Share the road

AZ Republic

There was a nice reminder in the paper the other day that motorists aren’t the only ones entitled to use the roads. Ahwatukee area’s horse owners critical of oblivious drivers.

In Arizona law, motorists, bicyclists, as well as riders of animals (as well as animal-draw carts) are all “drivers of vehicles”, with co-equal rights to use the roadways.

The relevant statute in ARS is

Like bicycles, animals used in transportation, of course, preceded motor vehicles on the roads.

Like bicyclists, animalists (is that a word? That is, the rider of an animal, or the driver of an animal-drawn cart) are not motorists, and are not subject to laws which apply specifically to motorists. See bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters, for more.

Meanwhile, motorist have extra duties, and are required to exercise extra care when operating in the vicinity of an animal:

Arizona Bicycle Laws

Each statute referenced is a link and its full text will open in a pop up window. Here is a version better for printing.
Read the rest of this entry »

The Flagstaff Chronicles

Chronological by date of incident

07/20/2009 TR-2009006000  1) SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC 28-704A
03/26/2010 Trial: found responsible
04/21/2010 Motion to reconsider, CV-201000162: upheld (i.e. he “lost” the appeal)

Comments: this trial is FULLY documented here.
This is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute.
The judge and deputy said some/many bad things.
Since this ticket was issued by a Coco Sheriff’s deputy, neither the Flag PD nor the City Attorney’s office was involved in any way. The only link, other than that it occured in Flag, is the Flag Municipal court.

12/19/2009 NAIPTA bus/bike incident
02/11/2010 Story airs on Phoenix news. Story published in azdailysun
03/17/2010 City Attorney’s officer directs police and two citations are issued against the bus driver: speeding and 28-735
05/11/2010 City Attorney motions to dismiss both citations, and they are. No trial is ever held

Comments: this story is FULLY documented here.
There was much bad and disappointing behavior in this story — NONE of it attributable to the cyclist.

06/10/2010 TR-2010004702 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E
07/15/2010 Trial held: all charges dismissed

Comments: Note the “Speed less than resonable”, 28-701E is inapplicable to bicyclists.
Full details here including the absurd police report here.

09/30/2010 TR-2010007979 BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
10/28/2010 Trial held: dismissed.

Comments: don’t know the details.

10/03/2010 CR-2010003369 1) CRIMINAL DAMAGEDEFACE 13-1602; 2) NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY 28-724B; 3)BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
–/–/—- No trial yet.

Comments: i only know sketchy details — the cyclist “had words” (and horns, i expect) with a motorist. Sometime later a crash (minor, as i understand) occured between the motorist and cyclist. The police arrive and arrest the cyclist for criminal damage, along with the other two citations. No word on whether or not the motorist was arrested also.
“Criminal Damage” is a relatively serious crime.

10/05/2010 CR-2010003432 1) CRIM LITTER/POLLUTING-DROP 13-1603; 2) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
07/28/2011(?) Trial held: guilty both counts

Comment: Criminal Obstruction AND Littering? Really? I have no further info on this.

02/03/2011 Minutes of the Flagstaff BAC Meeting

Comments: You have to read them to believe them; I can only find the current meeting minutes online, so i have pasted them as a comment to this blog article.

02/07/2011 TR-2011000991 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A
03/10/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible

Comments: I don’t know anything about this one.
i’m thinking this MAY be the one involving a “drop lane” next to a bike lane, that transitioned to a right-turn-only lane. If so I think the ticket is technically justified; but the officer showed bad judgement in issuing it in the first place — i.e. cyclist’s speed was high (big downhill), the alleged impeding was 100 feet; there was no other, other than the police vehicle, traffic. see picture.

02/07/2011 TR-2011000921 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E; 3) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/03/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible, 2) acquitted, 3) acquitted

Comments: cyclist will probably appeal the 815A. I mention, again, that 701E cannot apply to bicyclists. And most importantly, the cyclist was aquitted of the criminal obstructing charge. The prosecutor espouses a clear motorist-superiority point of view., see comment below. Note that this incident was immediately after the incident, above.

The police report is available. The criminal obstruction charge should never have been brought. According to the report, traffic in the lane that the cyclist was supposedly impeding was traveling approx 20mph (the posted limit being 30), while “it should be noted that (the cyclist) appeared to be riding casually and not actively peddling”. Maybe. 20mph. In any event the judge tossed out that bogus charge. The criminal obstruction statute is for those with “no legal privilege”; cyclists in transport clearly have a legal privilege to use the roads. The police officer certainly should have known that. The prosecutor obviously should know that. Yet there was a full-blown criminal trial. What a huge waste of city resources.

The only potentially legitimate charge here was the 815A. There was no question that the cyclist entered the number 1 (i.e. “left”) lane legally, as traffic was stopped in the number 2 (i.e. the right, or curb lane) lane. The only issue remaining was whether or not the cyclist could have returned to lane number 1 sooner.

02/25/2011 CR-2011000581 OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/31/2011 Trial held: guilty

Comments: Cyclist is beginning appeal. See comments below for excerpts from trial transcript.

03/31/2011 CR-2011000936 OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
06/30/2011 trial(?): guilty

Comments: don’t know any detail. cyclist is beginning appeal.

1/12(?)/2012 Warning; something to the effect of “you can’t ride in the street”

This is getting too tiring to try and document. Here’s a picture of old snow/ice/crud obstruction on Butler Ave. I am unsure as to whether or not this is a designated bike lane; it doesn’t really matter (except perhaps for the bad local ordinances rescinded 12/2011, but still(?) in effect. These are some seriously bad and ridiculous laws:

SECTION 9-05-001-0016 LEAVING LANE:
Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a
bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that
such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle,
walking the same…

1/20/2012 TR-2012000553 1) (local charge) USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED  2) 28-730 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY

Comments: Charge #1 has apparently a section of the local ordinance that has been repealed (city council vote Dec 20, 2011), and appears to have taken effect no later than 1/19/2012 (30 days after the council approved it). This is an egregiously discrimatory rule against bicyclists.
The second charge, 28-730, is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute. Sigh.

APPENDIX – Reference to statutes that cyclists have been accused of

SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
statute: §28-701E
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists

SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC
statute: §28-704A
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists

BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT OF ROADWAY
statute: §28-815A
Comment: Except the 2/7/2011 incident, all charges of this have involved cyclist in a clearly narrow lane; in other words, exeception 4 should have been applied.

NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY
statute: (probably) §28-724B
Comment: n/a

FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
statute: §28-730
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists

OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE
statute: §13-2906
Comment: Criminal code. Can only apply to someone who has “no legal privilege” to be on the roadway.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE DEFACE
statute: §13-1602
Comment: I am speechless.

CRIM LITTER/POLLUTING-DROP
statute: §13-1603
Comment: Littering? really?

DISORDERLY CONDUCT
statute: §13-2904
Comment: This came up only once, with the bike-bus incident. Very disturbing police behavior. watch the video, and judge for yourself.

USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED
ordinance: Section  9-05-001-0005. paragraph D “Wherever one or more lanes of a roadway have been designated and marked as bicycle lanes, bicycle riders shall use those lanes and shall not use the roadway”. Another section 9-05-001-0016 states that  ”Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a  bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same…”. Is this a joke? I’m afraid not. According to the city of Flagstaff, if there’s an obstruction in a bike lane, you must, stop, dismount, and walk around it. Really.

On Dec 20, 2011, Flagstaff city council gave final approval (but effective date is unclear) to a major revision of the bicycle ordinance that removes most or all of the truely objectionable/discriminatory junk that lurked in their local ordinances for decades, since 1973!

Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009

Abstract

Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of 25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist; while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist from behind.

Full Report

The full report is available in pdf format:
Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009
Supporting data: 2009CyclistFatals.xls

Comments or questions may be left here, or contact me.

There were some somewhat out-of-context statements about my report on the npr.org health blog. They probably should have mentioned that the report covers only FATAL bike-MV collisions (a tiny fraction of all bike-MV collisions), and that the manner of collision in fatals varies significantly from non-fatals.

Read the rest of this entry »

Court of Appeals

There are two Court of Appeals in Arizona, Division 1 and Division 2. The state is divvied up geographically.

Court of Appeals, Division Two , Divsion 2 covers Tucson

Court of Appeals, Divsion One (or 1 or I if you prefer). Division 1 covers Phoenix Read the rest of this entry »

Floor notes, legislative intent, and bicycle law

Join me, if you will, in the way-back machine to look at how we’ve got the laws we now all take for granted.

Trained, informed, safety-conscious cyclists have known, at least for decades, that separated sidepaths have significant safety drawbacks, e.g.: Read the rest of this entry »

Odd Phoenix Hit-and-run story

Are police even looking? Having a mirror is enough to narrow the field dramatically as it tells you not only the make (said to be a Kia), a specific color (silver) and typically even the particular model and specific model-year.

But are police even looking? Why is the mirror — obviously a key piece of evidence — in the possesion of the victim, and not of the police?

Did the police really say that? It sounds as if the PIO wasn’t available for comment so whoever answered the phone down at hq threw in his two cents. Read the rest of this entry »

Bicycle Stop Sign changes proposed

Dead again

Arizona Road Cycling news Mar 2,2011 is reporting that the bill is dead for this session.

2011; 50th 1st regular session Update

The same bill is back HB2130 (2011, 50th 1st regular session), except that the exception for bicyclists would only apply when they are aged 16 or older. This was to address (appease?) some concerns that arose at the committee hearing in 2009.

Original article written for 2009; 49th 1st regular session

a la Idaho. The “Bikes Safe at Stop Sign” bill has been introduced in the Arizona Legislature; you can follow it here: HB2479 (2009, 49th 1st regular session). The bill will make its debut on March 4 before the Military Affairs and Public Safety (MAPS) committee. Read the rest of this entry »

Is it illegal to ride a motorized bicycle on the sidewalk in Phoenix?

Story from the Arizona Republic; I copied the whole thing because it was only a few sentences long (my emphasis added):

Woman dies when motorized bike collides with car in Phoenix
by Jack Highberger – Jan. 20, 2011 12:26 PM The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team
A 53-year-old woman died Tuesday night when her motorized bicycle collided with a car on Dunlap and 25th avenues.
The woman was driving the motorized bicycle on a sidewalk when she entered the crosswalk and collided with the car, said Sgt. Tommy Thompson of the Phoenix Police Department.
She was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision.
She was taken to the hospital where she later died. The driver of the car, who is also a 53-year-old woman, was not charged by Phoenix police. Authorities said it’s illegal to operate a motorized vehicle on a sidewalk.

First off, let me say that this type of collision is pretty common, and it is exactly why sidewalk cycling, motorized or not, is not recommended. But is it illegal? Read the rest of this entry »

Tucson Motorized Bicycle Ordinance

There is a one-page .pdf published by the city of Tucson that explains the ordinance — to find it, go to www.dot.tucsonaz.gov/bicycle and click on “motorized bikes” Read the rest of this entry »