DUI Brake Light Conviction tossed

“When it comes to brake lights, one is enough, at least according to the state Court of Appeals. In a unanimous decision Friday, the judges threw out the drunk driving conviction of Aaron Fikes.” – verdenews.com Weird, i’m not seeing anyone like Arizona Republic covering it; at least according to a search… I heard a short mention of it on KJZZ news.

Since the case was out of Tucson, it would have been heard in the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two. And sure enough, it popped right up under recent cases: STATE OF ARIZONA v. AARON RAYMOND FIKES CR20110124. Note that the driver was up on serious charges, aggravated (indicating other/previous problems; such as previous simple dui convictions, or suspension, or driving dui with a minor in the vehicle) DUI, and driving on a suspended license, for which he was sentenced to 4 months in jail and 3 years of probation.

In short, the conviction was tossed because the traffic stop was found to be without just cause, and therefore the evidence that the driver was DUI should have been supressed. The State Attorney General’s office vows appeal to Arizona Supreme Court. Read the rest of this entry »

SB1218 – 2nd Regular Session – 1986

Legislation prior to around 1997 is not available online, so below is the full chaptered version of a major bicycle legislation from 1986 (the xx-th legislature? i.e. the 38th legislature? i’m just guessing). Here is the scanned image — thanks to Justin for providing it — and let me know if you spot any discrepencies. See here for a chronology of bicycle legislative changes.

Some of the changes were merely symbolic, e.g. removing references to play vehicle in conjunction with bicycles in the Article title. While others were important and substantial, and in addition allowed for greater conformance to UVC.

Particularly significant, this legislation gives us our modern §28-815A — our “stay to the right law”, along with its many and significant exceptions, along with the alternate hand signal (§28-756) — these were done expressly to conform to UVC, as was the arm signals (I think. It also strikes me as odd that motorcyclists can’t use the right arm signal; and also vehicles with right-hand drive are out-of-luck as they may not give arm signals at all!). It also added the two-lane highway impeding clause to n §28-704 .

“S.B. 1218 makes two changes in order to conform with the uniform vehicle code (UVC). The first change allows a person operating a bicycle to give a right turn signal by extending the right hand and arm horizontally to the right.  Second, it allows an operator of a bicycle to depart from the most extreme right position of the road in four specific situations…” – Revised Senate Fact sheet  for S.B. 1218

Also notable; the mandatory sidepath rule was still in effect; it would thankfully be repealed in 1989. Read the rest of this entry »

Torts Made Perfect: Litigating Bicycle Crash Cases

North Carolina bicycling attorney Ann Groninger wrote an interesting paper entitled Litigating Bicycle Crash Cases. Read the rest of this entry »

Floor notes, legislative intent, and bicycle law

Join me, if you will, in the way-back machine to look at how we’ve got the laws we now all take for granted.

Trained, informed, safety-conscious cyclists have known, at least for decades, that separated sidepaths have significant safety drawbacks, e.g.: Read the rest of this entry »

Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona

Cycling on the sidewalk is generally far more dangerous than doing so properly in the roadway. All stats and studies that I am aware of reinforce this fact. For example, in the city of Phoenix’s 2007 Bicycle Collision Summary in the majority of the bike-motor vehicle collisions the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk just before the collision. (308 of 440 total collisions = 70%); and these numbers are pretty consistent, in the previous 2005 summary, it was 72%.

What about legality, though? (roundup of laws across 50 states here) Read the rest of this entry »

Take the lane

*** a third win, see Another Appellate win for bicyclists in Pima County. Here is the order. ***

Educated cyclists know that they not only can (legally), but should (for safety) occupy an entire lane when conditions dictate. One of these conditions is when the lane is narrow. See more on the safety discussion at Where to ride on the road.

Arizona law is quite strong and plain in this regard. Read the rest of this entry »

Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan

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.

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.

Is a Bikelane part of the Roadway?

Is a bike lane part of the roadway?

Borromeo V. Shea ( to read full case, search LegalWA.org, supreme court decisions fo: Borromeo v. Shea) affirmed that the bike lane was indeed part of the roadway in the State of Washington. Washington’s definition of roadway is virtually identical to Arizona:

(WA) RCW 46.04.500 “Roadway” means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the sidewalk or shoulder even though such sidewalk or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles.

(AZ) §28-601(21) “Roadway” means that portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the berm or shoulder…

The definition of vehicle, though, is completely different — in WA bikes are explicitly defined as vehicles, and in AZ they are explicitly excluded from being vehicles:

(Wash) RCW 46.04.670 “Vehicle” includes every device capable of being moved upon a public highway and in, upon, or by which any persons or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a public highway, including bicycles

(AZ) §28-101 “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…

The Washington Supreme Court reasoned from the plain meaning of their statutes that bike lanes are part of the roadway.

So, what about Arizona?

In Arizona, on the other hand, bicycles are clearly not vehicles and so bike lanes are clearly not “designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel” — vehicles are banned from them! [§28-815(D) ]. Thus the “plain meaning” of Arizona’s statutes indicate that bike lanes are not part of the roadway.

However, case law from the Arizona Court of Appeals found in Rosenthal v. County of Pima that a bicyclist in a bike lane was required to follow the rules of the road (in this case, required to ride in the direction of traffic). The case seems pretty straightforward. I note that the definition of “roadway” or “vehicle” doesn’t even appear in the opinion (perhaps that is a shortcoming of the case as brought?):

(appellee’s argument that, which the trial judge agreed with) those who ride in bike paths, because they are not roadways, are not (subject to the rules of the road). The argument both defies logic and is contrary to the express statutory language of A.R.S. §§ 28-728 and 28-811.

164 Ariz. 98; 791 P.2d 365; 1990 Ariz. App. LEXIS 140; 58 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 88

The twist here is that since the bicyclist was a minor, the  applicability statute cited was §28-811 , and §28-812 was not considered (also see Applicability Statutes – why are there two?). Confusingly, both say when and which statutes apply to bicyclists; 811 says that “this chapter [chapter 3 - Traffic and Vehicle Regulation] applies to a bicycle when it is operated on a highway or on a path“, whereas 812 says the rules, chapters 3, 4 and 5, apply to a “person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder”

Note the the “highway or on a path…” language is very broad, and effectively means that bicyclists are bound to the rules of the road (chapter 3) whether in a street, shoulder or bike lane (path).

In any event, Rosenthal doesn’t shed any light on whether or not a bikelane is part of the roadway. Thus the “plain meaning” of Arizona’s statutes stands: bike lanes are not part of the roadway. This is not in conflict with Rosenthal, it just means that the appellee’s argument was mis-constructed from the beginning. They were apparently counting solely on 28-811, overlooking (presumably because it wasn’t helpful to the case) 28-812 entirely.

Would the outcome have been different had the cyclist not been a minor? I would think not — since the rider was definitely either “on a roadway” or “adjoining a roadway”, then 28-728 would definitely be applicable. Or another way to say it, is that it still wouldn’t matter whether or not a bike lane is or is not part of the roadway.

Tucson Bike Lane

This occurs to me later: Tucson had almost no bike lanes. They are often incorrectly called bike lanes; they are also referred to under various made-up terms like “bike shoulder”. But they are not bike lanes.

Would this matter to the case at hand? The opinion refers to a couple of times “bike lane” and other times as a “path”. But again, this doesn’t seem to have made a difference. It’s just sloppy terminology. Most likely, the collision occurred on a SHOULDER.