-
Take the lane
Posted on February 19th, 2010 10 comments*** 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.
Arizona law is quite strong and plain in this regard. Read the rest of this entry »
-
Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan
Posted on February 16th, 2010 7 comments
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!)
Flagstaff cyclist Justin Pryzby was ticketed for violating ARS 28-704A by a YavapiCoconino 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.
-
Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona
Posted on June 12th, 2007 11 commentsCycling 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 2005 Bicycle Collision Summary [pdf] in the majority of the bike-motor vehicle collisions the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk just before the collision. (345 of 480 total collisions = 72%). [placeholder for links to more detailed sidewalk-safety stuff]
What about legality, though? Read the rest of this entry »

