Arizona Bike Law Blog

Are Cyclists Required to Carry Identification?

(blog note: this is a “legacy article”, published at http://azbikelaw.org/articles/TucsonID.html in 2001)

In an interesting, and potentially far-reaching case from Tucson, Arizona in 1999, a cyclist was arrested spent a night in jail for not carrying identification.  He was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charge, and note that he was not even charged with any vehicular infraction (though he could have been). Read the rest of this entry »

Pre-preliminary 2009 Fatality Report

First, some perspective: In the state of Arizona, approximately 1,000 people are killed per year in traffic collisions of all types. The number of cyclist (usually called a “pedalcyclist” in the jargon) fatalities fluctuated between15 and 36 per year over the past twenty years, with an average of about 25/year.

[as a sidebar, Arizona total traffic fatalities which have been as high as 1,293 just a couple of years ago, were down to 937 for 2008.  The exact cause of this happy trend is a matter of great debate, e.g. the effect of economic recession, and photo-enforcement. Even after this dramatic reduction Arizona roads remain significantly more dangerous than US averages ]

I have become increasingly frustrated by what seems to me to be short-shrift paid to analysis of crashes resulting in a cyclist’s serious injury/fatality Read the rest of this entry »

Bicycles May Use Full Lane, SLM; MUTCD updates

Apparently I’m a little behind the times, a new version of the MUTCD was released in Dec 2009 and includes a couple of new items for cyclists:

Section 9B.06 Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign (R4-11)   and

Section 9C.07 Shared Lane Marking.

The last time I wrote about Shared Lane Markings,  see Sharrow / Shared lane marking (SLM), they were “experimental”. Read the rest of this entry »

Stop Sign Compliance

In conjunction with the “Bikes Safe at Stop Sign” bill recently introduced in the Arizona legislature, I began to wonder more generally about stop signs in general (all traffic, not just bicycles). Read the rest of this entry »

State V. Patrick

State v. Patrick, 153 Ohio Misc.2d 20, 2008-Ohio-7142

Link to .pdf decision on Ohio Supreme Court website, or can google for it, to quick view it.

It is unusual for a lower court decision to be published (so why was this one?).

The short summary is; since there was no probably cause for the deputy to do the stop in the first place (because the defendant was doing nothing illegal), everything that came later (the alleged disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and whatever else) was supressed. All charges were dismissed.

Phoenix marks first year of light rail

The Arizona Republic is running all manner of “year in review” stories, so of course Phoenix marks first year of light rail, Dec 26, 2009 hit the news.

The light-rail cars are cyclist-friendly, greatly aiding multi-modal trips to many valley locations. The lines themselves have caused some difficulties, though that was due to engineering missteps.

The first year of operation has exceeded ridership estimates “On Dec. 27 last year, Metro opened on time and on budget. Over the next 12 months, the $1.4 billion system carried an average of nearly 35,000 passengers a day, 34 percent over estimates” and fares are covering 24% of operating expenses, despite losses on the corporate cards caused by other confusions.

The light rail, of course, garnered all sorts of opposition from anti-rail (and anti-public-transit, or perhaps I should say pro-car) folks.  On any and all grounds including that it is claimed to be phenomenally dangerous. “( light rail) averaged almost a collision a week, causing lingering doubts about light rail’s safety”. But is that really a problem, or unexpected, or out of line? Nobody seems to know. What is clear is that negligent motorists are at fault: “…No one has died, and no pedestrians or bicyclists have been hit. Police have attributed every accident to motorists ignoring traffic signal” (emphasis added).

Notwithstanding fault, is ~ 50 collisions significant? Nobody says. Keep in mind that Phoenix PD investigates ~ twenty thousand motor vehicle collisions per year.

Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death

This story about who can and can’t be sued in the case of wrongful death is interesting to those who follow such matters; Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death, WSJ 12/26/2009.

I was more interested in a habitual prescription drug abuser who killed this guy and served a whopping 9-months. 9-months!  She killed one guy and seriously injured another according to the article.

“…Ms. Copening was driving a Dodge Durango when she hit two delivery men who were standing on the shoulder of a highway, killing one and severely injuring the other. In Ms. Copening’s car, police found prescription bottles and loose pills. Police reports said she appeared confused, and a blood test detected the painkiller hydrocodone. Ms. Copening pleaded guilty to two counts of reckless driving and served nine months in jail”

Photo Red Enforcement found ‘illegal’?

Well, not exactly. After an article in “theNewspaper.com” (“a journal of the politics of driving”… an anti-photo enforcement website), the local anti-photo enforcement blogosphere Camera Fraud has declared that a FHWA letter will be “will be sending shock waves through the insidious network of red light cameras across the country”.

Despite the camera-foes’ protestations to the contrary, the FHWA has no legal standing, can not make laws, and is not a legislative body (For Arizona, the Arizona state legislature is).

An image of the FHWA letter is linked at that article, above. I don’t know who this guy, Paul Pisano, Read the rest of this entry »

Driver cited in death of baby in stroller

There was a particularly horrifying crash in September  where a 7-month old baby was killed instantly while being pushed in a stroller ON THE SIDEWALK passing in front of a private driveway. The infant’s mother and brother escaped serious harm by leaping out of the way. Phoenix police announced almost immediately (My, that was a fast investigation! the crash occurred 9/14/2009, the media reported that outcome 9/16/2009) that there would be no criminal charges recommended. “Police said, Macias (the driver) did not see Clayda Lozoya, 27, walking down the sidewalk with her 4-year-old and 7-month-old children in a stroller. The SUV ran over the stroller and killed the baby instantly” [kpho]. “The investigation reveals Ms. Macias may have looked left before entering Northern Avenue to go east and not see the family approaching from the east,” Holmes’ news release indicated. ” [abc15]

In any event, the Arizona Republic reports (I guess the final police report?) in a Valley and State brief (not online? see below), that the driver was cited for two traffic infractions: failure to yield, and too-dark window tints. In the report, police (strangely) fault the mother of the victim for walking in front of the vehicle without making “eye contact” with the driver — now, remember police have also said the driver’s windows were illegally dark. hmmm. And remember, the victim was on a sidewalk, passing in front of a private driveway. It sounds to me like the Phoenix Police have invented a new duty — now it is the victim’s duty to ensure eye contact has been made, before making any sort of movement, regardless of right-of-way (the pedestrian has complete right-of-way at a driveway)? This is nonsense. This report is sounding like a tort lawyer. And, with all due respect to tort lawyers, is this really the sort of thing that should be in a police report? In my opinion, police reports should stick to application of THE LAW. Such “creative” interpretations in police reports frequently cause problems for cyclists.

On the other hand, the Police’s press release (reproduced below) was quite strong, admonishing drivers to look both ways — but of course, talk is cheap.

In case there is any confusion about what a driver is supposed to do at a driveway:  §28-856 “The driver shall… Yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian as necessary to avoid collision”. (nothing about “eye contact” here).

For the curious, the window tinting statute is  §28-959.01. I get the impression that this is one of those laws that generally only ever gets invoked after-the-fact.

The driver is, understandably, devastated over the incident. But from a punishment perspective, if the driver pleads or if found responsible for these infractions, she is facing a few hundred dollars in fines, and a couple of points on her license.

As noted above, police almost immediately dismissed any notion of criminal charges (e.g. Negligent Homicide). There is another far less serious law which makes it a crime (albeit a very minor crime) to kill a pedestrian, but it only applies when in a crosswalk. This seems to be yet another shortcoming of 28-672 see Crime and Punishment.

Driver in fatal crash was cited

The Arizona Republic, Dec 11, 2009, p. B2

PHOENIX — A woman whose SUV rolled over and crushed a 7-month-old boy outside a school in September was cited for two misdemeanor [ed's note: this is incorrect -- these infractions are strictly civil] traffic citations, records show.

Leticia Macias, 41, received the citations for failure to yield and for having improperly tinted windows on her 2007 GMC Yukon the day she struck and killed the baby at a busy parking lot at Westwind Middle School Academy near 20th and Northern Avenues.

The baby’s mother “never made eye contact with the driver prior to walking in front of the the vehicle” of the baby as she prepared to pull onto Northern Avenue on Sept. 16 after dropping her own child at school, according to a police report release this week. (ed’s note: there’s something wrong with the wording, e.g. “of the baby” makes no sense, and “as she prepared” obviously must mean the driver, who isn’t “the baby’s mother”).

A Phoenix police spokesman said Macias was never criminally charged. The baby’s mother, Clayda Lozoya, 26, was pushing the stroller and walking with her 3-year-old son at the time of the accident. The baby, Roman Mata, was pronounced dead at the scene as parents and children arrived at the campus around 8 a.m.

Infant in stroller killed by SUV leaving school parking lot

Information Provided by the Police Department

officers at scene in front of a school Tragedy struck at a private school near 19th Avenue and Northern this morning when a 7-month-old infant was struck and killed by an SUV. The infant, a boy, was being pushed in a stroller by his mother who was also walking with her 4-year-old son.

An SUV being driven by a 41-year-old woman who had just dropped off her child was pulling out of the Westwind Preparatory Academy parking lot and struck the stroller. The infant’s mother and brother were able to get out of the way, but were taken to a nearby hospital to be checked. The driver of the SUV remained at the scene; police were investigating and it was not known if she would face charges. “This is one of the calls you never get used to,” said Phoenix Fire Captain Hugh Chase. “We all have kids.”

PIO James Holmes at scenePhoenix police Public Information Officer James Holmes stated from the scene, “It is imperative that motor vehicle operators remember they are required to yield to not only vehicular traffic when exiting a private drive, but pedestrian traffic as well. Way too often a driver who intends to make a right turn will look left to ensure the way is clear, but not right. This endangers all pedestrian traffic which may be approaching from the right. We have to be careful.”

Criminal Speeding and Photo Radar

In Arizona, speeding, like most traffic infractions, is generally a civil matter — but “excessive” speeding, defined as above 20mph (and actually above 85mph on the highway) over the posted limit, is a class 3 (minor) criminal misdemeanor; it carries a theoretical maximum punishment of $500 fine and 30 days in jail. See §28-701.02.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has quietly recanted all or most of the loony things that he said back in February. I say quietly because Read the rest of this entry »