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.

It’s pretty interesting; it revolves entirely around interpretation of a Title 28 Statute, §28-939  ,regarding stop lamps; and delves into the “legislative intent” of that law. P.S. the stop lamp itself is required by another statute, §28-927. I was kind of surprised when they said “Thus, we conclude the statute is ambiguous”, referring to a sub-clause 28-939(B)(2) involving glare from a lamp. This caused a whole side-trip into the legislative intent, and legislative history of the statute.

There’s an footnote that would be of interest to anyone trying to track the legislative history of any Title 28 Transportation statutes:

Although passed in 1995, Senate Bill 1364 took effect “from and after December 31, 1996.” 1995 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 132, §§ 3, 12. One of the effects of S.B. 1364 was a renumbering of all of the Transportation Statutes. Id. (enacting current § 28-939 as A.R.S. § 28-3179). However, before S.B. 1364 took effect, the legislature passed S.B. 1076 which reverted to the old numbering but did not make any changes to the text of  § 28-939. 1996 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 76, § 18. Therefore, although S.B. 1364 is the most  recent modification, we need not consider it in our analysis.

…

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.

As usual, Strike through is text removed text from statutes, while ALL CAPS in statutes is added text.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC REGULATION—SLOW MOVING MOTOR

VEHICLES; BICYCLES

CHAPTER 81

SENATE BILL 1218

AN ACT

RELATING TO TRANSPORTATION; CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF TITLE 28, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 11, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, TO ‘OPERATION OF BICYCLES’; PRESCRIBING DRIVERS ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO YIELD TO OTHER VEHICLES; PRESCRIBING METHOD OF GIVING HAND AND ARM SIGNALS FOR BICYCLISTS; PRESCRIBING CERTAIN TRAFFIC LAWS APPLICABLE TO PERSONS OPERATING BICYCLES ON ROADWAYS OR SHOULDERS OF ROADWAYS, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 28-704, 28-756, 28-812 AND 28-815, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Heading change

The article heading of title 28, chapter 6, article 11, Arizona Revised Statutes, is Changed from ‘OPERATION OF BICYCLES AND PLAY VEHICLES’ to “OPERATION OF BICYCLES’.

Sec. 2. Section 28-704, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

28-704. Minimum speed regulation

A. No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement such a slow speed as to of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

B. Whenever the director or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions determine on the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that slow speeds on any part of a highway consistently impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, the director or such local authority may determine and declare a minimum speed limit below which no person shall drive a vehicle except when necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

C. IF A PERSON IS DRIVING A VEHICLE AT A SPEED LESS THAN THE NORMAL FLOW OF TRAFFIC AT THE PARTICULAR TIME AND PLACE ON A TWO-LANE HIGHWAY WHERE PASSING IS UNSAFE, AND IF FIVE OR MORE VEHICLES ARE FORMED IN A LINE BEHIND THE VEHICLE, THE PERSON SHALL TURN THE VEHICLE OFF THE ROADWAY AT THE NEAREST PLACE DESIGNATED AS A TURNOUT BY SIGNS ERECTED BY THE DIRECTOR OR A LOCAL AUTHORITY, OR WHEREVER SUFFICIENT AREA FOR A SAFE TURNOUT EXISTS, IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE VEHICLES FOLLOWING TO PROCEED.

Sec. 3. Section 28-756, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

28-756. Method of giving hand and arm signals

A. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION B, all signals required by this article to be given by hand and arm shall be given from the left side of the vehicle in the following manner and the signals shall indicate as follows:

1. Left turn. Hand and arm extended horizontally.
2. Right turn. Hand and arm extended upward.
3. Stop or decrease speed. Hand and arm extended downward.

B. A PERSON OPERATING A BICYCLE MAY GIVE A RIGHT TURN SIGNAL BY EXTENDING THE RIGHT HAND AND ARM HORIZONTALLY AND TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BICYCLE.

Sec. 4. Section 28-812, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

28-812. Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles

Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be OR UPON A SHOULDER ADJOINING A ROADWAY IS granted all the rights and shall be IS subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article, and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

Sec. 5. Section 28-815, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

28-815. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths; prohibition of motor vehicle traffic on bike paths

A. Every A person operating a bicycle upon a roadway AT LESS THAN THE NORMAL SPEED OF TRAFFIC AT THE TIME AND PLACE AND UNDER THE CONDITIONS THEN EXISTING shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway CLOSE as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction TO THE RIGHT HAND CURB OR EDGE OF THE ROADWAY, EXCEPT UNDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS:

1. IF OVERTAKING AND PASSING ANOTHER BICYCLE OR VEHICLE PROCEEDING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

2. IF PREPARING FOR A LEFT TURN AT AN INTERSECTION OR INTO A PRIVATE ROAD OR DRIVEWAY.

3. IF REASONABLY NECESSARY TO AVOID CONDITIONS INCLUDING FIXED OR MOVING OBJECTS, PARKED OR MOVING VEHICLES, BICYCLES, PEDESTRIANS, ANIMALS OR SURFACE HAZARDS.

4. IF THE LANE IN WHICH THE PERSON IS OPERATING THE BICYCLE IS TOO NARROW FOR A BICYCLE AND A VEHICLE TO TRAVEL SAFELY SIDE BY SIDE WITHIN THE LANE.

B. Persons riding bicycles upon a roadway shall not ride more than two abreast except on paths or parts of roadways set aside for the exclusive use of bicycles.

C. Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use the path and shall not use the roadway

D. A bicycle path or lane when designated as such by state or local authorities shall be deemed to be for the exclusive use of bicycles though other uses are permitted pursuant to subsection E or otherwise permitted by state or local authorities.

E. No person shall operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a bicycle path or lane designated by state or local authorities except for use in the case of emergency or for use in crossing such path or lane to gain access to any public or private road or driveway. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the use in OF such path or lane by the appropriate local authority.

Approved by the Governor, April 11, 1986

And just to show you that lawyers have a sense of humor, the paper was presented at an conference named “Torts Made Perfect”, Las Vegas on March 20, 2009.

The paper mentions several interesting bicycling cases; one of them from Arizona, which I was not aware of:

A cyclist, like any other vehicle driver on the road, is required to act as a reasonable person. See, e.g….
Valenzuela v. Bracamonte, 126 Ariz. 472, 616 P.2d 932 (1980) (“a bicyclist, like a driver having the right-of-way at an intersection has a duty to exercise the degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would use under the circumstances…”)

 …

Trained, informed, safety-conscious cyclists have known, at least for decades, that separated sidepaths have significant safety drawbacks, e.g.:

In a discussion of dedicated bicycle paths (sidepaths) versus bicycle lanes on roads versus no lanes, research has repeatedly shown that segregated cycling facilities are more likely to cause motorist-cyclist collisions, especially during turns at intersections. (velo-city.org)

We now take it for granted that a cyclist has a right to use a roadway regardless of the existence of any sort of parallel sidepath (over there, somewhere). It wasn’t always so. These are usually referred to as “mandatory sidepath” laws, and we had one in Arizona until 19xx(?).

These and other mysteries can be unearthed by reading the legislative “floor notes” for significant bicycle legislation occurring before 1997 (after which time, it is supposedly all available online at azleg.gov, and nothing significant has been passed except for §28-735 in 2000, see below).

Download the Floor Notes from approx 1976 to 1997; ~ 2MBytes .pdf format w/ocr. Thanks to Tucson Bicycle Attorney Eric Post for obtaining these documents.

SB1218 from 1986

Please see azbikelaw.org/blog/sb1218-2nd-regular-session-1986 for full information about this large / major piece if bicyclist legislation. This substantial bill 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, these were done expressly to conform to UVC.

HB2302 Repeal of Mandatory Sidepath Law, 1989

This highly discriminatory law was repealed due to the fine work and dedication of a group of bicyclist advocates. Here is the text of the mandatory path law that was REPEALED (chapter 269, HB2302 Bicycle Paths; roadways. 39th Legislature 1st Regular session) in 1989,

28-815C
Wherever a usable path for bicycles has been provided and adjacent to a roadway, bicycle riders shall use the path and shall not use the roadway.

Legislative notes can be found at the same document mentioned above.

HB2625 3-foot passing law from 2000

I was recently asked to provide some legislative history on Arizona’s 3-foot passing bill, which became statute §28-735. Here is more background on both the AZ law and other states’ equivalent safe passing laws. The law was passed in large part due to the efforts of Jean Gorman, whose son Brad Gorman was killed while bicycling.

• Documents for Bill HB2625
• House Veterans and Military Affairs Feb 3, 2000 Minutes (note: this did not pass through the House Transportation Committee).
• Senate Transportation Committee March 9, 2000 minutes.

These minutes don’t explain why/how the problematic 28-735C came about. This clause exempts motorists from the enhanced fines if the cyclist is struck outside of a “present and passable” bicycle lane. It is my recollection that this was added as a “floor amendment”; and would have been after the committee process was complete.

House minutes pasted:

H.B. 2625 – bicycles; traffic laws – DO PASS AMENDED

Jessimy Blasberg, Majority Intern, explained H.B. 2625 in summary (Attachment 16) and the 7-line Norris Amendment dated 2/2/00 at 3:48 p.m. (Attachment 17).

Representative Debora Norris, sponsor of H.B. 2625, spoke in support of the bill. Ms. Norris explained that this bill is very important because there are so many accidents and collisions involving bicycles. She informed that Committee that two years ago, there were 2,200 collisions in the State of Arizona involving bicycles and because there are so many avid bicyclists in our State, the intent is to bring the statistics down to zero. She explained that a Wisconsin law that has a three-foot distance between vehicles and bicyclists inspired this bill.

Representative Norris informed the Committee that this legislation puts more “teeth” into existing law and makes it easier for law enforcement to prove negligence. She explained that the fine for a collision that results in a serious injury is $500 and if death results from a collision, the fine is $1,000.

Bill Lazenby, President, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclers, spoke in support of H.B. 2625. He stated that this bill represents an important step to ensure those bicyclers rights to safety and enjoyment of the road is protected. Mr. Lazenby explained that Arizona statutes grant the bicyclers the same rights and privileges of the road as motor vehicles. Some drivers do not understand this and do not share the road and efforts to share the road have resulted in many tragic accidents in Tucson.

Mr. Lazenby explained that this bill defines an initial standard by which police throughout the state can determine whether a driver has acted negligently. Also, it has a mandate that a person obtaining a driver’s license be educated about bicycle laws. He urged the Committee to pass this bill.

Richard Netz, Treasurer, Arizona Bike Club, spoke in support of H.B. 2625. Mr. Netz stated that based on their last board meeting, he urged the Committee to pass this legislation. He echoed Mr. Lazenby’s comments and added that this bill will help drivers to understand the law.

Jean Gorman, representing herself, spoke in support of H.B. 2625. Ms. Gorman informed the Committee that her son, Brad Gorman, was killed on September 30, 1999 while bicycling on Catalina Highway in Tucson. Ms. Gorman distributed copies of fliers regarding her efforts to complete the bikeway on the highway (Attachment 18). Ms. Gorman explained that this bill is so important and she urged the Committee to pass this legislation.

Penny Taylor, representing herself, spoke in support of H.B. 2625. Ms. Taylor explained that she is an avid cyclist and some days she bikes to work. She informed the Committee that she has struggled with motorists on the road. Cars get so close and there have been many times that she has felt threatened. She pointed out that cycling is great for the clean air campaign, it is good for health and it is beneficial for our state tourism because many cyclists come to Arizona because of our wonderful weather. She echoed Representative Preble’s comments that education is the key and that drivers need to be reminded to share the road.

Representative Preble asked for clarification regarding licensed vehicles. Additionally, she inquired about education with respect to drivers license applicants. Representative Norris addressed that issue and explained that at least one question regarding bicycling laws should be on the test.

Name of person recognized by the Chair who appeared in support of H.B. 2625 but did not speak:

Eric Edwards, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police

Representative Norris moved that H.B. 2625 do pass.

Representative Norris moved that the 7-line Norris Amendment dated
2/2/00 at 3:48 p.m. (Attachment 17) be adopted. The motion carried.
Representative Norris moved that H.B. 2625 as amended do pass.
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-0 (Attachment 19).

Here are the Senate minutes pasted:

H.B. 2625 – bicycles; traffic laws – DO PASS

Representative Norris, bill sponsor, explained the bill is an attempt to make safer traffic laws for bicyclists. Currently, the law requires passing a bicyclist with due care, and H.B. 2625 allows that due care by a tangible limit of three feet. In addition, it includes a fine if there are serious injuries of $500, or a $1,000 fine if death occurs as a result of a collision.

Senator Freestone stated he agrees with the direction, but has never yet seen a fine stop a death. He said there are torts and liabilities, which is a big threat of having to pay out millions of dollars of insurance and other assets to cover it. Increasing a fine only increases the coffers of a city or town. He said enforcement tools work, such as running a red light where there are cameras. However, a fine itself as just a punishment hoping that people will not do it again does not work. He said a fine may place a hardship on someone, but it has never stopped a death.

Representative Norris explained the intention is not to make money, because they do not wish to ever have to use those fines. However, it is an attempt to bring about some consistency. A $250 fine is imposed for parking in a handicapped parking space or by driving in a high occupancy vehicle lane. At this point, if someone kills a bicyclist, a $66 ticket is issued. She indicated she took language from a bill that was heard last year that if someone ran a red light and killed someone as a result, then it is a $1,000 fine. She said it does not make sense the way it is written currently, so she changed the language to conform to the other statute. She noted Mrs. Gorman from Tucson was present to explain further.

Senator Freestone commented her point may be well taken, however, he believes instead of a fine that people really need to think about what they are doing. When someone parks in a handicapped space, they chose to park there and deprive the rightful occupant from using that space. He explained he does not believe fines are the answer in saving a life. He would prefer to see any money go into a victim’s fund, rather than a government pool.

Senator Richardson stated she respectfully disagrees, because if there is no consequence or fine there would be more violations. Although she believes it is not the entire answer to the problem, fines are one tool to get in touch with the problem.

Senator Freestone replied that is true after the fact. He pointed out when a death occurs there are other laws that rule, such as manslaughter.

Senator Ciriillo stated his problem is how to enforce it, and who will be standing by with a yardstick. He commented unless there is a witness, an argument will take place as to the exact yardage.

Representative Norris responded certainly three feet is a tangible amount, because currently the statute indicates “due care,” which is even more difficult to prove. This legislation would provide an extra tool and more power to enforce.

Senator Cirillo stated there are many laws in place as deterrents. He said he is not sure that those individuals who are careless will actually be deterred, but perhaps some will.

Jean M. Gorman, Parent from Tucson, representing herself, indicated support for H.B. 2625. She said it is difficult to testify, but feels it is very important as well. She said her son was struck and killed from behind on a road that had three lanes, one of which was a center turn lane. She said the driver had plenty of room. The bicycle path had ended, but the driver did not pay attention. She believes to have this law on the books with the measurement and fine cannot help her son, but it may help other family members. She said she would also like to hopefully change people’s attitudes, which may be through their pocketbook. She said another situation occurred recently when a driver hit and killed a jogger, where there were no bicycle paths or paved shoulders. She said she was upset to hear people say that individual had no right to be on that road. Mrs. Gorman said it is a very important bill to hopefully save some lives.

Senator Bee announced names of individuals present in support of H.B. 2625: Mark Barnes, representing himself. Lorraine Brown, Administrative Services Officer, MVD, indicated no position, but was available to speak if necessary.

Penny Allee Taylor, Government Affairs Representative, representing herself and Southwest Gas Corporation, indicated support for H.B. 2625. She said she is a member of the Arizona Bicycle Club, Arizona Coalition of Bicyclists, and races for Dominic’s Racing Team in Arizona. She is also on the Phoenix Environmental Quality Commission and a member of the Maricopa County Trip Reduction Task Force. She said perhaps many people do not know that bicyclists represent approximately the same percentage of those who are riding in buses. She said they are not as noticeable, because they ride in safe neighborhoods, and not on major arterials. This bill sends a message to the public that bicyclists would appreciate a little extra room. It would be great to have a bike lane on every road, but it is not practical at this point. However, she stated many municipalities are providing funds to increase bicycle paths throughout the State. She noted that many low-income people cannot afford cars, and use bicycles for transportation. Bike riding is a wonderful family activity, but they would like it to be safe. Athletes or racers need to be safer. Cyclist events bring in people from all over, therefore, it helps tourism in the State. The Olympic training teams participate and train in Tucson and Flagstaff. She said she takes her trip reduction credit one day of the week by riding her bike, which is a tool given to the people by the State to clean the air. By riding her bike, she reduces traffic congestion. Southwest Gas has meter readers who ride their bikes to read meters. They are in the line of duty doing their job, and safety is an important issue for them. She asked for support for this bill to be courteous to bicyclists by giving them a “little extra space” to ride their bikes.

Senator Hamilton moved H.B. 2625 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

Senator Cirillo explained his vote. He said thought has to be given to other issues, because there are certain high traffic roads where bicycles should be prohibited. Having a three foot area will not be sufficient, especially if there are larger vehicles or trucks on those roads. He supports 100 percent the building of more bicycle lanes, because that is where they should be. He said he will vote aye.

Senator Freestone expressed his deepest sympathies for Mrs. Gorman, and he will vote aye.

Senator Richardson explained her vote. She said an important issue is enforcement. Any law has the same problem in being enforced, such as in jaywalking. However, she believes this bill is very important and will vote aye.

Senator Hamilton explained his vote. He said his understanding is that the bill provides for a $500 civil penalty for collision resulting in bodily injury, and $1,000 resulting in death. He said it is also his understanding that it is $250 fine, if someone runs a red light and injures or kills another. He does not see a huge difference in the intent of the law, and he believes it is reasonable to bring this law into compliance with similar laws. For now he will vote aye, but would like to talk to the sponsor to possibly amend the bill to bring it into the same category as other traffic violations involving the same types of incidents. He said $66 currently is inappropriate.

The motion CARRIED by a roll call vote of 6-0-1 (Attachment #8).

HB2503 (unsuccessful) From 2003

The bill was HB2503 in the 46th Legislature/1st regular session. So first step is to go to azleg.govand change session, then search on HB2503. Here are the links (but I’m not sure these always work):

• Documents for bill.
• House Transportation Committee minutes for Feb 24, 2003.
• Senate Nat Resouces and Trans committee for April 1, 2003.

Here is a simple cut/paste of the Senate committe notes, I added some commentary in italics:

HB 2503 – bicycles; motor vehicle drivers – DO PASS AMENDED

Tracey Landers, Natural Resources and Transportation Committee Assistant Research Analyst, explained HB 2503 prescribes a civil penalty of $250 for a motor vehicle violating the minimum three feet safe passing distance around bicycles and allows drivers to enter a two way left turn lane to provide the minimum three foot safe passing distance to bicycles.

Ms. Landers explained the 2-line Binder amendment prohibits a bicycle from traveling at a slow speed that impedes or blocks the normal movement of traffic. (this amendment, which didn’t make it into the law would have been DISASTROUS for cyclists — it would effectively negate our right to the road. 28-704A now reads: “A person shall not drive a MOTOR vehicle at such a slow speed…”, she would have added the words: “or bicycle” after vehicle)

Senator Binder announced the individuals who registered their position on the bill in addition to Bill Lazenby, representing himself in support of the bill and Ellen Metz representing herself in support of the bill
Alberto Gutier, representing himself, testified in support of the bill and noted this is a problem of mutual respect for both bicyclists and motorists. He commented that bicyclists need to respect all the traffic laws and in return, motorists need to respect the rights of bicyclists, especially when riding in the bicycle lane.

Penny Allee Taylor, Specialist/Government Affairs, Southwest Gas, testified that Southwest Gas has six meter readers that ride bicycles. She stated that this legislation is necessary for the promotion of safety and to help decrease emissions. She asked the Committee to support the bill.

Senator Jarrett moved HB 2503 be returned with a DO PASS recommendation.

Senator Jarrett moved the two-line Binder amendment dated 3/31/03 3:51 p.m. be ADOPTED (Attachment F). The motion CARRIED by a voice vote.

Senator Jarrett moved HB 2503 be returned with an AS AMENDED, DO PASS recommendation. The motion CARRIED by a roll call vote of 4-0-3 (Attachment 13).

The House Trans committee minutes Feb 24, 2033 excerpted :

H.B. 2503, bicycles; motor vehicle drivers – DO PASS

Kevin Haynie, Majority Intern, advised that H.B. 2503 makes changes to statute pertaining to the operation of bicycles (Attachment 31) as follows:

· Provides that a person may drive a motor vehicle at a reduced speed if necessary for safe operation when bicycles are present.

· Adds bicyclist to the prohibitions that the driver of a motor vehicle cannot overtake and pass another vehicle on the right unless the pavement is unobstructed.

· Establishes civil penalties for drivers who violate the current statutory minimums of a three-foot distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle: $250 if the violation does not result in death or serious physical injury. $500 if a collision results causing serious physical injury to a bicyclist. $1,000 if a collision results in the death to a bicyclist.

· Allows drivers of motor vehicles to enter a two-way left-turn lane in order to maintain the minimum three-foot distance required by law.

Mr. Thompson advised that this issue relates to bicycle safety.

Vice-Chairman Jayne announced that he had a Request to Speak form from the following person who is in favor of House Bill 2503:

Steve Kemp, City of Peoria

Rich Rumer, President, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists, expressed support of H.B. 2503. He said this is clean-up legislation. There are instances where bicyclists in a bike lane need to make a left-hand turn, just like any other slow-moving vehicle. He said this bill is very important to all cyclists.

Mr. Nelson (that would be John B Nelson, still sitting on the house trans committee, lo these many years later) said his concern is how and when this legislation will be enforced. He said most streets are designed with 11 or 12-foot travel lanes and if there is a three-foot clearance, the average vehicle cannot move any faster than the bicyclist unless it moves into another lane. If this happens during peak driving hours, there is a real problem with this legislation. He asked who comes first, the bicyclist or the vehicle. (i think we all know where Mr. Nelson comes down on this question!)

Chairman Pierce resumed the Chair.

John Halikowski, Majority Research Analyst, advised that there are two issues in this legislation: riding as close to the curb as possible, and prescribing penalties if the bicyclist gets hit by a vehicle.

In response to Mr. Nelson, Mr. Halikowski related that bicycles and cars are subject to the same rules of the road.

Mr. Nelson asked whether this attempts to set parameters that give bicyclists more credence than cars. He thinks this puts the driver of a car at greater peril than the bicyclist. Mr. Halikowski advised that the three-foot rule currently exists in law. This only changes the penalty.

Ms. Burton Cahill asked the penalty for hitting a pedestrian. She wants to ensure that the penalties are not different for hitting a bicyclist as opposed to hitting a pedestrian. Mr. Halikowski answered that the penalty depends on what the motorist is cited for.

Mr. Lopes brought up the situation in Tucson and said this bill appears to exempt bicyclists from riding two abreast in the right-hand lane of a four-lane roadway. He advised that the Tucson Police Department has a concern about this provision and asked whether their concern is addressed in this legislation. Mr. Rumer explained that one particular person in Tucson insisted on riding side by side with another cyclist and was prosecuted for impeding traffic on purpose. He said he thinks that is a different issue than what this bill attempts to do.

Ms. Burton Cahill again expressed concern that this seems to be elevating the bicyclist over someone on foot. She asked Mr. Rumer if he would be amenable to making this a level playing field by valuing pedestrians and bicyclists equally. Mr. Rumer said he would not object to such an amendment. He said he does not think a driver or a pedestrian should be treated differently; however, pedestrians normally do not have a two-ton vehicle zooming by six inches from their left ear as cyclists do.

Ms. McClure advised that in the area where she lives, there are bicyclists riding side by side, and motorists are stuck behind them driving 20 miles (the horror!) per hour when the speed limit is 45. She said she has a problem when one bill is drafted to include all situations, and this seems to be one-sided.

Reed Kempton, representing himself, Mesa, testified in support of H.B. 2503. He advised that he has been a bicycle commuter here in the Valley for over 30 years. He said he thinks this is a good bill. It makes the road safer for everyone because it clarifies the issues. He related that it has always been law that motorists had to provide a safe distance between their vehicles and bicyclists when passing them. Two years ago, it was clarified that the distance had to be three feet, but there is no penalty for not complying. He pointed out that cyclists can already take the entire lane of a street if that lane is too narrow for a car and a bicycle to share. He asked for support of this bill.

Bill Lazenby, Vice President, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists, spoke in support of H.B. 2503. He stated that this bill clarifies existing law. The intent is not to make cyclists more valuable than pedestrians.

Chairman Pierce announced that he had Request to Speak forms from the following people who are in favor of House Bill 2503:
Gene Holmerud, representing himself, Phoenix
Randi Alcott, Rapid Transit Authority and Valley Metro
Ed Beighe, representing himself, Phoenix
Jim Walen, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists

Gene Holmerud, representing himself, Phoenix, expressed support of H.B. 2503. He said when he puts his arm out to signify that he is making a left turn, he wants extra assurance that drivers recognize his intent and that his arm will still be there. He said he finds that the closer he is to the curb, the less respect he gets from drivers. He advised that he does support the same protections for pedestrians.

Penny Allee Taylor, Southwest Gas, spoke in support of H.B. 2503. She said Southwest Gas’ interest in this legislation is because of its six meter readers who read meters using their bicycles. This legislation helps clarify the rules between the drivers of cars and the drivers of bicycles. A few years ago legislation on trip reduction was passed for companies with over 50 employees. Employees are given credits for choosing alternative transportation modes to reduce pollution, congestion, etc. She said she rides her bicycle to work one day a week to support her company’s efforts to reduce pollution. She said she would appreciate Members’ support.

Mr. Thompson moved that H.B. 2503 do pass. The motion carried with a roll call vote of 9-0-1-2 (Attachment 32).

…

What about legality, though? (roundup of laws across 50 states here)First, we will consider Arizona state law — The Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). The short answer is there is no statute prohibiting sidewalk cycling, it is therefore permitted. But the story doesn’t end there because in Arizona, local authorities are granted the authority to regulate all aspects of bicycle operation.

Arizona Revised Statutes

The longer explanation involves dissecting the rights and responsibilities of bicycle riders — §28-812 — which states that cyclists operating on the roadway or shoulder must follow the rules that apply to drivers of vehicles. Sidewalks are not part of the roadway or shoulder, see definitions in §28-601. In contrast, drivers of cars or other vehicles are expressly forbidden from driving on sidewalks, §28-904.

If this seems surprising, it also seemed that way to Arizona Supreme Court Justice Jack D. H. Hays too. Writing with reference to sidewalk cycling in the case of Maxwell v. Gossett (the whole case findings are reproduced below):

I am disturbed by the fact that the legal duties and obligations of persons on bicycles are not defined in the law. Some bicyclists ride with traffic, others ride facing traffic, and of course some ride in the crosswalk. Our statutes give no indication of what is and what is not appropriate.

This case was from 1980, and from what I can tell nothing has changed statutorially, and is still the law of the land.

I should also mention here that bicycles with wheels 16″ or smaller than 16″ — nominally a children’s “toy” bicycle , but also for example folding bicycles with small wheels — are not legally defined as bicycles at all, see definitions §28-101.

Localities

But we’re not done yet! ARS specifically grants the power to local authorities to regulate the operation of bicycles in §28-627 . This means that cities can, and most do, place regulations on the use of sidewalks by cyclists. Since there are dozens of independent cities, I can’t look at each of them but Phoenix is typical. Phoenix’s code is available here, see Chapter 36, Article IX. Highlights are that the direction of travel is not mentioned, cyclists must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian, and that the city may ban cycling by means of erecting signs. Tempe’s code adds that bicycles must be operated “with traffic” — an unsual (but firmly grounded in safety) restriction, sec. 7-52(c).

Here’s a few more; Flagstaff is allowed unless posted, basically just like Phoenix (for references, see here, and scroll down to sidewalk). Prescott, the city of Prescott, is banned. Conversely, in Prescott Valley, it is allowed unless posted, see here for references to both PV and city of Prescott ordinances.

Conclusion

There is no Arizona state law regulating sidewalk cycling, but cities can and do have their own set of restrictions and requirement. Furthermore, the case of Maxwell v. Gossett reaches the somewhat surprising conclusion that cyclists riding in crosswalks (i.e. the continuation of riding on the sidewalk) have much the same right-of-way as pedestrians.

Crosswalk Addendum

By way of some more background on the legality of cycling in crosswalks; an analysis prepared by the Tuscon City Attorney’s office in 1998 found that (my emphasis) “…it is apparent that under the present state of law in Arizona a bicyclist is not prohibited from riding on or across a crosswalk…”. This analysis, as would be expected, relies heavily on Maxwell.

Some recent (2010) activity by Tuscon-area law enforcement resulted in this white-paper ARS 28-815(A) – The Most Incorrectly Used Citation: Riding a Bicycle in a Crosswalk IS Permissive and Lawful in Arizona, by attorney Eric Post.

The jurisprudence regarding cycling in crosswalks is all going the same way, you can read these full published cases on google scholar. These cases are all construing similar laws, and of course, Maxwell had direct bearing in Arizona since it is an Arizona Supreme Court ruling. All conclude something to the effect of “…bicycle riders and users of other human-powered conveyances legally in the crosswalk were entitled to the same rights as pedestrians”.

• Nish v. Schaefer, 2006 WY 85; 138 P.3d 1134; — Wyo.  Supreme Court 2006
• Pudmaroff v. Allen, 89 Wn. App. 928;  951 P.2d 335; — Wash. Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 1998
• Luellman v. Ambroz, 2 Neb.App. 855; 516 NW 2d 627 – Neb: Court of Appeals 1994
• Schallenberger v. Rudd,  244 Kan. 230; 767 P. 2d 841 – Kan: Supreme Court 1989
• Maxwell v. Gossett, 126 Ariz. 98; 612 P. 2d 1061 – Ariz: Supreme Court 1980 (also reproduced below)
• Crawford v. Miller, 566 P. 2d 1264 – Wash: Court of Appeals, 1st Div. 1977. This case is cited by Maxwell, and importantly says that “A crosswalk is not a roadway…” for the purposes of the cyclist applicability statute.

UVC

The UVC (Uniform Vehicle Code — a model set of laws) certainly clears up the confusion, but remember, this has never been adopted in Arizona:

UVC § 11-1209(c), Bicycles and human powered vehicles on sidewalks

A person propelling a vehicle by human power upon and along a sidewalk, or across a roadway upon and along a crosswalk, shall have all the rights and duties applicable to a pedestrian under the same circumstances.

Some states, e.g. Florida, have adopted this sort of law… would that be good? That’s a good question… In the meantime I would just be happy to see police actually learn and enforce the law as it exists. Instead they typically fault the wrong party, and even wrongly cite the bicyclist for phony violations.

Maxwell v. Gossett, 126 Ariz. 98

612 P.2d 1061, 1062

Charles J. MAXWELL, next of friend of Jeffrey Jon Maxwell, Appellee,

v.

Celia Sharon GOSSETT and Thomas G. Gossett, husband and wife, Appellants.

No. 14676

Supreme Court of Arizona, In Division.

June 2, 1980.

Action was brought for injuries sustained by ten-year-old bicyclist in intersection collision with defendants’ automobile. The Superior Court of Maricopa County, Cause No. C-351976, Rufus C. Coulter, J., instructed the jury on contibutory negligence by a child, but refused defendants’ instructions concerning alleged violation of traffic laws. Defendants appealed from an award of damages for the injuries to the bicyclist. The Supreme Court, Cameron, J., held that the trial court properly refused to give defendents’ requested instructions.

Affirmed.

Hays, J., concurred specially and filed statement

1. There was no causal connection between possibility that ten-year-old boy may have been riding bicycle on wrong side of street and collision with automobile which occurred while he was in crosswalk at intersection; thus, trial court, in action for injuries sustained in the accident, did not err on refusing to instruct jury as to statute requiring that bicycles be ridden on right side of street, since it was immaterial to whether he was negligent while riding his bicycle in crosswalk. A.R.S. § 28-815
2. Safety zone statutes had no application to facts in action for injuries sustained by ten-year-old bicyclist when struck by car while riding in crosswalk. A.R.S. §§ 28­101, subd. 40, 28-602, subds. 2, 2(a, b), 28­831.
3. Statute which applies same traffic laws to bicyclists as to drivers of motor vehicles does not prohibit riding of bicycle in cross-walk. A.R.S. §§ 28-602, subd. 2, 28-812, 28-831.
4. Issue whether ten-year-old boy was negligent in riding bicycle in crosswalk was question of general contributory negligence for which jury was properly instructed, not negligence based on violation of statute which applies same traffic laws to riders of bicycles as it does to drivers of motor vehi-cles. A.R.S. § 28-812.

Burch, Cracchiolo, Levie, Guyer & Weyl, P. A. by Barry A. MacBan, Daniel P. Jantsch, Thomas G. Bakker, Phoenix, for appellee.Hoffman, Salcito & Stevens, P. A. by Gene C. Stevens, James W. Evans, James W. Fritz, Phoenix, for appellants.

CAMERON, Justice.This is an appeal by the defendants from an award of $15,250 for injuries to Jeffrey Jon Maxwell, a minor, as a result of an intersection accident. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 19(e), Rules of Civil Ap-pellate Procedure, 17A A.R.S.Defendants contend on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to give instructions relating to various statutory duties and responsibilities of one who operates a bicycle on the public streets.The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. The intersection of 8th Avenue and Alma School Road is located in Mesa, Arizona. 8th Avenue runs east and west, and Alma School Road runs north and south. At the northwest corner of the intersection is a U-Totem convenience market, and to the east of the intersection, on the south side of 8th Avenue, is the Ida Redbird School.From the northwest corner, where the U-Totem Market is located, to the northeast corner, is a clearly marked crosswalk. On the morning of 1 February 1977, ten year old Jeffrey Maxwell was on his way to the Ida Redbird School. He stopped for candy at the U-Totem Market, put the candy in his pocket, and proceeded to ride his bicycle from the northwest corner to the northeast corner, in the marked crosswalk. At about the same time, the defendant, Mrs. Gossett, was proceeding west on 8th Avenue intending to make a right (north) turn onto Alma School Road, at the same intersection. The traffic light was green, and she made her right turn, ran into Jeffrey, and he was injured.The court instructed the jury on contributory negligence by a child of Jeffrey’s age, but refused defendants’ instructions concerning alleged violation of the Arizona traffic laws. Defendants’ offered instructions were as follows:

“R.A.J.I. Negligence 7- Violation of Statute
“If you find that any party to this suit violated any of the following laws, then that party is negligent. You should then determine whether that negligence was a cause of the Plaintiff’s injury.

Ҥ 28-812, A.R.S., Traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles
“Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted an of the rights and shall be subject to all the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article, and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

Ҥ 28-101, A.R.S., Definitions
“In this title, unless the context otherwise requires:
“40. ‘Safety-zone’ means the area or space officially set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected or is so marked or indicated by adequate signs as to be plainly visible at all times while set apart as a safety zone.

Ҥ 28-831, A.R.S., Driving through safety zone prohibited
“No vehicle shall at any time be driven through or within a safety zone.

Ҥ 28-815 A., A.R.S., Riding on roadways and bicycle paths; prohibition of motor vehicle traffic on bike paths
“Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction.”

We will consider the failure to instruct as to each of the statutes cited by defendant.

A.R.S. § 28-815(A)

[1] This statute requires that bicycles must be ridden on the right side of the road or with the traffic. Jeffrey was riding his bicycle in the crosswalk at the intersection. Whether he had been operating the bicycle on the left side, contrary to the statute, before he entered the crosswalk, whether he intended to continue operating his bicycle on the roadway, contrary to statute, after he left the crosswalk, or even whether he intended to ride his bicycle on the. available sidewalk on the north side of 8th Avenue, is immaterial as to whether he was negligent while riding his bicycle in the crosswalk. We agree with the New Mexico Court of Appeals which stated in a similar case:

“The accident occurred at the intersection of Chelwood, a north-south street, and Menaul, an east-west street. The trial court found that decedent was proceeding in a southerly direction on Chelwood at the time of the accident. The Wylie vehicle was traveling in an easterly direction on Menaul. Even if we accept defendants’ contention that decedent was operating his bicycle on the left side of Chelwood in violation of the statutes alluded to, we must uphold the trial court’s finding of absence of contributory negligence.

* * * * * *

” * * * Here the evidence sustains an inference that the collision would not have been avoided even if the decedent had been obeying the statutory mandates relating to traffic flow. The violation of the statutes, if any, did not even cause or contribute to the accident in fact. * *” Wilson v. Wylie, 86 N.M. 9, 12, 518 P.2d 1213, 1216 (1973).

Causation is still a part of the law of negli-gence, Pacht v. Morris, 107 Ariz. 392, 489 P.2d 29 (1971), and we find no causal con-nection between the fact that Jeffrey may have been riding on the left hand side of the street before he stopped at the U-Totem Market and the accident which occurred while he was in the crosswalk at the inter-section.

“In this state, it is reversible error to give an instruction on a legal theory as to which there is not substantial evidence, (citations omitted) and it is equally re-versible error not to give an instruction on a legal theory within the issues of the case which is supported by substantial evidence.” Newman v. Piazza, 6 Ariz. App. 396, 398, 433 P.2d 47, 49 (1967).

The instruction, if given, would have been error.

A.R.S. § 28-831

[2] This statute states “no vehicle shall at any time be driven through or within a safety zone.” By definition, a safety zone is set apart for the exclusive use of pedes-trians, A.R.S. § 28-101(40), and, assuming a bicycle is a vehicle for the purposes of the statute, it would have been equally violative of the statute for either Jeffrey or Mrs. Gossett to drive or ride their vehicles in such a safety zone. Weare not concerned in the instant case with a safety zone, however. Jeffrey was not crossing the street in a safety zone. He was crossing the street in a crosswalk as defined by A.R.S. § 28-602(2)(a) and (b), and the safety zone stat-utes have no applicability to the facts in this matter. We find no error.

A.R.S. § 28-812

[3,4] Finally, defendants contend that by this statute, A.R.S. § 28-812, the automobile traffic laws apply to persons riding bicycles, and that, when read with A.R.S. § 28-831 defining safety zones and A.R.S. § 28-602(2) which defines crosswalks, it is unlawful to ride a bicycle in a crosswalk. We agree that this section generally applies the same traffic laws to riders of bicycles as it does to drivers of motor vehicles. The statute excludes, however, provisions “which by their nature have no application.” We do not read the cited statutes as prohibiting the riding of a bicycle in a crosswalk.

We are aware that teachers and concerned parents regularly instruct their children to dismount and walk their bicycles through the crosswalks or major intersections, and that their children, just as regularly, ignore this sound advice. However, this is a question of general contributory negligence for which the jury was properly instructed. It was not negligence based upon a violation of the statute. We find no error.

We note also that some courts have held that a crosswalk is not a part of the roadway for the purposes of the statute. In a case wherein a minor was hit by an automobile as she was riding her bicycle in an intersection, the Washington Court of Appeals, construing a Washington statute almost identical to ours, has stated:

” * * * Miller contends that at the time of the accident, Kelley Ann was a bicyclist subject to the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Code, RCW 46.61.755; the Crawfords contend that she was a pedestrian. RCW 46.04.400. The instruction directed the jury to determine which law applied. RCW 46.61.755 reads as follows:

Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in RCW 46.61.750 through 46.61.780 and except as to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature can have no application.

“This statute does not apply because it governs the rider of a bike in a ‘roadway,’ which is defined as ‘the paved, improved, or proper driving portion of a public highway designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.’ RCW 46.04.500. A cross walk is not a roadway.” Crawford v Mil1er, 18 Wash.App. 151, 152-53, 566. P.2d 1264, 1265-66 (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

STRUCKMEYER, C. J., concurs.

HAYS, Justice, specially concurring:

I concur in the result. However, I am disturbed by the fact that the legal duties and obligations of persons on bicycles are not defined in the law. Some bicyclists ride with traffic, others ride facing traffic, and of course some ride in the crosswalk. Our statutes give no indication of what is and what is not appropriate. I think this is a matter for the legislature and I hope that they will take the time to determine what should be the rights and the obligations of those who use bicycles in today’s heavy traffic.

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. Here is the relevant law, (I intentionally clipped the part about the cyclist’s speed, which is briefly treated later).

§28-815. Riding on roadways… A. A person riding a bicycle…shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except… 4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.

So this law creates a duty in part A for cyclists, but there are enumerated exceptions to this duty, the 4th one being the subject of this article.

We are reminded that from time to time, cyclists are targeted by law enforcement for “taking the lane”. This sometimes takes the form of mis-guided paternalism — “you should always ride to the extreme right so you don’t get hit”. It also can take a an uglier tone of faux-paternalism, really just a thinly-veiled automobile-superiority attitude, the sub-text being “cyclists must always get out of the way of cars”.

And disappointingly sometimes cyclists are found guilty (actually “responsible” is the correct term, I am told) by compliant lower courts.

Happily, Arizona cyclists can point to not one but two relatively recent Superior Court decisions which reversed on appeal these wrongful convictions.

The first case, Arizona V. Goren, occurred in Tempe (Maricopa County). In the second case the rider was riding two abreast, but that isn’t relevant to the case; Arizona V. Piscopo, Pima County (see more generally at Two Abreastness. Also see the case at TBL, the blog of the lawyer who represented Piscopo).

I would encourage everyone to read both of these decisions because they are brief, well-written, and illustrative.

How narrow is narrow?

This can be a gray area; it is not (directly) specified in the law. In Goren, Officer Robinson maintained that 12’10″ (his measurement) was more than ample. He was, however, not aware of the concept of usable space; and thus incorrectly counted the gutter as lane width. In the end, the court accepted that the defendant’s measurement approximately 11′ usable width was both accurate and clearly narrow. Much the same conclusion was reached in Piscopo: “credibility was not at issue and the salient evidence — the dimensions at play — appear undisputed”, the dimension according to the defendant were “no more than 11 feet wide”.

Both cases counted on using the minimum 3′ passing distance specified in §28-735 as an entitlement to the cyclist when determining narrowness. (see Three-Foot Laws for more generally about this law including other states who have a passing-distance law)

From an engineering perspective, the authoritative AAHSTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999 says minimum 14′ usable width for side-by-side sharing:

In general, 4.2 m (14 feet) of usable lane width is the recommended width for shared use in a wide curb lane…(the gutter pan should not be included as usable width).

You can play with the dimensions, e.g. if you allow a minimum of 1 foot both to the left of the (8′) motor vehicle, and the right of the (2′) cyclist, plus mandated 3′ between the cyclist and motor vehicle — you come up with something akin to the 14′ mentioned by AAHSTO. Many vehicles are less than 8′, but not by much — and don’t forget to include the mirror width which is commonly not included in specifications. Traffic engineer and cyclist Richard Moeur has created an elegant schematic drawing divvying up the 14′ here. (and see some comments below from Wayne Pein on the dimensions). More similar diagrams from humantransport.org.

Also see How Wide should a Wide Curb Lane Be?, by Wayne Pein, which provides a literature review, and takes into account other factors such as wind blast and the effect of speed limits and expected truck traffic.

Also see reference to 28-1093, max width of vehicle body allowed on Arizona roadways, linked in comment to is-this-a-bike-lane.

The Issue of Speed

Neither of the aforementioned cases dealt with whether or not the cyclists were “at less than the normal speed of traffic”. In a nutshell: some courts (but none in Arizona, that i know of) have held that normal means normal for a bicycle. See e.g. State V Patrick , which references the Selz decision; both out of Ohio.

But what about Impeding?

This was not at issue in either of these cases, for some more general discussion of impeding see Bicycles are not Motor Vehicles and Why it Matters.

The Pima County Sheriff’s Office

There is a memo from Lt. K. Woolridge date March 5, 2009 which states the (Pima) county attoney’s position particularly with respect to riding two-abreast. Further inquiries are directed to Seargent Copfer.

Thinking of Representing Yourself?

There are a number of guides for pro se / pro per appellants on the Arizona Supreme Court website.

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.

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.