Comments for Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog 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 Comment on AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights by BB http://azbikelaw.org/blog/azgohs-supports-cyclists-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-2772 BB Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:48:01 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=929#comment-2772 I can't believe it took that long. Its been up since 2005. Yep we got governor power. I can’t believe it took that long. Its been up since 2005.

Yep we got governor power.

]]> Comment on Take the lane by AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/take-the-lane/comment-page-1/#comment-2758 AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:43:55 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=818#comment-2758 [...] agencies which result in improper application of the law(e.g. Flagstaff, Flag/Coconino Sheriff, Tempe & Pima Sheriff …) http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16 [...] [...] agencies which result in improper application of the law(e.g. Flagstaff, Flag/Coconino Sheriff, Tempe & Pima Sheriff …) http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16 [...]

]]> Comment on Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan by AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/judge-to-cyclist-ride-in-the-gutter-pan/comment-page-1/#comment-2755 AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:42:09 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=899#comment-2755 [...] of various Law enforcement agencies which result in improper application of the law(e.g. Flagstaff, Flag/Coconino Sheriff, Tempe & Pima Sheriff …) http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16 [...] [...] of various Law enforcement agencies which result in improper application of the law(e.g. Flagstaff, Flag/Coconino Sheriff, Tempe & Pima Sheriff …) http://www.azgohs.gov/transportation-safety/default.asp?ID=16 [...]

]]> Comment on The City of Flagstaff Hates Bicyclists by AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/the-city-of-flagstaff-hates-bicyclists/comment-page-1/#comment-2754 AZGOHS supports cyclist’s rights @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:41:09 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=867#comment-2754 [...] of various Law enforcement agencies which result in improper application of the law(e.g. Flagstaff, Flag/Coconino Sheriff, Tempe & Pima Sheriff …) [...] [...] of various Law enforcement agencies which result in improper application of the law(e.g. Flagstaff, Flag/Coconino Sheriff, Tempe & Pima Sheriff …) [...]

]]> Comment on Christmas Eve ‘07 crash trial, verdict: guilty by ss. dano http://azbikelaw.org/blog/christmas-eve-07-crash-trial-to-begin-soon/comment-page-1/#comment-2746 ss. dano Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:03:35 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=613#comment-2746 Obviously the previous writer did not check out Dr Gaither's creditials. For the prosecutor to say Dr Gaither was paid to lie is outrageous. Mr Smith did not commit an egregious act. He has a family with a history of sleep disorders. Mr. Smith planned to spend the holiday with his family because he knew they would be moving out of state and would not be likely to see them for some time. There was no reason for him to leave the home since it was planned to spend Christmas day together and go to brunch and a movie. Mr Smith is very family oriented and would not consciouly get in a car and drive. Obviously the previous writer did not check out Dr Gaither’s creditials. For the prosecutor to say Dr Gaither was paid to lie is outrageous. Mr Smith did not commit an egregious act. He has a family with a history of sleep disorders. Mr. Smith planned to spend the holiday with his family because he knew they would be moving out of state and would not be likely to see them for some time. There was no reason for him to leave the home since it was planned to spend Christmas day together and go to brunch and a movie. Mr Smith is very family oriented and would not consciouly get in a car and drive.

]]> Comment on Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan by yonuts http://azbikelaw.org/blog/judge-to-cyclist-ride-in-the-gutter-pan/comment-page-1/#comment-2728 yonuts Sun, 21 Feb 2010 03:21:04 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=899#comment-2728 Did JP win the appeal?? Anybody know?? <em>not yet...It will take at least a couple of weeks, to maybe much longer(?) to hear back from Superior court.</em> Did JP win the appeal?? Anybody know??

not yet…It will take at least a couple of weeks, to maybe much longer(?) to hear back from Superior court.

]]> Comment on Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan by danc http://azbikelaw.org/blog/judge-to-cyclist-ride-in-the-gutter-pan/comment-page-1/#comment-2697 danc Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:46:43 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=899#comment-2697 Mr Pryzby, Are you familiar with the Arizona Department of Transportation "Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts" by John S. Allen? It might help your case to show a "de facto" bicycle driver manaual. Just a thought. <em>Hi Danc, yes as a matter of fact, Justin introduced that excellent manual at the trial as evidence and read several passages from it.</em> <a href="http://www.azbikeped.org/azbss.htm" rel="nofollow">Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts</a>. Mr Pryzby, Are you familiar with the Arizona Department of Transportation “Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts” by John S. Allen?

It might help your case to show a “de facto” bicycle driver manaual.

Just a thought.

Hi Danc, yes as a matter of fact, Justin introduced that excellent manual at the trial as evidence and read several passages from it.
Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts.

]]> Comment on Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona by The City of Flagstaff Hates Bicyclists @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/sidewalk-cycling-in-arizona/comment-page-1/#comment-2694 The City of Flagstaff Hates Bicyclists @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:32:15 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/2007/06/12/sidewalk-cycling-in-arizona/#comment-2694 [...] it isn’t posted there.  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 [...] [...] it isn’t posted there.  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 [...]

]]> Comment on The City of Flagstaff Hates Bicyclists by Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan @ Arizona Bike Law Blog http://azbikelaw.org/blog/the-city-of-flagstaff-hates-bicyclists/comment-page-1/#comment-2693 Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan @ Arizona Bike Law Blog Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:17:32 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=867#comment-2693 [...] sure to this tidbit for more Flagstaff hijinks. bikelaw [...] [...] sure to this tidbit for more Flagstaff hijinks. bikelaw [...]

]]> Comment on Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan by Eric Post http://azbikelaw.org/blog/judge-to-cyclist-ride-in-the-gutter-pan/comment-page-1/#comment-2691 Eric Post Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:10:30 +0000 http://azbikelaw.org/blog/?p=899#comment-2691 This is troubling because A.R.S. 28-704(A) does not apply to cyclists. A.R.S. 28-812 is an enabling statute that makes "driver of vehicle" statutes applicable to cyclists. There is another set of statutes referred to as "operators of motor vehicles" that do not apply to cyclists. A.R.S. 28-101 makes a distinction between the definition of "driver" and "operator." Also, a distinction in the definition of "vehicle" and "motor vehicle." "Operator of Motor Vehicle" statutes talk about licences and taxes and tonnage and equipment and take into account an engine that can quickly accelerate (such as 704(A)). "Driver of Vehicle" statutes talk about all roadway rules of behavior such as stopping, turning, speed control, etc. 28-704(c) applies to cyclists through 28-812 because (c) is a driver of a vehicle statute. 28-815(A) as we know, has exceptions for debris, pedal strikes three inches from the curb and narrow lanes. 28-704(C) does not require a cyclist to move to the right, it requires the cyclist to absolutely vacate the roadway when 5 or more vehicles are behind and then ONLY when safe to do so. We have a policy letter from the Pima County Sheriff supporting the above and it was approved by the Pima County Attorney's Office. I hope we don't end up with an appeal situation from bad lawyering. Of course, the officer is dead wrong by suggesting that inviting a bad pass is safer than taking the lane. If the officer is not qualified to competently ride in traffic and command the lane/roadway lawfully, then it would be important to get someone in there who can. There is an appeal case in Pima County now that says a rider can take the lane in a narrow roadway (just like the statute says). Eric Post, Esq. This is troubling because A.R.S. 28-704(A) does not apply to cyclists.

A.R.S. 28-812 is an enabling statute that makes “driver of vehicle” statutes applicable to cyclists. There is another set of statutes referred to as “operators of motor vehicles” that do not apply to cyclists.

A.R.S. 28-101 makes a distinction between the definition of “driver” and “operator.” Also, a distinction in the definition of “vehicle” and “motor vehicle.”

“Operator of Motor Vehicle” statutes talk about licences and taxes and tonnage and equipment and take into account an engine that can quickly accelerate (such as 704(A)).

“Driver of Vehicle” statutes talk about all roadway rules of behavior such as stopping, turning, speed control, etc.

28-704(c) applies to cyclists through 28-812 because (c) is a driver of a vehicle statute.

28-815(A) as we know, has exceptions for debris, pedal strikes three inches from the curb and narrow lanes.

28-704(C) does not require a cyclist to move to the right, it requires the cyclist to absolutely vacate the roadway when 5 or more vehicles are behind and then ONLY when safe to do so.

We have a policy letter from the Pima County Sheriff supporting the above and it was approved by the Pima County Attorney’s Office.

I hope we don’t end up with an appeal situation from bad lawyering.

Of course, the officer is dead wrong by suggesting that inviting a bad pass is safer than taking the lane. If the officer is not qualified to competently ride in traffic and command the lane/roadway lawfully, then it would be important to get someone in there who can.

There is an appeal case in Pima County now that says a rider can take the lane in a narrow roadway (just like the statute says).

Eric Post, Esq.

]]>