Hi John,
Let me start by agreeing whole-heartedly that, for safety purposes, those who choose to ride on the sidewalk (for whatever reason) should always ride with the flow of traffic.
That being said, I think you are barking up the wrong tree here (in AZ law); our applicability statute, 28-812, does NOT use the term street or highway. Anywhere. The operative term is ‘roadway’, which has both an accepted and in fact a statutory definition 28-601 which plainly does NOT include the sidewalk.
Further for you to be right, the case mentioned above, Maxwell v. Gossett, would have to be wrong — and I don’t think it is. In that case, the bicyclist was riding counter-flow in a crosswalk.
(links to all mentioned statutes and that case are above in the main body of the article)
–ed

Note well: the term highway (in CA’s current statute) vs. roadway (in AZ’s applicability statute).

There is a CA Attorney General’s opinion directly on point about the legislature’s broadening of the 21200 in 1983, where the terminology changed from roadway to highway. Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 214, 9-29-93. Opinion No. 93-418 (if that link is dead, just search it out at AG’s site)
“CONCLUSION Persons riding bicycles on sidewalks are subject to the same Vehicle Code requirements that apply to persons riding bicycles on roadways and may be subject to additional local regulations”

So, then in CA — at least according to the Attorney General — “…to the extent that a vehicle must be driven on the right half of the roadway, a bicyclist riding on an adjacent sidewalk must travel in the same direction as the vehicular traffic.”

Also, as noted in a previous comment; In re Devon C., 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2000 states unequivocally, using the same reasoning, that helmets are required (for those under 18) when riding on the sidewalk.

…

Here are links to two cases referred to, above: caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1403039.html; and caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1120328.html. Individuals in both cases are maintaining that the police pulled them over without probable cause. The police cited riding against traffic flow on the sidewalk as cause to pull defendants over. These were upheld. The defendants were riding against the flow of traffic, but maintained since they were on the sidewalk, it was in inappropriate act on the part of the police. The courts in both instance ruled that that is not the case, as sidewalks are part of a street or highway by definition. This would seem to be true in MI. A street here is defined to include all the area from the roadway surface to the property lines. Since the sidewalk falls between the curb and the property line, it thus is part of the street. Roadway here is the actual driving surface, and is part of the street/highway.
Most bicycle law firms do not seem to be aware of this definition? At least I have not seen one yet.

…
Here are links to the cases on Google Scholar:
US v. McFadden, 238 F. 3d 198 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2001
In re Devon C., 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 513 – Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 2000

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: “Pubins, David – 539″
To: ‘Ed Beighe’
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: driver’s names?

Ed,
The Jan collision included Roger Stevensen, 60 yrs old. (probably Stevenson, 05/1951)
The Feb collision included Scott Frane, 48 yrs old.

Officer David Pubins
Scottsdale Police Department

SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. — A 12-year-old boy is in the hospital after being hit by a truck while riding his bike Monday morning.
It happened at about 9:15 a.m. at Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard and Thompson Peak Parkway.
According to Officer David Pubins of the Scottsdale Police Department, the boy was riding northbound through the crosswalk at the intersection on the east side of the road.
The light was green for north-south traffic. A pickup truck on the north side of the intersection hit the boy while turning left from southbound Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard to eastbound Thompson Peak Parkway.
The child was not wearing a helmet.
The boy suffered multiple head fractures and a broken leg, but Pubins said the injuries were not considered life-threatening. The child was in serious condition when he was taken to Phoenix Children’s Hospital.
According to Pubins, the 49-year-old driver of the Ford pickup will be cited for his involvement in the wreck.
Investigators said impairment was not a factor.
Eastbound Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard was closed in the area for several hours.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Boy-on-bike-hit-by-pickup-truck-in-Scottsdale-intersection-139720323.html

Scottdale PD released this photo:

According to Scottsdale muni court records, the driver, was charged with 28-672, a misdemeanor:
Defendant Name: SCOTT ALLYN FRANE
Case #: M-751-TR-2012004749
Case Type: Title 28 – DUI/Transportation
Citation(s): C-08055926
Charge Code: 28-672A
Charge Description:
FAIL TO YLD TURN LFT W/I INTER CAUS ACC SERI INJUR
Criminal Division Arraignment
Court Date: 3/9/2012

Court records indicate the driver plead (was found?) guilty 4/20/2012 to the 672; it’s not clear what happened to the 28-772 violation; online records do not indicate the sentence/fine

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/article_43400fd2-45ef-11e1-931b-0019bb2963f4.html

A 32-year-old man was killed after he was struck by a Nissan Pathfinder while riding his bicycle on Alma School Road near Guadalupe Road late Saturday.
The bicyclist, identified as Daniel Everlove, was pronounced dead at the scene after the Pathfinder driven by Levi Chappel struck his chopper bicycle at the intersection about 11 p.m.
The Pathfinder crashed into Everlove as Everlove was eastbound on the north sidewalk adjacent to Guadalupe and attempting to cross Alma School. Everlove was thrown from his bicycle.
Impairment or speed were not identified as factors in the crash, but Chappel was cited for failure to yield at an intersection, police said.

Asside from wearing a helmet and sticking bike lanes can someone direct me to the bicyclist traffic laws.

Curious about sidewalk laws such as what to do if there’s no bike lane or sidewalk present on the flow of traffic side and the shoulder area is so small its unsafe. Do I go against the traffic, ride in te steet etc…

Also I may sound a little dumb for asking this one but as a kid I rode all over the rode with diregard to the law but when making a left turn on a bike am I suppose to enter the turning lane with the cars or cross as if I was a walking pedestrian?

Thanks

Hi Derrick:
by far the best thing you could do would be to take a bike safety class, such as Traffic Skills 101, see cazbike.org/BikeEd Right now there are no classes scheduled yet (in the phoenix metro area?) but you can do the online portion for free anytime, follow the link.

And an excellent resource is ADOT’s Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts, the entire booklet is online, and additionally you can find it at bike shops, and sometimes at the library…

John Allen’s list.

Wachtel and Lewiston ITE Journal, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, September 1994, pages 30-35. html and pdf version here.
Used data from several years of crash data from the city of Palo alto, CA. It also correlated to risk exposure data by using bike counts. Overall, the relative risk of being involved in a collision riding on the sidewalk was 1.8 times higher than riding in the road.
It did not attempt to quantify the risk by severity.

Table 5 demonstrates that sidewalks or paths adjacent to a roadway are usually not, as non-cyclists expect, safer than the road, but much less safe. This conclusion is already well estab­lished in existing standards for bikeway design, although in our experience it is not widely known or observed.