Kissida plead guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced today, drawing 10.5 years in prison (which IIRC is the presumptive sentence). Not sure about the leaving the scene sentence.

The whole story should be in the minute entries for case CR2009-007394, but haven’t been updated yet.

[azfamily][original story on azbikelaw]

Heading home from work, westbound on East Route 66 in the vicinity of Switzer Canyon Drive [google maps], he was pulled over by Flagstaff police officer. His offense? “RIDING HIS BICYCLE IN LANE NUMBER TWO OF THE ROAD WAY WHERE A BICYCLE LANE WAS PROVIDED”, according to the strangely detailed police report of the incident (the quotations from the report are for some reason in all caps, underlining added by me).

Is this a bike lane?

Officer is obviously fixated on the bike lane, and writes of it often “THE SUBJECT THEN WENT BACK INTO THE BICYCLE LANE AND I ACTIVATED MY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND SIREN”….”THERE WAS A BICYCLE LANE THAT WAS PROVIDED”…”THERE WERE NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS… THAT WOULD MAKE JUSTIN HAVE TO EXIT OR GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE”

Here is a picture of a REAL bike lane

Officer charged the cyclist with two violations: §28-701E, and §28-815A.

The only trouble with Officer’s story is, there is no bike lane there. I confirmed this with City of Flagstaff multi-modal coordinator Martin Ince by telephone, and also with the State of Arizona (this happens to be a state highway) Department of Transportation Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Michael Sanders.  It is self-evident from the photo that this could not possibly be a bicycle lane.  Nor is it marked with bike lane signage (e.g. R3-17), or ground markings. What about the lane, that is Lane number 2? It’s something under 11 feet — clearly narrow, see Take the lane. As far as I know, no one disputes the dimensions.

A real bike lane would have an R3-17 (or similar) sign

I have written before on the problems and confusion these edge-stripes-that-are-not-bike-lane-stripes cause — and this is that in spades, see e.g. Is this a bike lane?

The other charge, 28-701E, is inapplicable to bicyclists because it applies specifically to motor vehicles. See in Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters

The Trial

The first sign that something was out of the ordinary was the city exercising its option to be represented by counsel, somewhat (how much?) unusual for a civil traffic matter.

In any event the trial was held in Flagstaff Municipal Court, docket #M-9341-TR-2919994702  before Charlotte Beyal, Magistrate Pro Tempore. The city was represented by Assistant City Prosecutor Consuelo “Celo” Brennan. The cyclist represented himself.

The trial apparently went well. That is to say the judge understood and accepted the defendant’s position both that the lane was narrow and was therefore not responsible for 28-815A because of exemption 4, and that the other charge could not apply to a bicycle. Not responsible on both counts.

The Trouble with Flagstaff PD

Is it poor training? Or is this officer just out to get bicyclists who dare to exercise their right to the road? Or is it something more — is it an institutional bias?

Flagstaff recently was rewarded by LAB with a Silver Bicycle Friendly Communities designation. Enforcement is supposed to figure into that, and they got a “star” in that category. Not from what I’ve been seeing over the past 8 months or so.

I started a new tag: flagstaff-anomolies as there seems to a pattern of law enforcement and justice system problems in Flagstaff. In the wake of the NAIPTA-bus-bike fiasco,  “…the police department issued a department-wide training bulletin requiring all officers to review all bicycle laws, (deputy chief) Treadway said”. Sounds impressive? But who knows what sort of training they actually did?

Names have not been released, Phoenix Police officer “Martos said the woman was not impaired and likely will not be charged. Police are still investigating.”

It wasn’t mentioned in any of the news reports but it is possible that it isn’t a bicycle, by definition bicycles are devices with wheels “more than sixteen inches in diameter”.

I’m not familiar with this area or intersection [google maps], though Union Hills Dr appears to be a typical Phoenix “car sewer”; 5 lanes of rush rush.

The mechanics of the collision are very similar to Maxwell v. Gossett, where the Arizona Supreme court found for the cyclist, and against the motorist who was turning through the crosswalk.

The so-called “left cross” is a common mode of collision; Bradley Jason Scott [tbagblog] was killed on Tempe a few weeks ago in a left cross (but not involving a crosswalk).

[azfamily][arizonarepublic][kpho]

Is it legal to ride in a crosswalk?

Setting aside the issue on the relative merits of sidewalk cycling…

By way of some more background on the legality of cycling in crosswalks; an analysis prepared by the Tuscon City Attorney’s office in 1998 found that (my emphasis) “…it is apparent that under the present state of law in Arizona a bicyclist is not prohibited from riding on or across a crosswalk…”.

It’s worth pointing out that this conclusion was reached in Tucson where it is patently illegal to cycle on the sidewalk. I am not aware of any Phoenix ordinance that affects crosswalks, thus we would fall back to the same cases and Arizona statutes analyzed in the above memo.

That being said, saying something is not prohibited is not the same as saying that the car driver must be automatically at fault, e.g. “the court held that bicyclists must still exercise due care and concern for their safety while about to enter or in the crosswalk”.

I was involved in an accident with a bicyclist. He was going west along a main road, I had a stop sign. After stopping and yielding to on-coming traffic I entered the intersection. It was evening and the sun was almost down and he didn’t have any lights on his bike. I crossed and the cyclist slammed in to my passenger door. I was cited for not yielding to on-coming traffic. I challenged it and won the decision based on: The law says motorist are to yield to all on-coming vehicles. In Arizona, bicycles are not defined as vehicles. One of the major points also (as a side note) in this case was the bicyclist didn’t have a light on his bike.

There are a couple of reasons I can think of why this story may be both true and misleading at the same time. The first is that justice and municipal courts often make errors. See Take the Lane for just three examples of justice/muni court decisions reversed on cyclist cases. These courts are not “of record” and there’s really no way to track down the reasoning. A second explanation is the court may have found that the bicycle was required to have been lit at the time of the collision; if so then the motorist would not be responsible for the collision. In my guesstimation, the latter explanation is quite likely, and that the motorist misunderstood the reason for dismissal, after all how can whether or not the cyclist had a light have been important to his case that purportedly revolved around the fact that a bicycle is not a vehicle?

On the other hand, the story may simply be made up, or embellished. In any event the central point bears closer examination.

In Arizona Bicycles are not Vehicles

§28-101 … 57. “Vehicle” means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.

So then why do we say things like “bike must follow the same rules…”? It’s because of the applicability statute (As an aside,  NOTE WELL that there is no mention of motor vehicle in the applicability statute):

§28-812 Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders

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.

A driver’s duty when entering an intersection is described by

§28-733. Intersection entrance

The driver of a vehicle shall stop in obedience to a stop sign as required by section 28-855 and then proceed with caution yielding to vehicles that are not required to stop and that are within the intersection or are approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard.

Ah ha! Then the anecdote is correct; drivers only need to yield to vehicles, right? And since bicycles are by definition not vehicles then drivers have every right to simple plow into them? Well no, not quite. Like all urban legends this one has a flaw, and that is the applicability statute also grants bicyclists “all the rights… of a driver of a vehicle”. So a bicyclist has the right-of-way any time the driver of a vehicle would have.

The cop gets indicted. And later on fired/resigned. Pogan fired (or resigned or whatever. the good news is he is no longer in law enforcement).

The final outcome July 2010

http://azdailysun.com/news/national/article_c99bc0e9-e345-5361-aec8-9b3d67ab1332.html

…Jurors in April acquitted Pogan of assault and harassment in his encounter with pro-cycling activist Christopher Long. But Pogan was convicted of filing false documents after a witness’s video
contradicted his account in a court document.
…
Long, a sometime farmer and farmer’s market worker, wasn’t seriously hurt. He got a $65,000 settlement after suing the city. His lawyer didn’t immediately return a call Wednesday.

Pogan resigned last year from the New York Police Department and has been working construction jobs. His felony conviction will bar him from police work, in which he’d hoped to follow his father’s and
grandfather’s examples

.

In Bicyclist 2 Bus Driver 0 Daily Sun article, the city attorney is recommending BOTH citations (speeding and §28-735) be issued. This is official recognition of the law is a huge win for cyclist safety.

Though this story obviously isn’t over; I wanted to highlight some of the significant developments

PRO

1) We finally have strong, sensible, direct quote from a Flagstaff City official regarding 28-735 and bike lanes, Lisa Stankovich, a deputy city attorney (emphasis added) :

“Since the bicyclist in this case was in a bike lane at the time of the alleged violation, and it is our opinion that a violation occurred, it is thus clear that we think the 3-foot rule applies in all situations when a vehicle overtakes a bicycle traveling in the same direction, whether in a bike lane or not,”

2) (assuming the police issue the citation) we have what might be the first ever citation for 28-735 where a collision is not involved. Although 28-735 has been on the books for about 10 years now, it is notoriously rarely enforced, for a variety of reasons.

3) The incident brought to light a lack of knowledge of cycling laws on the part of Flagstaff PD: this precipitated the department to issue a “training bulletin” to the entire department.

4) In response to the incident NAIPTA says it is  providing specific training to all their drivers on bus-bike interaction. NAIPTA has taken my referral of the Chicago Public transit video, to train drivers on how to act properly around bicyclists on the roadway.

CON

1) That the cyclist was initially charged with disorderly conduct remains disturbing. The charges were later dropped; but I still don’t get it.

2) NAIPTA’s official position is that they are in denial over the specific violations. (see NAIPTA speaks here)

…

The story continues to get, generally positive, coverage. On March 19 there was a Daily Sun editorial Who knew: 3-foot rule applies to bike lanes “…if city police were unclear about the 3-foot law, it’s a good bet most Flagstaff drivers were, too”.

Citations Issued

Initially, there was some question as to whether or not the citations would actually be issued; according to this Flagstaff PD document, citations for 28-735A and 28-701A were issued on 3/17/2010.

The current case is now online: M-0341-TR-2010002436, in Flagstaff Municipal court (thanks to azroadcyclist.com for pointing this out).

Curiously, the same defendant had a traffic case in Verde Valley Justice court  just a few months before: TR-200904190

Cases can be looked up online.[So, this one didn't pan out, apparently. However, tucsonbikelawyer.com is reporting another incident, that may end up being the first citation...]

The final final? Chapter

Strangely, on 5/11/2010 the charges were “ORDR DISMSSL/CHRGE-W/O PREJDCE”; which i assume means dismissed without prejudice.

So, for some reason, the city attorney after deciding to recommend the citations be filed, has now decided to drop them; without prejudice means that (at least theoretically) they can be re-filed.

No word on why the city attorney would have done that.

[So, this one didn't pan out, apparently. However, tucsonbikelawyer.com is reporting a Scottsdale incident, that may end up being the first citation...]

[also, here is the original AZ Republic story about the death]

Scottsdale cyclist’s death shows problems with law, Ofelia Madrid and Jane Larson, Arizona Republic, 4/22/2010.

The garbage truck that plowed into Cindie Holub left her body a broken mess.

The bicyclist lay near the intersection of Dynamite Boulevard and Alma School Road in north Scottsdale, spine broken in three spots, nine broken ribs, a broken shoulder blade, collar bone and pelvis among her injuries.

Still trying to process what happened moments after the Feb. 24 crash, she asked a passerby to call her husband, Brian Holub, in Massachusetts

Cindie Holub, 52, was riding a bicycle and had been hit by a Waste Management garbage truck. She was airlifted to Scottsdale Healthcare Osborn Medical Center, where she died four days later.

Scottsdale police cited the driver of the truck, Fernando Jimenez, 50, for not leaving a safe distance of at least 3 feet between the vehicle and a bicycle when passing. The civil fine is up to $1,000 when a death is involved.

The Holub family has hired an attorney for a wrongful-death suit against Waste Management, Brian Holub said. A spokeswoman for the company said she was unable to comment because the incident is under investigation.

The accident is a stark illustration of the dangers faced by bicyclists who ride alongside traffic in Arizona.

Holub is one of six bicyclists killed in Arizona this year, according to Ed Beighe, who tracks fatalities as part of his AzBikeLaw blog. State and federal data for 2009 are not available, but Beighe estimates that 16 Arizona cyclists died last year.

In 2008, the latest data available, there were 19 fatal bike crashes in Arizona, making the state the 10th deadliest in the nation, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The League of American Bicyclists, a national advocacy and education group, ranked Arizona No. 7 on its list of bicycle-friendly states last year, down from No. 3 in 2008. Scottsdale is one of seven communities in the state to earn the organization’s “Bicycle-Friendly Community” designation.

States and communities are judged on five criteria, including education of cyclists and motorists and connections between cyclists and law enforcement.

But Arizona bicycle advocates are concerned that the state law mandating that motorists give bicyclists 3 feet of safe passing distance is inconsistently enforced.

“It seems more law-enforcement officers are aware of the law, but I think there is still some confusion on what the law is and how to apply it,” said Bob Beane, president of the Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists.

The group would like to see increased awareness of the law, increased penalties and a clarification of how the law applies if designated bike lanes are not suitable for riding, he said.

It eventually might push for laws protecting so-called “vulnerable users” of the roads, which could cover not only bicyclists but also motorcyclists, pedestrians and people changing tires on vehicles, he said.

Enforcement of the 3-foot law and other laws vary widely. Among cyclists killed in Arizona last year, reports by Beighe’s Web site and in the media show:

• Allen Johnson, 26, an off-duty Tucson police officer, was struck from behind and killed by a pickup truck while riding last March in Tucson. The driver had her head beneath the dashboard at the time and later tested positive for medication, but she has not been charged, said Eric Post, a Tucson attorney who has represented bicylicst and their families in such cases.

• Michael Gordon Gray, 43, was struck and killed while riding with two other cyclists on Maricopa Road near the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort and Spa on the Gila River Indian Reservation. Driver David Allen Wiechens Sr. was charged with manslaughter.

• Drake Okusako, 55, was struck and killed while riding in a bike lane in midtown Tucson. Driver Jesse James Segebartt, who had been weaving in and out of traffic, was indicted on charges of manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. He pleaded guilty to leaving the scene and to a reduced charge of negligent homicide, and was sentenced April 12 to four years in prison, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

• Jerome Featherman, 86, was struck and killed while riding in a bike lane in Green Valley. Driver David Armstrong was cited for violating the 3-foot law and driving in a bike path and paid $254 in fines to the Green Valley Justice Court.

Driver, witnesses dispute accident

That February afternoon, Cindie Holub was out for a 45-mile ride that normally took her about two hours, her husband said. The Holubs, who own a veterinary hospital in Massachusetts, bought a second home in north Scottsdale last year to be close to Cindie’s father, who lives less than two blocks from where she was hit, Brian Holub said.

Over the past years, Cindie Holub had competed in three triathlons and was training for an Ironman triathlon.

Her coach in Massachusetts, Sharon Johnson of New England Triathalon Training, said Holub was a smart, dedicated athlete.

“She was cautious. She wouldn’t do anything over her head,” Johnson said.

According to the Scottsdale police report, Jimenez told officers, “I thought I left enough room for her, I went to move over but there was a car next to me.”

Brian Holub said witnesses driving in front of and behind the garbage truck said there was no vehicle next to the truck and they never saw the truck swerve to avoid the cyclist.

“The driver one car back saw my wife for half a mile. The driver two cars back could see my wife. Everybody could see my wife. This truck driver totally didn’t see my wife,” Holub said.

“A driver (behind the truck) saw her bike fly up and over the garbage truck. That witness thought a bicycle had fallen out of the dump truck. But the right-hand bumper struck her squarely in the back.”

As best as the family can tell, the driver just didn’t see her, Brian Holub said. “I don’t know if he was thinking about something or physical distracted. . . . Anybody paying even a little attention to the road would have known she was there.”

[UPDATE June 9, 2009] Well, I have to eat my words, earlier I cynically said the results of the investigation “…should be entertaining. Entertaining to see them [Pima county prosecutors] dance around why they are not bringing a homicide charge”. tusconbikelawyer reports that the driver was indicted for manslaughter . That will likely be in addition to hit-and-run charges, which is in itself a serious crime. If found guilty of both, judges tend to make the sentences concurrent. So, kudos to the Pima county justice system, the prosecutor and TPD. I also note this is very speedy, the collision was May 29, that’s under two weeks.

These descriptions would seem to indicate recklessness. A lengthy investigation will undoubtedly ensue, the result of which should be entertaining. Entertaining to see them dance around why they are not bringing a homicide (scroll down to ‘recklessly’) charges.

This has caused an understandable stir in the Tucson bicyling community.

Since the driver left the scene; I’m afraid that will give the prosecutor cover for not filing more serious charges. It’s an “easy out” for them.

The Arizona Daily Star dutifully reports that the victim was wearing a helmet.

the collision occured southbound Alvernon Way, near East Broadway.

The Arizona Crash Report is TPD case 0905290146.

Speeding Flagstaff City bus skims by cyclist

[Really Breaking news: 3/18/2010 see new article on azbikelaw.org ]

[Breaking news; Thursday Feb 11, 2010 was media day, and this story is getting huge exposure. Today a short piece ran on channel 12 news out of Phoenix, and a longer detailed piece ran in the Arizona Daily Sun, Cyclist, city attorney in lane dispute. As of now the city attorney's office is saying "Staff at the city attorney's office has yet to make a final determination whether the state's 3-foot statute applies when a cyclist is in a bike lane" (but see below, "the Last Word") -- hint, read the law (link below), it's only like 3 sentences long. How long does a review take? the incident occurred almost two months ago.  Also a story published in The Noise, it's posted on the author's blog: City Shenanigans Leave Bicyclists with No Options, covering both the Pryzby and Bus incident.]

The City of Flagstaff (Police Department, and/or the City Attorney’s Office) has a new spin on not enforcing §28-735. They claim it doesn’t apply when cyclists are riding in a bike lane. (but see below, “the Last Word”)

The incident involves a cyclist, Randy Mason, riding at the far left of the bike lane; much of the rest of the lane being blocked by snow, and a (speeding, by the way) city bus passing dangerously close.

The law is pretty simple; it has three parts, A, B and C. Part A says overtaking motorists must (without qualification) maintain a minimum of 3 feet of clearance when passing a bicyclist. Part B allows for enhanced penalties in the event of serious injury or death. And Part C says that these enhanced penalties in Part B don’t apply in certain situations if a bike lane is involved.

The part C business, one would suspect, is the fig leaf that the city attorney’s office is using to cover this bit of malfeasance (note that as of the Sun article, the city attorney’s office is claiming it didn’t say that, and they are currently reviewing the case). No word from the city attorney about if speeding laws don’t apply.

These stories often have an air of he-said-she-said to them but in this case the surveillance video from the bus company itself is pretty compelling. The original video (taken by the city bus) is here.

It would be one thing for police to claim they don’t have enough evidence to issue a citation (or it’s too fuzzy, or whatever) but there is no excuse for this pretending the law says something that it does not.

Some discussion here.

[as an aside, I've always felt that we would be better off if Parts B and C were just gone entirely; leaving unsafe passing as a normal traffic infraction. If enhanced penalties were desired, the right way to do it would be to get 28-735 added as one of the enumerated items that triggers 28-672 / 675 / 676 ]

Disorderly Conduct

Another distasteful chapter of this story is that the cyclist was charged with a crime (these ridiculous charges were later dropped). I’m not sure who to blame for this; the main suspects are the bus driver, and Flagstaff PD. The video shows a quite civilized discourse; but I’m guessing the police could not have seen the video at the time. Statements made to the police should be verified against the video record — did someone make false statements to the police?

The BAC

The City of Flagstaff has a BAC. The incident apparently was on the agenda at the Jan 7, 2010 meeting, the only notations from the minutes about that item are

“Jeff Meilbeck and Randy Biles, of the Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority, were on hand to address the recent incident between a bike and a Mountain Line bus. Mr. Meilbeck said there is a close tie between buses and bikes. Mountain Line provides racks for two or three bikes on all its buses, and parking is provided at many stops. He said that NAIPTA wants to be responsive to the community. Mr. Ince said that it is important for the bicycle community to know that NAIPTA is responsive and has a process for addressing problems and issues. Ms. Blackman suggested that Mountain Line host an open house for bicyclists and pedestrians.”

So it remains to be seen what, if any, response to the “process” will yield. Is NAIPTA investigating?

The Bus Company

The entity that oversees public transit in Flagstaff is NAIPTA,  Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority. It is not clear to me if they contract out operations, or directly operate the buses; There is an entity referred to as “Mountain Line”, and the general manager is Jeff  Meilbeck.

What sort of company (or entity?) hires this sort of driver?   What sort of training is done? Is there oversight by the city?

Bus operators are normally and understandably concerned with risk management, and best safety practices because of the huge liability exposure — say if one of your buses is speeding along and wipes out a cyclist or pedestrian.

Bus / Bike Safety Materials

Chicago Transit Authority has some nice materials specifically aimed at transit bus operators and cyclists, in particular a video. Here is the part about passing (speaking to bus operators): “Passing… this is a time when EXTRA care is needed… Remember, you must allow safe clearance between your bus and a bike. That’s a MININIUM of 3 feet, if traffic allows, leave more space. If there isn’t enough room for you to pass, you MUST slow down and wait for clearance”. There are also pamphlets and posters that someone was nice enough to email me but I don’t see them online.

Things the Flagstaff Police said

(Cyclist): We can operate on the shoulder, we can operate on the sidewalk, …

(Officer):  You cannot operate on the sidewalk.

(Cyclist): I can’t operate my bicycle on the sidewalk?

(Officer): No you can’t.

(Cyclist): You guys don’t understand the laws in this town at all, if you’re gonna believe that

(Officer): Alright, unfortunately it appears that, .. unfortunately it appears you don’t.

(Cyclist): … I can’t quote the number but I’m pretty sure that I have three feet in the bike lane, so if it needs to go to the …

(Officer): I don’t know where you get the three feet. You have to, …If you’re in the lane, he needs to give you as much room as he can, but he has, he also has the right not, he has the law that says you can’t take up two …

So, 1) The sidewalk thing is wrong, it would only be illegal if it were posted, and from what I understand it isn’t posted.  See Flagstaff Code of Ordinances. Title 9, section 9-05. Also see here for general sidewalk riding info. And 2) he seem wholly unaware of §28-735 a law that has been on the books now for almost 10 years. His last statement reveals his anti-cycling biases more fully.

These guys are paid to know the law, the three foot law, §28-735, has been on the books for going on 10 years now. And why does he think it’s illegal to ride on the sidewalk?

Flagstaff PD was sufficiently rattled by this to issue a training bulletin “requiring all officers to review all bicycle laws, [Deputy Chief] Treadway said”. This sounds good, but I’m not sure exactly what this bulletin said (I’d like to know).

NAIPTA Speaks [added March 7]

It has been brought to my attention that NAIPTA issued a response to the incident, apparently back in late February. The description and summary of the incident seems reasonable. The response itself consisted of 4 points — one of which is encouraging (citing more driver training, and specifically mentioning the Chicago video cited above), one was neutral discussing confrontation training, but the last two were disappointing.

In one they claim the evidence clearly shows that at least three feet was maintained. This isn’t what I’m seeing from their video. I see a wide vehicle approximately centered in a narrow lane (103″, NOT counting protruding mirrors,  in a 138″ lane, according to the cyclist’s measurements), and the left edge of the cyclist appears directly above the bike-lane stripe. That would leave well under TWO FEET of clearance, not even counting the bus’ mirrors.

And in the last point they claim that their speed readout is unreliable. This hasn’t been my experience with GPS navigation equipment.

I want to reiterate on these last two points, that this evidence may well not be enough to bring legal charges, or make them stick — but that doesn’t mean that what the driver did was right, either.

The Last Word? [Added 3/17/2010]

The news article, linked above, make a couple of references to the issue of 28-735 and bike lanes; “Additionally, [Flagstaff PD Deputy Chief] Treadway said that the video of the bus passing the cyclist does not clearly show whether the bus was within 3 feet of the cyclist, even if the law did apply“. Which I read to mean someone (either the PD, or the city attorney) harbored doubt about this issue. And directly in the clarification:  “Staff at the city attorney’s office has yet to make a final determination whether the state’s 3-foot statute applies when a cyclist is in a bike lane.”

In what will probably be the last word on this affair; Martin Ince, Flagstaff’s bike/ped coordinator told me by email 3/16/2010:

“Unfortunately the newspaper did not get it right, either in the original story or the clarification.  The City Attorney’s office is not going to, nor ever intended to, make a determination regarding the applicability of 28-735 when a cyclist is in the bike lane.  Their involvement was only to review the present case to determine if a citable offense was committed; the case is working its way through the legal process”

I say last word because I consider it highly unlikely that the city attorney will bring any citations (for reasons both mentioned above by me, and for reasons mentioned in the news article).

The Continuing Story [added 3/18/2010]

please see an-historic-citation

In a word, No. None of these are bike lanes. But someone sure went out of their way to make it look so. They even moved the not-bike lane stripe over to make more room in the not-bike lane (center photo). [See Fig 1, here, for a picture and description of how an actual bike lane is marked]

What is the correct — both legal and safety — position for a cyclist to assume in these not-bike lanes? Just try to get a straight answer out of the-powers-that-be (in this case, the City of Phoenix) on that one.

The law is refreshingly clear: “If the lane…is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane” a cyclist may ride anywhere in that lane, §28-815(A)(4).

See other articles on critical width.

Dimensions

Exactly how wide, or narrow as the case may be, are these ridiculous shoulders? Dimensions of the shot of the white SUV, in the top-left  picture, can be found here.

Dimension of Ray Road, the picture with the big yellow school bus are as below. This section is typical of Ray Road between approx E 3600 and 4400 blocks in Phoenix (but there are even narrower parts, as pictured above top-right):

115 / 38 / 14″ : lane / shoulder / gutter pan

The “bike lane” (were it to be one, it is not) would the be 38+14 = 52″ — 8″ shy of nominal.

But that’s not even the biggest problem. The travel lane, at less than 10′, is unusually small by Phoenix standards. The usable width is 115+38 = 153″ (less than 13′) is unsuitable for any side-by-side sharing, as is graphically obvious from the photo. This is 15″ shy of being sharable with narrow-profile motor vehicles, and a bus or truck or trailer is out of the question.

Good graphic of how 14′ usable space can be shared by a typical cyclist and a typical, narrow, motor vehicle from cyclist and traffic engineer Richard Moeur.

Cyclists riding in the shoulder can and will, I can attest to from first hand experience, get passed with just inches to spare by drivers merrily and illegally skimming by cyclists in the “not-bike lane”.

Large vehicle dimensions are commonly 8′,  or 8.5′ (e.g. see Large School Bus Design Vehicle Dimensions ; the AASHTO defined SU truck or BUS is 8.5′); not including mirrors.

What the MUTCD Says

The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, MUTCD, is the transportation engineer’s bible, throughout the United States.

See sections 3B06 and 7, Edge Line Pavement Markings, and Warrants for use of Edge Line Markings.

Types of roads where their use is warranted include “Freeways, Expressways, and RURAL arterials”. (my emphasis). Note that urban arterials are NOT on the list, to put it another way, the use of edge lines on urban arterial is unwarranted.

The kindest thing i can think to say about edge lines on urban arterial with closed shoulders) is they are not prohibited, due to the “if used…” language in 3B06.

Recommendations

Since motorists have an expectation that cyclists must use bike lanes; these not-bike lanes cause confusion, since they are widely perceived as actual bike lanes.

The confusion has only deleterious effects on cyclists, one of two problems arise:

1. encourages (mis-informed) cyclists to ride too far to the right, this encourages motorists to buzz cyclists. Or,
2. cyclists riding (legally) in the lane are harassed by motorists.

Planners should not lay out urban arterial roads with a right lane that has a “critical” width. This is a critically important revision needed to the current (1999) edition of AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities: “an outside or curb lane wider than 3.6 m (12 feet) can better accommodate both bicycles and motor vehicles in the same lane and thus is beneficial to both bicyclists and motorists (p.17)”

Improved wording in the DRAFT Guide reads: “Lane widths of 13 feet (4.0 m) or less require most motor vehicles to be driven at least part way into the next lane to pass a bicyclist with an adequate and comfortable clearance (usually 3 ft [0.9 m] or more depending on the speed of the passing vehicle). Lane widths of 14 feet (4.3 m) or greater enable motorists to pass bicycles [sic] without encroaching into the adjacent lane” (p. 57).

…

Where these bad layouts already exist, because of the confusion caused to both cyclists and motorists, the stripe should be removed; i.e. it should have never been placed there in the first place.

A Ray of Hope

Yes, that was a little play on words — When a portion of Ray Road in Phoenix was rebuilt in July 2010, it overlapped with the portion that has the onerous stripe. Happily when the newly rebuilt portion was striped, the edge stripe did not make a reappearance. So the portion between Ranch Circle South and 44th Street used to look like the picture above with the school bus but now looks like this (east and west bound; the west bound has just a few feet of edge stripe in order to mate up with the bad old existing edge stripe):

It’s only maybe a quarter-mile but at least it is a step in the right direction.