The Flagstaff Chronicles

Chronological by date of incident

07/20/2009 TR-2009006000  1) SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC 28-704A
03/26/2010 Trial: found responsible
04/21/2010 Motion to reconsider, CV-201000162: upheld (i.e. he “lost” the appeal)

Comments: this trial is FULLY documented here.
This is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute.
The judge and deputy said some/many bad things.
Since this ticket was issued by a Coco Sheriff’s deputy, neither the Flag PD nor the City Attorney’s office was involved in any way. The only link, other than that it occured in Flag, is the Flag Municipal court.

12/19/2009 NAIPTA bus/bike incident
02/11/2010 Story airs on Phoenix news. Story published in azdailysun
03/17/2010 City Attorney’s officer directs police and two citations are issued against the bus driver: speeding and 28-735
05/11/2010 City Attorney motions to dismiss both citations, and they are. No trial is ever held

Comments: this story is FULLY documented here.
There was much bad and disappointing behavior in this story — NONE of it attributable to the cyclist.

06/10/2010 TR-2010004702 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E
07/15/2010 Trial held: all charges dismissed

Comments: Note the “Speed less than resonable”, 28-701E is inapplicable to bicyclists.
Full details here including the absurd police report here.

09/30/2010 TR-2010007979 BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
10/28/2010 Trial held: dismissed.

Comments: don’t know the details.

10/03/2010 CR-2010003369 1) CRIMINAL DAMAGEDEFACE 13-1602; 2) NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY 28-724B; 3)BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
–/–/—- No trial yet.

Comments: i only know sketchy details — the cyclist “had words” (and horns, i expect) with a motorist. Sometime later a crash (minor, as i understand) occured between the motorist and cyclist. The police arrive and arrest the cyclist for criminal damage, along with the other two citations. No word on whether or not the motorist was arrested also.
“Criminal Damage” is a relatively serious crime.

10/05/2010 CR-2010003432 1) CRIM LITTER/POLLUTING-DROP 13-1603; 2) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
07/28/2011(?) Trial held: guilty both counts

Comment: Criminal Obstruction AND Littering? Really? I have no further info on this.

02/03/2011 Minutes of the Flagstaff BAC Meeting

Comments: You have to read them to believe them; I can only find the current meeting minutes online, so i have pasted them as a comment to this blog article.

02/07/2011 TR-2011000991 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A
03/10/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible

Comments: I don’t know anything about this one.
i’m thinking this MAY be the one involving a “drop lane” next to a bike lane, that transitioned to a right-turn-only lane. If so I think the ticket is technically justified; but the officer showed bad judgement in issuing it in the first place — i.e. cyclist’s speed was high (big downhill), the alleged impeding was 100 feet; there was no other, other than the police vehicle, traffic. see picture.

02/07/2011 TR-2011000921 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E; 3) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/03/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible, 2) acquitted, 3) acquitted

Comments: cyclist will probably appeal the 815A. I mention, again, that 701E cannot apply to bicyclists. And most importantly, the cyclist was aquitted of the criminal obstructing charge. The prosecutor espouses a clear motorist-superiority point of view., see comment below. Note that this incident was immediately after the incident, above.

The police report is available. The criminal obstruction charge should never have been brought. According to the report, traffic in the lane that the cyclist was supposedly impeding was traveling approx 20mph (the posted limit being 30), while “it should be noted that (the cyclist) appeared to be riding casually and not actively peddling”. Maybe. 20mph. In any event the judge tossed out that bogus charge. The criminal obstruction statute is for those with “no legal privilege”; cyclists in transport clearly have a legal privilege to use the roads. The police officer certainly should have known that. The prosecutor obviously should know that. Yet there was a full-blown criminal trial. What a huge waste of city resources.

The only potentially legitimate charge here was the 815A. There was no question that the cyclist entered the number 1 (i.e. “left”) lane legally, as traffic was stopped in the number 2 (i.e. the right, or curb lane) lane. The only issue remaining was whether or not the cyclist could have returned to lane number 1 sooner.

02/25/2011 CR-2011000581 OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/31/2011 Trial held: guilty

Comments: Cyclist is beginning appeal. See comments below for excerpts from trial transcript.

03/31/2011 CR-2011000936 OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
06/30/2011 trial(?): guilty

Comments: don’t know any detail. cyclist is beginning appeal.

1/12(?)/2012 Warning; something to the effect of “you can’t ride in the street”

This is getting too tiring to try and document. Here’s a picture of old snow/ice/crud obstruction on Butler Ave. I am unsure as to whether or not this is a designated bike lane; it doesn’t really matter (except perhaps for the bad local ordinances rescinded 12/2011, but still(?) in effect. These are some seriously bad and ridiculous laws:

SECTION 9-05-001-0016 LEAVING LANE:
Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a
bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that
such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle,
walking the same…

1/20/2012 TR-xxxxxxxxxx 1) USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED  2) 28-730 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY

Comments: Charge #1 has apparently a section of the local ordinance that has been repealed (city council vote Dec 20, 2011), but is still in effect. This is an egregiously discrimatory rule against bicyclists. The second charge, 28-730, is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute.

APPENDIX – Reference to statutes that cyclists have been accused of

SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
statute: §28-701E
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists

SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC
statute: §28-704A
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists

BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT OF ROADWAY
statute: §28-815A
Comment: Except the 2/7/2011 incident, all charges of this have involved cyclist in a clearly narrow lane; in other words, exeception 4 should have been applied.

NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY
statute: (probably) §28-724B
Comment: n/a

FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
statute: §28-730
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists

OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE
statute: §13-2906
Comment: Criminal code. Can only apply to someone who has “no legal privilege” to be on the roadway.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE DEFACE
statute: §13-1602
Comment: I am speechless.

CRIM LITTER/POLLUTING-DROP
statute: §13-1603
Comment: Littering? really?

DISORDERLY CONDUCT
statute: §13-2904
Comment: This came up only once, with the bike-bus incident. Very disturbing police behavior. watch the video, and judge for yourself.

USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED
ordinance: Section  9-05-001-0005. paragraph D “Wherever one or more lanes of a roadway have been designated and marked as bicycle lanes, bicycle riders shall use those lanes and shall not use the roadway”. Another section 9-05-001-0016 states that  ”Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a  bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same…”. Is this a joke? I’m afraid not. According to the city of Flagstaff, if there’s an obstruction in a bike lane, you must, stop, dismount, and walk around it. Really.

On Dec 20, 2011, Flagstaff city council gave final approval (but effective date is unclear) to a major revision of the bicycle ordinance that removes most or all of the truely objectionable/discriminatory junk that lurked in their local ordinances for decades, since 1973!

Some cyclists just won’t stay in the gutter

[Breaking news: there is an even newer victory over the city of Flagstaff's harassment of cyclists legally using the roads: on Oct 29, the cyclist prevailed AGAIN in court... I will be writing up another article covering that in more detail soon. So at trial, the court dismissed 1 count 815A, TR-2010007979; and the 2 further 815A counts were dismissed on a motion from the prosecutor, TR-2010007976. Though i may have the case number mixed up because 2010004702, an 815A and 701E is also dismissed]

Flagstaff cyclist Justin Pryzby is at it again — not riding in the gutter.

Heading home from work on June 9, 2010, westbound on East Route 66 in the vicinity of Switzer Canyon Drive [google maps], he was pulled over by Flagstaff police officer. His offense? “RIDING HIS BICYCLE IN LANE NUMBER TWO OF THE ROAD WAY WHERE A BICYCLE LANE WAS PROVIDED”, according to the strangely detailed police report of the incident (the quotations from the report are for some reason in all caps, underlining added by me).

Is this a bike lane?

Officer is obviously fixated on the bike lane, and writes of it often “THE SUBJECT THEN WENT BACK INTO THE BICYCLE LANE AND I ACTIVATED MY EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND SIREN”….”THERE WAS A BICYCLE LANE THAT WAS PROVIDED”…”THERE WERE NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS… THAT WOULD MAKE JUSTIN HAVE TO EXIT OR GET OUT OF THE BIKE LANE”

Here is a picture of a REAL bike lane

Officer charged the cyclist with two violations: §28-701E, and §28-815A.

The only trouble with Officer’s story is, there is no bike lane there. I confirmed this with City of Flagstaff multi-modal coordinator Martin Ince by telephone, and also with the State of Arizona (this happens to be a state highway) Department of Transportation Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator Michael Sanders.  It is self-evident  that this is not a bicycle lane.  It is not marked with bike lane signage (e.g. R3-17), or ground markings. What about the lane, that is Lane number 2? It’s something under 11 feet — clearly narrow, see Take the lane. As far as I know, no one disputes the dimensions.

A real bike lane would have an R3-17 sign

I have written before on the problems and confusion these edge-stripes-that-are-not-bike-lane-stripes cause — and this is that in spades, see e.g. Is this a bike lane?

The other charge, 28-701E, is inapplicable to bicyclists because it applies specifically to motor vehicles. See in Bicycles are not motor vehicles, and why it matters

The Trial

The first sign that something was out of the ordinary was the city exercising its option to be represented by counsel, somewhat (how much?) unusual for a civil traffic matter.

In any event the trial was held in Flagstaff Municipal Court, docket #M-9341-TR-2919994702  before Charlotte Beyal, Magistrate Pro Tempore. The city was represented by Assistant City Prosecutor Consuelo “Celo” Brennan. The cyclist represented himself.

The trial apparently went well. That is to say the judge understood and accepted the defendant’s position both that the lane was narrow and was therefore not responsible for 28-815A because of exemption 4, and that the other charge could not apply to a bicycle. Not responsible on both counts.

The Trouble with Flagstaff PD

Is it poor training? Or is this officer just out to get bicyclists who dare to exercise their right to the road? Or is it something more — is it an institutional bias?

Flagstaff recently was rewarded by LAB with a Silver Bicycle Friendly Communities designation. Enforcement is supposed to figure into that, and they got a “star” in that category. Not from what I’ve been seeing over the past 8 months or so.

I started a new tag: flagstaff-anomolies as there seems to a pattern of law enforcement and justice system problems in Flagstaff. In the wake of the NAIPTA-bus-bike fiasco,  “…the police department issued a department-wide training bulletin requiring all officers to review all bicycle laws, (deputy chief) Treadway said”. Sounds impressive? But who knows what sort of training they actually did?

Lawsuit filed: Flagstaff cyclist killed in collision with city truck

NAU student Joshua Pete was killed in a collision with a city-owned truck.

“both traveling westbound on Butler Avenue at the time of the collision, with Pete in the marked bike lane, police said. The investigation so far indicates that the truck and the bicyclist collided at about 11:15 a.m [11/16/2009] as the truck was making a right turn into the driveway. Pete became entangled in the truck’s wheel housing and was dragged some distance before the vehicle came to a stop in the driveway” AZ Daily Sun article.

Prosecutor completed their investigation, and there will be no criminal charges  [azdailysun]

AZ Cyclist Fatality Grid

I am not sure of the final outcome, but from reading the crash report, it sounds as though police concluded that the cyclist attempted to overtake the truck (as opposed to the other way around), and therefore there will be no citations to the truck driver (though see below: Citation?) — and in any event i did not have the detailed / independent DPS report, just the City’s report.

Lawsuit filed

A $4M wrongful death lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the family of Joshua Pete. [azdailysun]. The family’s lawyer refers to a supplemental DPS report which contains information they claim makes the truck driver at least partially responsible for the crash “DPS Detective Curt Getting concluded that a ‘contributing factor to the collision would be the wide/late right turn into the plant by the truck driver. The cyclist could have perceived the truck was continuing straight ahead.’ ”

The 5 page DPS referred to is apparently only summarized in Flagstaff PD’s 80 page report.

This is apparently the case number: S-0300-CV-201000619  AMOS H PETE  PLAINTIFF Coconino County Superior.

In what is likely to be the final outcome,  azdailysun.com is reporting on June 7, 2011 the suit will be settled by the City paying $500,000 to the cyclist’s family, pending council approval. “The settlement, which will be covered by the city’s insurance carrier, does not address who was at fault at the time of the collision”, interesting comment — I’m not sure why anyone would care who’s fault it is, at this point probably just a legalese thing; and anyways Arizona is pure comparative (percentages. For example $500,000 is ~ 6% of $8M).

Citation?

There is a citation for “UNSAFE TURN OR NO TURN SIGNAL” floating around: M-0341-TR-2010004034, filed 5/23/2010. Then some sort of motion on 6/16, and then comments were added on 6/28 — but as of this writing (on 8/2/2010) there is no disposition, it is just blank…. which is because the case got transferred from muni court to Flagstaff justice court, the defendant has plead not guilty, and the case has been continued and no trial date is set. The case number is J-0301-TR-2010005648.

Final outcome finally on 12/13/2010:  JDGMT GUILTY/RESP SENT SUSPEND

An Historic Citation

This is an update to an earlier story involving cyclist Randy Mason and the driver of a Flagstaff city transit bus.

In Bicyclist 2 Bus Driver 0 Daily Sun article, the city attorney is recommending BOTH citations (speeding and §28-735) be issued. This is official recognition of the law is a huge win for cyclist safety.

Though the city attorney went on to completely flip-flop on the citations, requesting and receiving a dismissal, I wanted to highlight some of the significant developments Read the rest of this entry »

The City of Flagstaff Hates Bicyclists

Speeding Flagstaff City bus skims by cyclist

[Really Breaking news: 3/18/2010 see new article on azbikelaw.org ]

[Breaking news; Thursday Feb 11, 2010 was media day, and this story is getting huge exposure. Today a short piece ran on channel 12 news out of Phoenix, and a longer detailed piece ran in the Arizona Daily Sun, Cyclist, city attorney in lane dispute. As of now the city attorney's office is saying "Staff at the city attorney's office has yet to make a final determination whether the state's 3-foot statute applies when a cyclist is in a bike lane" (but see below, "the Last Word") -- hint, read the law (link below), it's only like 3 sentences long. How long does a review take? the incident occurred almost two months ago.  Also a 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.]

The City of Flagstaff (Police Department, and/or the City Attorney’s Office) has a new spin on not enforcing §28-735. They claim it doesn’t apply when cyclists are riding in a bike lane. (but see below, “the Last Word”) 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.