Applicability Statutes — why are there two?
§28-812: A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.
§28-811(B). Except as otherwise provided in this article, this chapter applies to a bicycle when it is operated on a highway or on a path set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.
In both instances, “this chapter” refers to Chapter 3 - Traffic and Vehicle Regulation, which covers what we would commonly call the rules-of-the-road. Chapter 4 is Driving Under the Influence. And Chapter 5 is Penalties and Procedures for Vehicle Violations.
Adding confusion is the title of §28-811 Parent and guardian responsibility; applicability of article. Statute titles are not part of the law, just there for a guide but I had mistakenly always misread this statute as relating only to parental responsibility when in fact the two paragraphs are disjoint.
Is this just another bit of ambiguity? What is the effect of having two applicability statutes; one referring to the highway or path, and the other specifying the roadway or shoulder?
Roadway has a statutory definition, whereas highway does not(hmmm?). Also §28-811(B) lacks the standard by-their-nature “escape clause”. So if we could find a law which didn’t by its nature apply under §28-812, it would still apply under §28-811(B). That doesn’t seem right. This stew of issues could have been addressed by Rosenthal v. County of Pima (see Is a Bikelane part of the Roadway?) but instead it just ignored §28-812!
Do other states have this dueling applicability?
March 14th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
[…] twist here being that the applicability statute was §28-811 , and not §28-812 (also see Applicability Statutes - why are there two?). Confusingly, both say when and which statutes apply to bicyclists; 811 says that “this […]
October 20th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
[…] then this analysis seems to ignore the applicability statute, which specifically makes bicyclists “subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver […]