It is worth pointing out to nervous cyclists that the large majority of traffic death and destruction is done by drivers of automobiles to other motorists (see, e.g. the chart here). This is to be expected, of course, since the large majority of traffic is motoring.

—

Here are a couple of  recent, local incidents… out of control “accidents” all –

Tourist killed at Phoenix intersection The Arizona Republic, Glen Creno – Aug. 19, 2010

An Australian tourist crossing a Phoenix street was killed late Tuesday when a sport-utility vehicle slammed into him, authorities said Wednesday…The SUV was moving so fast the victim was dismembered by the impact. Witnesses told police the vehicle apparently ran a red light…Ramzy Khalil, 29, of New South Wales, was hit and thrown across the intersection of Seventh Avenue and Camelback Road about 10 p.m. Tuesday… Police declined to identify the driver of the SUV, who told police he had some sort of medical emergency behind the wheel. Authorities declined to say what that emergency was…The SUV driver was not seriously hurt but remained in a hospital Wednesday for treatment of the medical condition…

another:

This driver drove up ON THE SIDEWALK, killing a man, striking another, and then fled the scene. How often does this happen (running down pedestrians on the sidewalk)? See also the Lance Adams killing.[azcentral][KOLD]

Man arrested in fatal hit & run in Phoenix, Associated Press – July 30, 2010 6:34 PM ET, PHOENIX (AP) – Authorities say a Phoenix man has been arrested on suspicion of leaving the scene of a fatal hit & run accident.

Phoenix police say 35-year-old Hermida Lester was walking with family members on a sidewalk north of Bell Road on Thursday night when she was hit by a car.

Police say 26-year-old Jeremy Johnson apparently drove his vehicle up on the sidewalk and it struck Lester and her 20-year-old sister. They say Lester was killed and her sister sustained minor injuries.

The vehicle was found abandoned a short distance away from the accident and police say Johnson apparently got a ride to a friend’s home in Mesa.

Johnson was taken into custody Friday by Mesa police and booked into jail.

another:

[ktar] Car jumps curb, kills Walgreens employee, by Jeremy Foster/News-Talk 92.3 KTAR (June 1st, 2010 @ 4:17pm)

PEORIA, Ariz. – A tragedy at a west Valley drug store Tuesday.

It happened in the parking lot of a Walgreen’s near Lake Pleasant Road and Beardsley.

“A Honda Accord being driven by an 87-year-old from Peoria was pulling into a parking lot, and for some reason instead of hitting the breaks she hit the gas pedal,” said Mike Tellef with Peoria Police.

Tellef said that’s when the car jumped the curb.

“And then struck a 65-year-old female employee of the store who was sitting on a bench taking a break,” he said.

Police said the victim is Alice Fielding, who was pronounced dead at the hospital. There was no impairment involved and no charges are expected to be filed against the driver.

another:

No charges will be filed against a 16-year-old Mesa girl who accidentally ran over and killed her 17-year-old brother in the Superstition Springs Mall parking lot on Saturday, authorities said.

Nicole M. Brock, a student at Red Mountain High School, had only been driving for four months when she dropped off her brother, Dwight J. Brock Jr., 17, shortly before 9:30 p.m. on Saturday.

Dwight started jumping in front of the car Nicole was driving, forcing her to slam on the brakes. Dwight was run down and killed when Nicole was unable to stop for an unknown reason, but it is possible that she may have confused the accelerator with the brake, said Sgt. Ed Wessing, a Mesa police spokesman…

[arizonarepublic] Jan 4, 2010

…

Here is the incident that originally (lately) got me thinking about this issue:

Fairfax county (Virginia) out-of-control SUV kills both cyclist and its driver. [washpost] May 21, 2010, 4pm: Bicyclist Abdelouahid Chadli, 18 was killed by an out of control SUV driver Gary Anthony Thorne, 31. The SUV veered across 6 lanes of traffic, jumped a curb and hit the cyclist on a (an apparently) separated bicycle path, and continue on to hit a large tree with such force that the driver was killed.

It is not known what caused the driver to go out of control. There are no known medical conditions, but some sort of sudden medical impairment is suspected — we’ll have to wait for the investigation.

Cyclist Doug Flynn was killed, and at least one more rider injured, in a head-on collision last year (Sept 24, 2009) by a driver trying to pass a large farm tractor on a two lane roadway.
[for a line-item on each fatality since 2009; follow this link]

A tribute to Doug posted on the YBC’s website reads “Yuma Bike Club is shocked and saddened by the tragic loss of our founder, friend, and competitor, Doug Flynn, who was struck down in a horrific accident while on the club ride the morning of September 24th. He was a very, very good man, husband, and father”

According to an article in the Yuma Sun, Someton police spokesman “…said the vehicle, driven by a 25-year-old Somerton woman, tried to pass a tractor pulling a farm implement in a legal passing zone.”

I believe this is the approximate location of the collision [google maps], apparently Madison Street is the same as W County 15th St. The cyclists were westbound approaching Somerton Avenue.

The collision occurred in Somerton in the 300 block of E Madison Street, Somerton, AZ. The investigation was conducted by the Somerton Police Department. I obtained a copy of the report; the report and investigation appears to be of good quality.

A warrant was obtained to do a blood draw on the driver, though no impairment was suspected. Ultimately the Yuma County Prosecutor declined to press criminal charges based on negative blood test results and on 2/24/2009 the case was closed by SPD. (so, 5 months, which is probably about average).

The mechanics of the collision appear to be beyond dispute — The driver of an eastbound car was following a large farm implement and decided to pass. Soon after she entered the oncoming lane she collided with one or more westbound cyclists. From the report:

“[the driver]stated that there was a right to pass and so she did. [she] stated that while she was attempting to pass the tractor that the glare from the sunlight began to get in her face but that she did not see anyone. [She] stated that as she was passing in the left lane she began to press on the gas pedal when she saw the bicyclist (Flynn) right in front of her.”

Under section 19 of the Arizona Crash Report, “violation/behavior” the investigating officer (correctly, and consistent with the narrative) noted that the cyclist was “no improper action” and the motorist was “other unsafe passing”.

Somerton police have inexplicably declined to cite the driver, despite what appears to me to be readily apparent evidence that she is responsible for violating some civil traffic law:

§28-725. Limitations on overtaking on the left

A person shall not drive a vehicle to the left side of the center of the roadway in overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction unless the left side is clearly visible and is free of oncoming traffic for a sufficient distance ahead to permit the overtaking and passing to be completed without interfering with the safe operation of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction or any vehicle overtaken. The overtaking vehicle shall return to the right-hand side of the roadway before coming within one hundred feet of any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction.

Sun glare — I couldn’t find sunrise tables for Yuma, but in Phoenix that day sunrise would have been at 6:18a. The collision occurred at 6:40a, thus it was not nighttime. Sun glare was undoubtedly a factor, but it does not relieve anyone of their responsibilities.

In crash analysis literature this is referred to as LBFS, “looked but failed to see“, causation. Defined as “the involved road users having looked in the appropriate direction(s) but failed to see the person or vehicle with whom/which they collided”, from e.g. this British Dept. for Transport study.

If the driver was so blinded by the sun glare; she obviously could not tell whether or not the left side was “clearly visible” (as it was clearly not), and she obviously, as is self-evident from the tragic outcome,  “interfered with the safe operation” of oncoming traffic.

If illegal passing isn’t indicated for some reason that I am not appreciating, Arizona’s basic speed law is very broad:

§28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed; prima facie evidence; exceptions

A. A person shall not drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances, conditions and actual and potential hazards then existing. A person shall control the speed of a vehicle as necessary to avoid colliding with any object, person, vehicle or other conveyance on, entering or adjacent to the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to exercise reasonable care for the protection of others.

The driver obviously did not control her speed, since she could not avoid colliding.

Other oddities

The driver of the tractor did not stop. It is not clear if that is because he was unaware or just what; furthermore, the police report makes no mention of this. It seems like he would not have been hard to locate. Weird.

In any event, it appears the tractor was not (directly) involved in the collision, so would have no duty to stop, that is to say there was no hit-and-run; or at least from what I make of it.

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

.

[dailyCourier]

“…a jury convicted the Jaguar driver, Jack Ingebritson, 64, of misdemeanor (criminal) charges of endangerment and reckless driving. On Tuesday, Prescott City Magistrate Arthur Markham fined Ingebritson $1,500, ordered him to perform 32 hours of community service and go to traffic survival school.”

Inquiring minds wonder: how is it that the trial was in some unspecified June date, and the story just made it to the newspaper on July 14,2010? I tried to look up the court records for the rager, but didn’t find anything (Prescott muni, and justice are not online there).

There was a follow up editoral a few days after the news story.

Did the punishment fit the crime? Were the charges appropriate?

The convicted rager “… admitted that he was five to six inches from the bike, according to the police report.” While Ingebritson was clearly guilty of endangerment, and reckless driving, it seems to me that his actions were an assault; he intentionally placed his weapon a few inches from the victim.

Here is a roundup of Arizona’s assault and endangerment statutes.

The news article refers to “endangerment”; if they are referring to 28-1201 a violation of which is a class 1 misdemeanor, I have to wonder about the magistrate’s judgment — a small fine and a few hours of community service for such a (potentially) dangerous crime?

I’m thinking/wondering if a more appropriate charge would have been assault, and potentially aggravated assault.  “Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim” [legal-dictionary]. Note that the act does NOT need to result in any actual contact, or any actual physical harm, just creating the apprehension is enough. The guilty man intended to drive very close to the cyclist, it was not accidental.

On the other hand, violation of 28-1203(A)1 is also a class 1 misdemeanor (the same as endangerment, seems a little odd?). To be guilty of aggravated assault, 28-1204, a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument would have had to been used in committing the assault. Personally, I find that multi-ton, multi hundreds of horsepower automobiles can be dangerous instruments. Anyway, aggravated would bump up the crime to some level of felony.

The other charge which the defendant was found guilty of was reckless driving. That would be 28-693, and is a class  2 misdemeanor. Nothing was mentioned regarding the driver’s license of the culprit. Which leads me to believe the magistrate was letting him off too easy.  “In addition, the judge may require the surrender … of any driver license of the convicted person…  and may order the driving privileges of the person to be suspended for a period of not more than ninety days”. Why no revocation, or suspension?

Over on the TBAG blog, the question was raised about lights.  I am *guessing* that since police went out of their way to say things like “Police say video shows Scott was LEGALLY riding a bicycle… “, that the cyclist had a light.
There was also some discussion of motorized bikes in general; for a lot of minutia about motorized bicycles; see this entry.  The short answer is that the motorized bicycle law wasn’t really thought through, and has a bunch of holes and gray areas.

…

Police are seeking the driver who killed a motorized bicyclist around 11:45pm Saturday, July 10, 2010.

The cyclist was killed as he rode eastbound on Southern Avenue near the intersection of Rural Road. The vehicle was described as newer model gold or champagne-colored Ford Taurus or Mercury Sable.

Police released traffic camera footage in the hopes that will lead to locating the driver, you can view the footage at [fox10news][abc15]. The driver made a bad left and really plowed into the cyclist who was proceeding straight ahead.

[evtrib]

“I’m kind of flabbergasted,” … “It seems like we’re getting taxed right and left. They shouldn’t be charging for this. It’s going to be a financial burden for some people.”

And what is “this”? Why, (formerly) free parking of course. Parking must be “free” and plentiful. And I’m sure it could be a burden for some, but let’s keep things in perspective; Phoenix recently instituted a 2% grocery tax.

The plan would charge $5 a day, yearly passes would be available for $75. [arizona republic]