Cycling, traffic safety and legal topics; energy, transit and transportion economics
RSS icon Home icon

  • Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan

    Posted on February 16th, 2010 azbikelaw 8 comments

    Flagstaff cyclist Justin Pryzby was ticketed for violating ARS 28-704A by a Yavapi Coconino County Sheriff’s deputy. The deputy was apparently upset that a cyclist was impeding traffic, that is blocking a lane — seeing as how there was a perfectly good bike lane available.

    Through the wonders of the internet, we can see (the exhibits) and hear the whole trial. (the audio files were in .ogg format; somehow when i clicked on them, they magically played!)

    That bike lane was, however, marked as being “closed” (at least in one direction) and was undergoing construction, with its surface abraded in both directions. The judge, incredibly, suggested that the cyclist should have been riding in the gutter pan, since that was “smooth” — the deputy quickly agreed that this would be great. When questioned about where to ride, the deputy replied “if you’re asking me the way I would ride a bicycle… I would NEVER ride in the lane. Myself, when I ride a bicycle, if there’s 3 INCHES on the right side of the road outside the lane, that’s where I ride my bicycle”.

    The deputy’s testimony dripped of the usual false or misguided paternalism; that it’s “too dangerous” to impede traffic, and so forth. This is demonstrably not true, particularly in the circumstances then existing; that is: daylight, urban, low speed roadways. The deputy should have been (monday morning quarterback here; and I doubt it would have impacted the outcome) directly challenged on this testimony.

    I’ve written before in Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters how 28-704A does not apply to bicycles. The judge summarily dismissed this argument; she quoted from 28-812, and quickly concluded that the statute does apply to bicyclists. Thus finding the cyclist responsible for the violation. (she also again brought up the bizarre notion that the defendant could have been riding the gutter pan).

    The trial was heard in Flagstaff Justice Court, before the Honorable Cathleen Brown Nichols, Justice of the Peace Pro Tempore.

    The cyclist has prepared a stunningly detailed appeal. I wish Justin good luck with it. All cyclists should be very concerned with the outcome.

    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.

    Be sure to also see this tidbit for more Flagstaff hijinks.

    bikelaw ,
     

    5 responses to “Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan” RSS icon

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • Hello friends, I’m sorry to report that I’ve lost in appeal. I’ve scanned the court order and written a response on my “website”.

    • Motion for Rehearing?

      “The rules also provide a means to request that the Superior Court reconsider its ruling. To do so, you must file a ‘Motion for Rehearing’ in the Superior Court within fourteen (14)calendar days of the date you receive the decision or order. You must include a Memorandum that specifically explains why you believe the court misapplied the law or facts. You should not merely restate the same argument you made in your original Memorandum.”
      from: Representing yourself: appealing a civil traffic case…

      And another handy document: Civil Traffic Rules and Procedure – The New Rules
      Instruction Manual and Suggested Forms       Prepared by Hon. George T. Anagnost, Peoria Municipal Court, Presented December 12, 2002

    3 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

    Leave a reply

Categories

Powered by WordPress. 'gear' theme by mymobiles
© 2007 - 2011 azbikelaw.org