4 responses to “Serious Injuries in Scottsdale Pedicab Crash”

• 

  azbikelaw January 8th, 2013 at 15:19

  mysql> SELECT count(1) FROM 2011_person p, 2011_unit u WHERE p.UnitID=u.UnitID AND ePersonType=’PASSENGER’ AND eUnitType=’PEDALCYCLIST’;

  The passengers should be coded as passengers, not as cyclists.
  Although I tend to think both riders of a tandem should be considered
  “pedalcyclists”, there is no way to code that on the crash form.
  They’ll either end up as separate units or a single unit with one
  passenger.

  There are no (zero — which seems odd??) results for 2011 and 2010.
  For 2009, there 52 incidents where passengers were in a unit of type pedalcycle; Six phoenix reports were located, here are notations from four of them:
  91059736 – “passenger on handlebars”
  090342001 – “bicycle w/two passengers” “front pegs facing forwards”
  (which it seems is meant driver plus one passenger)
  90343340 – “bicycle with a tandum (sic) passenger riding on the rear tire pegs”
  091802209 – 3 passengers in ADOT data; narrative just says “see DR#..”. injury severity 4 (incapacitating); could this be a pedicab?

• 

  azbikelaw February 15th, 2013 at 14:47

  a correspondent writes:

  I anticipate legislation addressing pedicabs very quickly. And I base this hypothesis in part on a law review article I recently read http://www.arizonalawreview.org/2011/53-1/rebling . The long and short of it is that cities that are suitable to pedicabs (like Scottsdale) typically see a birth and dramatic rise in pedicab business. At some point thereafter a serious accident occurs (fatal or not), followed by legislation and regulation.

• 

  azbikelaw March 12th, 2013 at 14:11

  Below is a copy of input i sent to the city of Scottsdale regarding proposed rules, and a reply from city-staffer Walt Brodzinski:

  —– Forwarded Message —–

  From:Ed Beighe
  Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 12:30 PM
  To: Brodzinski, Walt
  Subject: training for pedicab operators

  From what I gathered about the Scottsdale’s proposed pedicab regulations, the requirement for pedicab operators to hold a valid motor vehicle drivers license is/was a sticking point; and perhaps that was why the alternative with respect to disability/ADA was added. In both those cases, the operator has to pass the written test for motor vehicle drivers. With the presumable goal of “proving” they know the rules of the road.

  As you know, under state law, pedicabs typically meet the definition of a bicycle; and therefore applicable Arizona state laws applying to bicyclists apply to pedicab operators.
  Unfortunately, the MVD preparation (the AZ driver’s manual) and test for a motor vehicle license barely touches on the safe, proper, lawful operation of a bicycle.

  I would like to suggest that both of those do little to address the education that bicyclists (and thus pedicab operators) need.

  I would urge you to *replace* the requirement to pass a motor vehicle license test altogether — or, 2nd best, to add a third alternative — with a demonstration of knowledge of safe, legal operation of a bicycle/pedicab.

  The Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists (CAzBike) offers a couple of existing bicyclist safety/education programs; please see
  http://www.cazbike.org/r2r and
  http://www.cazbike.org/ts101
  The first is a ~4 hour brief class; and is currently being offered under a grant/contract with MAG.
  The second is national-standard LAB (League of American Bicyclists; with suplements for AZ law) 1 day class.
  Both are taught by LAB-certified instructors (“LCI”).

  Neither, of course, is targeted to pedicab operators; but there are any number of imaginable uses or modifications.

  If you should be interested in further discussions with CAzBike; please contact cazbike@cazbike.org

  Respectfully,

  Ed Beighe
  http://www.azbikelaw.org/blog
  (I’m also a member of the board of directors of CAzBike)

  —– Forwarded Message —–
  From: “Brodzinski, Walt”
  To: ‘Ed Beighe’
  Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:14 AM
  Subject: RE: training for pedicab operators

  Hello Mr. Beighe,

  Thank you for your comments/suggestions.

  While technically Pedicabs are bicycles, the intention of state law was not to mean a vehicle that is used to transport passengers for a fare. It even mentions the singular “person” in the definition. The bottom line is they are “for hire” and are transporting passengers, and those passengers trust their safety with the pedicab operator. The pedicab operator has a much higher level of responsibility than a person on a bicycle. As such, the pedicab operator needs to know and respect the rules of the road, and be accountable for their actions. The requirement for an ADL accomplishes both.

  I am familiar with the courses you mention below, and I would encourage any pedicab operator or prospective operator to take either or both of the classes…but it will not be a requirement in the ordinance.

  Thank you again for your interest,

  Walt Brodzinski
  City of Scottsdale
  Traffic Engineering
  Phone: (480) 312-7757

• 

  azbikelaw March 30th, 2013 at 14:21

  (I can’t find it online, (yet?) but the following ran as a “Brief”:

  Pedicab-rule plan Divisive. the Arizona Republic p.B2 3/30/2013
  …but a city comission and staff are divided over whether operartors should have a valid Arizona driver’s license. Last week the Transportation Commission recommended coucil approval of the ordinance WITH THE FOLLOWING REVISIONS … REMOVING THE DRIVER’S LICENCSE REQUIREMENT.

  So in short “staff” (e.g. Walt Brodzinski, see comment immediately above this one) is dead-set on having the motorized vehicle license requirement, whereas the (citizen’s, i assume?) commission wants to get rid of it.
  The commission also recommends adding a side reflector requirement. I can’t imagine that being useful; from an engineering perspective.