Arizona Bike Law Blog

Cities and the state (ADOT) issue various reports with regard to traffic safety, (more…)

The stonewall has broken, and a flood of details that implicate the cyclist as being at fault in the collision have been released in an AZ Republic article published October 13, 2007. Why it took until now, weeks after Mesa police declared there would be no citations issued is baffling. Mesa police spokesman Detective Chris Arvayo could have (and in my opinion, should have) either released these explanations sooner, or simply stated the investigation was ongoing. He either said, or left the impression that the case was closed without saying why. (more…)

Every now and then an unusual story involving bicycles, in this case motorized bicycles, and a point of law comes along. Surely, this is one of those cases. It revolves around a relatively new law enacted last year (2006??), that defines a whole new category: motorized bicycles. (more…)

Book by Bob Mionske, JD

I’m reading Bob Mionske’s excellent book Bicycling & the Law (available from velogear), here is what I distilled out of the section on car insurance and liability systems as it relates to Arizona. (more…)

Here are two shots of Chandler Blvd in Phoenix westbound, the first one is approaching 24th Street, and the second is at the intersection with 24th Street. (more…)

In the 2007 legislative season, four more states have added three-foot passing provisions: Tennessee, Maine, Illinois, and Arkansas. This brings the total to 10 US states:

(more…)

Is a bike lane part of the roadway?

Borromeo V. Shea ( to read full case, search LegalWA.org, supreme court decisions fo: Borromeo v. Shea) affirmed that the bike lane was indeed part of the roadway in the State of Washington. Washington’s definition of roadway is virtually identical to Arizona:

(WA) RCW 46.04.500 “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder even though such sidewalk or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles.

(AZ) §28-601(21) “Roadway” means that portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder…

The definition of vehicle, though, is completely different — in WA bikes are explicitly defined as vehicles, and in AZ they are explicitly excluded from being vehicles:

(Wash) RCW 46.04.670 “Vehicle” includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles

(AZ) §28-101 “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…

The Washington Supreme Court reasoned from the plain meaning of their statutes that bike lanes are part of the roadway.

So, what about Arizona?

In Arizona, on the other hand, bicycles are clearly not vehicles and so bike lanes are clearly not “designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel” — vehicles are banned from them! [§28-815(D) ]. Thus the “plain meaning” of Arizona’s statutes indicate that bike lanes are not part of the roadway.

However, case law from the Arizona Court of Appeals found in Rosenthal v. County of Pima that a bicyclist in a bike lane was required to follow the rules of the road (in this case, required to ride in the direction of traffic). The case seems pretty straightforward. I note that the definition of “roadway” or “vehicle” doesn’t even appear in the opinion (perhaps that is a shortcoming of the case as brought?):

(appellee’s argument that, which the trial judge agreed with) those who ride in bike paths, because they are not roadways, are not (subject to the rules of the road). The argument both defies logic and is contrary to the express statutory language of A.R.S. §§ 28-728 and 28-811.

164 Ariz. 98; 791 P.2d 365; 1990 Ariz. App. LEXIS 140; 58 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 88

The twist here being that the applicability statute was §28-811 , and not §28-812 (also see Applicability Statutes - why are there two?). Confusingly, both say when and which statutes apply to bicyclists; 811 says that “this chapter [chapter 3 - Traffic and Vehicle Regulation] applies to a bicycle when it is operated on a highway or on a path“, whereas 812 says the rules, chapters 3, 4 and 5, apply to a “person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder”

Note the the “highway or on a path…” language is very broad, and effectively means that bicyclists are bound to the rules of the road (chapter 3) whether in a street, shoulder or bike lane (path).

In any event, Rosenthal doesn’t shed any light on whether or not a bikelane is part of the roadway. Thus the “plain meaning” of Arizona’s statutes stands: bike lanes are not part of the roadway. This is not in conflict with Rosenthal, it just means that the appellee’s argument was mis-constructed from the beginning. They were apparently counting solely on 28-812, overlooking 28-811 entirely.

[note: I had to disable comments because of blog spam, you can reach me here]

Cycling on the sidewalk is generally far more dangerous than doing so properly in the roadway. All stats and studies that I am aware of reinforce this fact. For example, in the city of Phoenix’s 2005 Bicycle Collision Summary [pdf] in the majority of the bike-motor vehicle collisions the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk just before the collision. (345 of 480 total collisions = 72%). [placeholder for links to more detailed sidewalk-safety stuff]

What about legality, though? (more…)

Since bicyclists are granted all the rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles, are cyclists required to have a driver’s licence? No. §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”. Bicycles are not motor vehicles, they are not even vehicles under Arizona law, see §28-101 — therefore no license is required.