thoroughfares for travel. Pioneer motorists would amplify and expand the idea of roads being for transport only but the transformation of the road’s role was already well advanced by the time the first automobiles came along. The bicycle, the fastest vehicle on the road in the 1870s through to the mid-1890s, certainly played a part in redefining what a road was for, but apart from a smooth surface, the slim, single-track bicycle needed little in the way of built infrastructure. Trams, on the other hand, needed a great deal of dedicated space. With their rails and, once electrified, their overhead cables, trams very much transformed the concept of what roads were for, and that large parts of them could be appropriated for travel, and travel alone.

Later, motorists benefited from the land grab made by private tram companies. This was done by ripping out the rails put down at such great expense, and replacing them with motor-centric asphalt. The hegemony of the motor car was accelerated by countries co-operating to ease its passage. In Europe, in the early 1900s, it was extremely difficult to drive between nation states. Motor cars had to be “imported” at every border and pay punitive duties in each country visited. Many countries required motorists to pass national driving tests. Automobile clubs – many of them founded as cycling clubs – lobbied hard to get such restrictions lifted.

The lobbying took place at an international level, and would quickly transform “public highways” into “motoring roads.” By 1908, just twelve years after Britain’s “Emancipation Act” had legalised the use of motor cars, the officials at an international roads conference – many of them motorists, some of them former campaigning cyclists – took it upon themselves to define what roads were for. The Permanent International Association of Road Congresses excluded horse-drawn traffic from its remit at its first conference, held in Paris in 1908. PIARC delegates started to exclude cycling traffic from its work at the congress held in Brussels in 1910. At the London conference held in 1913, cycling was removed completely. Roads, decided the PIARC delegates, were only for A-to-B travel propelled by motors. There were only 105,734 motor cars in use in Britain in 1913 yet they had already driven many traditional users off the roads. “The right of the pedestrian to use the King’s highway is one of the most valuable and cherished public possessions,” wrote rambler and rights of way expert G. H. B. Ward in a 1913 pamphlet. “Notwithstanding the legal right of the pedestrian to the full and free use of any part of the King’s highway … the modern multitude of motor-cars have, to all intents and purposes, driven him off the main trunk, county, and interurban roads …”

The legacy of the PIARC decision in 1913 is still with us: roads are deemed to be motor thoroughfares. Those without motors may be granted access, perhaps, but only under sufferance, and only under strict, motor-centric conditions. Cyclists must ride in the gutter; pedestrians must stay on the sidewalk (if one is provided, and if one isn’t, that’s a motor-only road); and both shall interact with motorists only at designated crossing points, which are usually far apart, militating against those without motors but “smoothing the traffic flow,” the transport wonk term for squeezing as many motor vehicles through a junction as possible. And don’t expect to cross any time soon – British and American traffic planners clearly believe roads are for cars and pesky pedestrians and cranky cyclists can damn well wait.

Want to read more about public roads and cyclists? Read The Cyclists Behind the Good Roads Movement to learn how cyclists influenced America's roads for the better in the late 1800s.

Reprinted with permission from Roads Were Not Built for Cars: How Cyclists Were the First to Push for Good Roads and Became the Pioneers of Motoring, by Carlton Reid and published by Red Kite Publishing, 2014.

5/3/2018 8:53:21 PM

WOW!! When I first saw this article, I thought of our nightmare situation and thought I would share and warn others of what can happen. Amish people moved into our area in 2011 and I thought this was GREAT!!! Until they reopened an abandoned road that partly on our property WITHOUT asking us first. THEN they asked if they could use it which did not seem like a big deal a the time for my husband....but then they asked if they could cut some trees down (to open up the road to more sunlight). My husband told them they could not cut any trees down but could trim branches. THEN they went ahead and cut down 441 Trees and girdled two larger ones. To make a long story short, we are still fighting the battle for our trees which became an issue that the road was not properly abandoned by the town and the claim is that the old Range line that became a road was Two rod wide and they had the right to CLEAR CUT to the RIGHT of WAY of what the road was supposed to be....Mind you, further down the road where Amish own the land along this 'abandoned road', none of their trees were cut down. So the Claim is that ONLY 27 of the trees that they cut down ON OUR RIGHT OF WAY are the only ones that they are responsible to pay for EVEN THOUGH they did these things against our wishes!! I wonder what would have happened if my husband had told them they could NOT use the road? Big issue is that we are now liable for anyone getting hurt on what we own as the Amish DON'T own it or carry Insurance and the TOWN has not maintained the Road for well over 68 years (My husbands age) and possibly even further back for the 4 or 5 generations that my husbands family has owned it. So WHEN is a ROAD a ROAD? WHO is Liable when a road goes through one's property? Is a TOWN responsible on a road they don't maintain or the Land owners? It is a MESS!!! LL in NYS

4/22/2018 8:12:24 AM

I agree with dragon and appreciate the opportunity to make another point; my state struggles with funding for roads and highways. Cyclists are asked to do nothing in the way of maintenance (which has become a heavy burden on every community that has had to install bike lanes on every road) and yet insist that they have equal rights to share in the use of these roadways. Many bicycle lanes criss-cross back and forth through lanes of traffic. It is a given that motorists have the responsibility to navigate through them even though bike lanes were 'added' to existing roads to the detriment of safe motor vehicle conveyance. I have also had near misses with cyclists who behave as thought there are no laws pertaining to them. As others have stated, if something were to happen it would automatically be my fault because I am driving a car. I propose this for ALL who make use of our highways : Everyone who uses the roads needs to be 1) Educated in the same documented way motorists are required, 2) Licensed as driver/operators, passing exams and paying renewals and fees in the same way auto drivers are required and, 3) Insured to cover no-fault accidents and personal injury. To do less is an injustice and prejudicial to automobile drivers, who ALSO have a right to drive in safety on highways they pay mightily for, by the way. I hope many pick up this cause and start making demands of their state and local lawmakers.

4/21/2018 4:22:26 PM

I'm glad for the opportunity to point out the GLARING ERROR making automobile drivers the "bad guys" as the "Hogs of the Road." Not even close. Let's just use the CA Motor Vehicle Code: 1. Bicyclists are to FOLLOW THE SAME RULES OF THE ROAD, i.e., Actually STOP at Red Lights AND Stop SIGNS instead of blowing through them as they usually do! 2. Bicyclists are to ride on city/town streets to the Far Right of the streets AND they are to RIDE SINGLE FILE rather than two abreast so they can chit chat as they go. 3. In my city, white "curb outs" have been put by the City at some of the busiest intersections WHERE the Bicyclists are to ride INTO with the curb out to the left of their bodies thereby protecting them AND the automobile drivers while waiting for the signal to change. Instead they stop on the OUTSIDE of the curb outs thereby placing ' themselves closest to the automobiles. They either do not KNOW HOW to use the Curb Outs OR like all the other Rules of the Road, Don't give a damn! They're just going to ride their bikes the way they want putting themselves at risk and the motorists. Many are parents and riding with their children. WHAT a LOUSY EXAMPLE! 4. The Rules of the Road apply EQUALLY and IDENTICALLY to both bicyclists and motorists. If they don't KNOW them, it's way past time to learn them.



February 15-16, 2020
Belton, Texas

Join us in the Lone Star state to explore ways to save money and live efficiently. This two-day event includes hands-on workshops and a marketplace featuring the latest homesteading products.


Subscribe Today - Pay Now & Save 64% Off the Cover Price

50 Years of Money-Saving Tips!

Mother Earth NewsAt MOTHER EARTH NEWS for 50 years and counting, we are dedicated to conserving our planet's natural resources while helping you conserve your financial resources. You'll find tips for slashing heating bills, growing fresh, natural produce at home, and more. That's why we want you to save money and trees by subscribing through our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. By paying with a credit card, you save an additional $5 and get 6 issues of MOTHER EARTH NEWS for only $12.95 (USA only).

You may also use the Bill Me option and pay $17.95 for 6 issues.

Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
International Subscribers - Click Here
Canadian subscriptions: 1 year (includes postage & GST).

Facebook Pinterest Instagram YouTube Twitter flipboard

Free Product Information Classifieds Newsletters

click me