Comments on: Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/ Cycling, traffic safety and legal topics; energy, transit and transportion economics Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:48:01 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Take the lane @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-2399 Take the lane @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:34:35 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/#comment-2399 [...] 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. [...] [...] 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. [...]

]]> By: Two Abreast heating up @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-1670 Two Abreast heating up @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Sat, 23 May 2009 22:24:00 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/#comment-1670 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Why I support "Bikes safe at stop signs" http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-819 Arizona Bike Law Blog » Blog Archive » Why I support "Bikes safe at stop signs" Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:08:17 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/#comment-819 [...] 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 [...] [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Paul Schimek http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-787 Paul Schimek Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:36:48 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters/#comment-787 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. 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.

]]>