-
Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters
Posted on January 24th, 2009 6 commentsActually, I should have said: riders of bicycles are not bound by rules that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles…
It’s helpful to note that the “rules of the road” apply not to vehicles, or bikes, but rather to the people operating these things. A typical example is the rule for what to do at a stop sign, §28-855(B). “A driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop…”.
In Arizona, bicycles are, by definition(§28-101
, not vehicles; nor are they motor vehicles. So, if a bicycle is not a vehicle, why does a cyclist have to stop? Simple, because of a law helpfully titled Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders, §28-812, where it says “A person riding a bicycle … is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle”.This is a cyclist’s fundamental right to the road; the equal of driver’s.
Note well that it refers specifically to the rights and duties of the driver of vehicle — and NOT the driver of MOTOR vehicle.
It might surprise you to note that the phrase “motor vehicle” occurs only a handful of places in ARS Title 28,Transportation, with respect to how a driver must operate a vehicle. By far, most driver’s duties refer, as in the stop sign example above, simply to vehicle.
Some references are incidental; lane and speed restrictions on motor vehicles weighing over 26,000 pounds (§28-736, §28-709). Another was intended to set minimum passing clearance when a motor vehicle overtakes a bicycle (§28-735). Two germane examples are following distance, and impeding traffic.
§28-730, “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent…”, without the word motor in this statute, pacelining would likely be illegal. Since reasonable people would probably agree that two inches is an inappropriate small and hazardous following distance.
§28-704(A), “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic…”. This is what I refer to as the cyclist’s second most fundamental right to the road, because if this statute were to apply to cyclists, then they would in effect be not allowed to use any road where traffic even might be impeded; regardless of number of lanes, or width. There is some detailed minutia revolving around what is meant by the “normal and reasonable movement” but that is immaterial to cyclists, since this section is inapplicable to them.
The point is that the phrase motor vehicle is used sparingly and deliberately to apply only to that type of vehicle, reflecting clear legislative intent. In the case of 28-704(A) to allow cyclists to use all roads even though motorists might sometimes be impeded (with some caveats: There is a specific allowance for prohibiting bicycles on controlled access highways, and other roads on a case-by-case basis.).
At this point, I should probably mention that Tucson apparently has a “critical mass problem” to which the Tucson Police Department has conspired with the Tucson City Attorney to mis-apply 28-704(A) to cyclists. Their theory is embodied in an official-sounding opinion, based on sophistry and ignoring the obvious — that cyclists are bound only by rules that apply to (all) vehicles, and not those that only apply to motor vehicles. Based on news reports, apparently sometimes the cyclists are found responsible, and other times not in city court. Apparently no one to date has challenged in superior court, therefore there is no case law supporting the City of Tucson’s position.
2 responses to “Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters”
-
There are a bunch of errors in the AG’s opinion: http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2000/I00-002.html I would single out this statement: “Also, the requirements for slow motor vehicles in A.R.S. � 28-704 are not “by their nature” inapplicable to bicyclists.” The intent of the impeding traffic rule is clearly to prohibit unnecessarily slow travel by vehicles that are CAPABLE of moving faster. Would they ever site a slow-moving heavy truck or motorist with a flat tire under this statute, in effect saying that you have to abandon your vehicle if you are unable to keep up with the speed of passing traffic? I think not. I would not let that opinion sit unchallenged.
The applicability of the impeding traffic rule to bicycling was the main issue in the Selz case in Ohio (see http://www.cincinnaticycleclub.org/education/law/trotwoodvselz/ and http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz_Rt2Road.htm). In that case Selz was charged with violating a local version of the impeding traffic rule that refers to “vehicles” not “motor vehicles.” Thus the issue resolved on what is meant by “normal and reasonable” with regard to bicycling. He won, but only on appeal and after lots of time and legal costs, and the appellate court gratuitously added that he was illegally riding in the middle of the lane, although he had not been charged with that violation.
-
azbikelaw June 19th, 2010 at 15:22
The next frontier — some police are claiming that bikes must be going at least the speed limit, otherwise they’re violating 28-701E. Where do they come up with this stuff?
4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks
-
Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Why I support "Bikes safe at stop signs" February 24th, 2009 at 13:08
[...] be useful as a slogan or PR position but simply does not, and can not, work as a legal position. In Bicycles are not motor vehicles and why it matters I explain why as a practical matter cyclists would be banned outright from most roads were we to [...]
-
[...] back to Arizona — to recap the impeding stuff, it is important to know that Bicycles are not motor vehicles…, to understand Arizona’s general-purpose impeding statute does not apply to [...]
-
[...] was not at isssue in either of these cases, for some more general discussion of impeding see Bicycles are not Motor Vehicles and Why it Matters. [...]
-
[...] written before in Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters how 28-704A does not apply to bicycles. The judge summarily dismissed this argument; she quoted [...]
Leave a reply
-
Paul Schimek January 28th, 2009 at 08:36