Bicycle Driver’s License?

Since bicyclists are granted all the rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles by §28-812, are cyclists required to have a driver’s licence?  §28-3151 sets forth the conditions requiring a license: “a person shall not drive a motor vehicle … on a highway without a valid driver license”. But that rule appears in Chapter 8.

The rules which apply to bicyclists are restricted to those in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 as set forth in the applicability statute, and since 28-3151 resides in Chapter 8, it does not apply to bicyclists.

Nor would it apply regardless of which chapter it appeared in, since it specifically only applies to drivers of MOTOR vehicles. (see bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters for some further discussion)

Three Foot Passing Laws

As of the 2011 legislative season, by my count, 20 US states have added three-or-more-foot passing provisions (not counting NY, Missouri or SC, which both relatively recently added “safe passing” laws without specifying a distance):

*SC and MO: requires “safe operating” — not specific distance. I also need to look up NC; i seem to remember they have a 2-foot specification for passing.

For background, history and commentary on Three-foot “safe passing laws” see original page on azbikelaw.org

Since completing the roundup last year, I mainly hear of these through word-of-mouth, so please contact me if you have any more info.

• IL, Illinois passed SB0080 Aug 16, 2007, which became Public Act 095-0231.
• AR, Arkansas Act 681, passed Mar 29, 2007.
• ME, Maine LD 1808, becomes Public Law Chapter 400, passed Jun 22, 2007
• TN, Tennesee passes HB0235 — the “Jeff Roth Bicycle and Pedalcyclists Protection Act of 2007″, May 3, 2007. It is filed as Chapter 81 of 105th Legislture
• WA, Washington. The CBCEF has a campaign at give3feet.org, which is sponsored by it includes some nifty graphics of three feet.
• OR, Oregon had a bill that died, SB0299 (search for 299 in current/2007 measures), and passed as SB0108. Addresses passing , but not specific distance. I.e. no 3 feet.
• CA, California AB 60 (search for 60 in assembly bills 2007/2008), withdrawn Apr 16, 2007.
• CT, Public Act 08-01 enacted a new law in Connecticut, effective October 1, 2008, which requires motorists to allow at least three feet of separation
• NH, HB-1203. Requires not only 3 feet, but also “one additional foot of clearance required for every 10 miles per hour above 30 miles per hour”. It has a few other provisions. An extra reflective strip must now be worn in the dark — good idea but seems to me to be an unnecessary legal burden on an otherwise well-lit cyclist.
• FL, Florida State Statute 316.083, 316.085
• SC, HB3006 passed in 2008, 5 foot distance was dropped from the bill but requires a “safe operating distance”, Section 56-5-3435. The law includes criminal penalties if the infraction results in serious injury or death, Section 56-5-3500. It even makes harassment a crime. There are other good new provisions, in addition to deleting the mandatory sidepath rule, new language in their ride-right rule makes clear “A bicyclist may, but is not required to, ride on the shoulder of the road”, Section 56-5-3430.
• CO, Senate Bill 148 governor signed May 12, 2009. also includes something about 2 abreast, and other things. Details at Bicycle Colorado.
• LA (Louisiana), general info: louisiana3feet.com (2009)
• MS (Mississippi),  “The John Paul Frerer Bicycle Safety Act”, SB3014, becomes law July 1, 2010. Some other stuff in there, not all good “Mississippi also joins the 41 states with discriminatory ‘Far to the Right’ laws on the books”, according to Richard Masoner. General info page: mississippi3feet.org …
• MD (Maryland), SB51 in 2010. Modifies transportation section 21-1209 (MD code currently here). Some intricate/odd features, such as if the road is not wide enough to allow 3 feet, drivers don’t have to… strange.
• GA. HB101.  From 3footrule.com:  “May 11th – HB 101 Signed into Law – 3 Foot Safe Passing Rule was approved! Gov Deal signed HB 101 into law. April 14th, 2011 – HB 101 was approved by the House 150-9 with a 3 Foot Safe Passing amendment from the Senate. (Effective July 1, 2011)” Though if you read the bill/law it sounds weak motorist must allow at least three feet “when feasible”, so if it’s not feasible, anything goes. hmmm …
• CA SB910 gets vetoed Oct 2011 (with a really stupid explanation by governor) — but in any event, I found 3 other states that i HAD MISSED entirely, so added them to the list: KS, NV, NY (all either in 2011 or 2010). this makes 20 by my count.
• PA: HB 170 signed by governor Feb 2, 2012 — 4-foot passing distance. see e.g. bike-pgh.org. It has some other goodies too, but I’m afraid bicyle advocates got more than they bargained for, and not in a good way: the law also contains this abusable new section 3364(2): “A pedalcycle may be operated at a safe and reasonable speed appropriate for the pedalcycle. A pedalcycle operator shall use reasonable efforts so as not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” (only applies to two-lane roads, though, so I guess that’s not terribly bad).

…

A perennial problem with any such law is lack of enforcement (or perhaps enforceability, depending on who you ask), e.g.  In the city of Tucson over an 18-month period there were a total of 3 citations according to tucsonbikelawyer.com; zero-citations-so-far-for-three-foot-passing-rule-in-tucson-this-year.

Here’s another roundup, current as of later part of 2008

Another one that is less recent according to the date, but is notable because it includes passing laws for all fifty states.

Bicyclist stop sign law changes re-introduced

50th 2nd regular session (2012) HB2221. This is (i think) an exact copy of the bill from last year; which was a tweak to the original try in 2009.

HEARING SCHEDULED 1/26/2012 at 9AM by the House Transportation committee. All video is archived, in case you miss it live, you can also view the 3/4/2009 hearing at the archive — it’s kind of interesting.

BILL PASSES out of the Transportation Committee 1/26/2012, on an 8-2 vote. It was passed “DP” (do pass. i.e. passed without any amendment). If you didn’t see it live, you can catch it on archived, but it looks like there is a day or two delay…

Prima Facia

I haven’t paid any attention to this up until now (and it was in the bill since it was first introduced in 2009), and perhaps I should have because it looks to be a serious flaw. The bill as written automatically places bicyclists in a weaker legal position if they become involved in a collision with a motorist who also has a stop. This should be addressed an corrected so that bicyclists aren’t assumed to be liable in such a situation (liability should be assigned according to what actions the bicyclist and driver took, not just that a bicycle is a bicycle). I’m not sure if the Idaho approach, see 49-720, fixes this or not. I would think it does. They made a separate statute in the bicycling chapter; it doesn’t piggy-back on the yield-sign law.

There’s also some confusion at 4-way (all-way) stops.

Shoulder Use

— DRAFT —

Shoulder Use

When must I ride my bicycle on the shoulder? 

First, it’s important to define what a shoulder is, and isn’t.  ” ’Roadway’ means that portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder”  §28-601(22). Our roadways are typically divided into one or more travel lanes in each direction, with a solid white stripe, called an edge line (often referred to as a fog line), at the right edge of the rightmost lane. The area to the right of the edge line is the shoulder. Note that not all roads have edge lines. It’s also possible to have a left edge line and a left shoulder, for example on a one-way street or divided road.

A quick word about bicycle lanes: bicycle lanes are not shoulders, and shoulders are not bicycle lanes. Bicycle lanes must be marked according to MUTCD specifications and designated as such by the local authority; this usually involving both a stripe and painted symbol ground markings and (now optional) “bike lane” regulatory signs.

In Arizona a bicyclist generally may travel on any shoulder  – because it is not prohibited by statute. However, on controlled-access highways jurisdictions may, and do, restrict bicycle use (§28-733). Likewise, local authorities may regulate the operation of bicycles on roads under their jurisdiction; although this is uncommon (§28-626 & 627).

Arizona has no mandatory shoulder use law. §28-815A specifies where, laterally, a bicyclist must ride when riding on the roadway. It contains no provisions for requiring removal from the roadway onto any shoulder, ever.

Bicyclists must ride “as close as practicable” to the righthand edge of the roadway; but only if the lane is wide enough to share, and have no general duty to not impede other drivers nor to travel as fast as motorized traffic, that is to say §28-704A  and §28-701E are inapplicable to bicyclists because they specifically apply to drivers of motor vehicles. Bicyclists, on two-lane highways, that is one lane in each direction, have a duty to pull off the roadway, when safe, if impeding five or more vehicles and passing is unsafe (§28-704C). If a shoulder is available and safe (e.g. clear of debris, wide enough to completely exit the roadway), a bicyclist under such conditions would be required to leave the roadway and allow traffic to clear.

Typical roads in urban settings are multiple lanes in each direction, and as such 28-704C is not applicable. The law presumes that faster traffic can overtake in one of the other available lanes, so bicyclists are never required to leave the travel lane.

xxx xxxxx, Esq. xxx Legal Advisor

xxxx is an attorney, specializing in representing bicyclists who have been injured in motor vehicle collisions. In addtion to his activities with CAzB, he serves as the chairman of the Enforcement Subcommittee of the Tucscon-Pima BAC. xxx is an LCI, a League Certified cycling Instructor. Contact him here.

— DRAFT —

—

Some further references

• Bicyclists are generally granted the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle, see §28-812.
• ADOT policy 1030: Controlled-Access Highways as Bikeways specifies exactly which freeways bicyclists are allowed to use (shoulder only).
• More about designated Bike Lanes.
• More about Edge Lines; see MUTCD Section 3B.06 Edge Line Pavement Markings

…

SB1218 – 2nd Regular Session – 1986

Legislation prior to around 1997 is not available online, so below is the full chaptered version of a major bicycle legislation from 1986 (the xx-th legislature? i.e. the 38th legislature? i’m just guessing). Here is the scanned image — thanks to Justin for providing it — and let me know if you spot any discrepencies. See here for a chronology of bicycle legislative changes.

Some of the changes were merely symbolic, e.g. removing references to play vehicle in conjunction with bicycles in the Article title. While others were important and substantial, and in addition allowed for greater conformance to UVC.

Particularly significant, this legislation gives us our modern §28-815A — our “stay to the right law”, along with its many and significant exceptions, along with the alternate hand signal (§28-756) — these were done expressly to conform to UVC, as was the arm signals (I think. It also strikes me as odd that motorcyclists can’t use the right arm signal; and also vehicles with right-hand drive are out-of-luck as they may not give arm signals at all!). It also added the two-lane highway impeding clause to n §28-704 .

“S.B. 1218 makes two changes in order to conform with the uniform vehicle code (UVC). The first change allows a person operating a bicycle to give a right turn signal by extending the right hand and arm horizontally to the right.  Second, it allows an operator of a bicycle to depart from the most extreme right position of the road in four specific situations…” – Revised Senate Fact sheet  for S.B. 1218

Also notable; the mandatory sidepath rule was still in effect; it would thankfully be repealed in 1989. Read the rest of this entry »

Torts Made Perfect: Litigating Bicycle Crash Cases

North Carolina bicycling attorney Ann Groninger wrote an interesting paper entitled Litigating Bicycle Crash Cases. Read the rest of this entry »

Take the Driver’s test

The Arizona Department of Transportation recommends strengthening state laws and adding more questions about bicycle safety in driver’s license tests. Many people don’t know the existing rules. How well do you? (this quiz accompanied the azrepublic article on ADOT’s BSAP):

1. When is it OK for a bicycle to enter regular traffic from a bike lane or shoulder?

A. To pass another bike in a bike lane.

B. To avoid a hazard.

C. To prepare for a left turn into a driveway.

D. All of the above. Read the rest of this entry »

The MUTCD and A.R.S.

What is the MUTCD?

From wiki:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are designed, installed, and used…

Something that I learned from the wiki was that the City of Phoenix has this whole big thing they publish and maintain called the Traffic Barricade Manual. which “was prepared to guide people working in and near streets or planning events” and is said to be in full compliance with the MUTCD. [sometime in 2011, the link is dead, i can’t find it on city website, though it can be retrieved from archive.org here.

Here is the MUTCD home page, where full versions of the document are published.

Most of what is of particular interest to bicyclists is in Chapter 9.

Applicability of the MUTCD in Arizona

ARS 28-641 establishes the MUTCD as the traffic control standard for all of Arizona and 28-643applies the MUTCD to all local jurisdictions; subject to adoption, and amendments which can be found on ADOT’s traffic standards page, where the latest amendments as of this writing are to the 2003 MUTCD, and were last amended in 2007 — there are no amendments to section 9, Bicycles.

The 2009 MUTCD and Arizona

As of January 2012, Arizona has adopted the 2009 MUTCD, the Arizona supplement can be found at the ADOT traffic standards page, linked above. As before, there are no amendments to section 9.

…

walkinginfo.org has a “webinar” presentation that outlines the changes in the 2009 version of MUTCD (bike specific stuff in section 9).

http://phoenix.gov/STREETS/tbm07cov.pdf

Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws in Arizona

The state of Arizona has no mandatory helmet use law for bicyclists; there are a few municipalities that have their own rules.
Specifically,  I believe this is a correct list at  bhsi.org, current as of mid-2011 (and I see nothing in the pipeline):

Arrest made in hit-and-run of Tucson cyclist

Hit and runs are always awful. This one from Tucson May 20, 2011 seems especially so. Police arrested a young woman four days after the crash, Abigail A. Allin, 21. There is a lot more info supplied by Sam Abate’s father over on tucsonvelo.com.

Hit and run can sometimes be hard to prove, but fortuitously a driver matching the description triggered a red light camera nearby before striking Abate: ”"The woman driving, talking on her cell phone, weaving in and out of traffic, and caught moments earlier by the red-light camera”. I am a big fan of photo-red enforcement. (see this murder case that was solved in part with photo-red evidence. Photo evidence was also instrumental in arresting a suspect in this cyclist hit-and-run killing)

One hopes the prosecutor will be seeking the bad driving involved — and not just the hit-and-run. The hit and run came after the collision; the bad driving before certainly seems like reckless driving, or some sort of assault.

Abigail Allins has a traffic case TR-10037413 from April 2010 for running a red light and no insurance for which she did not appear — which is probably where the “driving on a suspended license” is coiming from.

Plea Deal Pulled

fox11az.com reported on July 27th that the prosecutor has withdrawn an unspecified plea deal for unspecified reasons. The defendant is scheduled to enter a plea on July 29th — I’m not sure exactly what charges have been filed because it’s not up on caselookup and strangely I don’t see anything at Pima County Superior Court (or its search page). It was reported earlier charges would be felony hit/run, endangerment, and tampering with evidence.

No news as of Aug 3…

Inmate lookup results:

NAME: ALLIN, ABIGAIL ALETA DOB: 10/24/1989 AGENCY HOLDS: NO

LOCATION: JAIL-EAST-1Q BOOKING#: 110525005 CHARGES: 3

COURT: JUSTICE COURT #1 CASE#: CR11107610A <--- 1

BOND AMT: $ 75000.00 TYPE: Secured