6 responses to “The Flagstaff Chronicles”

• 

  azbikelaw June 14th, 2011 at 13:51

  Below is an excerpt from the City of Flagstaff BAC Draft Meeting minutes from Feb 3, 2011 meeting (my emphasis added, and explanatory addition made in square brackets[]):
  1. Enforcement of Traffic Laws for Bicyclists — A cyclist reported that he has received six citations to date for violations of ARS 28-815(a), which requires bicyclists to ride to the right unless one of several exceptions are met. He said that some of the citations have been dismissed by the court. Several of the citations have been along the same stretch of road (Route 66 near Switzer Canyon Drive), and several have been issued by the same officer. He said there is a dichotomy between the law and how the law is enforced, and asked the Committee to consider an education program for law enforcement personnel.
  There was a brief discussion about ARS 28-815(a), including a discussion about court cases and federal guidelines for when taking the lane is warranted because it is too narrow to travel side-by-side with motor vehicles.
  The Committee asked the cyclist about whether he rode in the shoulder that was striped for bikes along both sides of Route 66, and whether he used the FUTS [a bi-directional, seperated sidepath, multi-use trail] trail along the south side. The cylist responded that the shoulder appears to be too narrow to meet minimum standards, and that an ADOT report [see this comment] found numerous crashes with motor vehicles along the path.
  The Committee discussed circumstances when a cyclist might be better served not take the lane, including on high-speed, high-volume roadways, and when it serves to antagonize motorists.
  …
  Ken Lane, Chair ;Jan Blackman; Dave Blanchard; Richard Hall; Kevin Parkes; Jodi Norris (absent)
  The following City staff was present: Martin Ince, Multi-Modal Planner (928) 226-4850 David Needham, Police Department

• 

  azbikelaw June 14th, 2011 at 14:01

  Excerpts from case TR-2011000921 transcript:
  The prosecutor is under clear delusions of motorist-superiority complex…

  The transcripts are riddled with such statements by the City Attorney (Mr. Brown), e.g. this about a lane which was stipulated by both sides to be 10 to 11 feet wide:
  Mr. Brown: …the State’s position would be why is in the center of the two lane instead of on the far right side as the law requires? (page 56)

  The ramifications of these rhetorical questions in closing is mind blowing to Mr. Brown!
  Mr. Brown: I mean, if Milton Road, which is by the Officer’s estimation 10 to 11 feet, is not wide enough, based upon, again, (the cyclist’s) estimation, then is there and keep in mind, that is one of the major thoroughfares through town with — the marked lanes, four — two lanes in every direction from the center turn lane — what roadway in town is going to be sufficient width in his estimation? State submits there might not be one. In which case, if we follow that a line of questioning, what’s to stop (a cyclist) from riding in the middle (of a) lane on any (indiscernible) in town whatsoever?

  The 701E charge; halleluja:
  MR. BROWN: For Count B, 28-701E, (indiscernible) read the statute, State would have to agree that that statute seems to apply strictly to motor vehicles, since it’s not a moped or anything like that, it’s strictly a bicycle, the statue would not be applicable to this — event. (p.39)
  What about the case months ago in June 2010 where the city attorney prosecuted and lost on the same statute, didn’t they read the statute then?

  This odd claim by the city attorney that the cyclist should have used the crosswalk to change lanes:
  MR. BROWN: Ok, let’s say you are the first or second vehicle if you’re — a bike at the intersection. The light’s red. Traffic’s stopped in this direction. Traffic’s moving this direction. What would be to stop you from coming across this way, going in the crosswalk and (indiscernible) curb right there. And there — would be no obstruction at that point.
  THE COURT: Would that be a sate maneuver? What if it turned green while you were doing that and then cars didn’t see you, went into you?… (p. 57)

  Officer Sanchez’s direct testimony:
  “Arizona State Law requires that if you’re on a pedicycle and there’s no bicycle lane, there’s only a shoulder lane, then you are to ride to the furthest right side of the roadway not obscuring traffic” (i.e. he is unaware or denies that 10 to 11 feet is too narrow to share).
  He also testified that the area was posted for a minimum 30mph speed (obviously incorrect — he meant, and he was given the opportunity to correct himself, that the posted maxiumum speed limit was 30.) he referes repeatedly to the a right and required speed: “You (the cyclist) weren’t allowing traffic to travel the right speed, the required speed”

• 

  azbikelaw June 14th, 2011 at 16:51

  Why does the Flagstaff City Attorney’s office take such an unusual amount of interest in these cases? It is exceedingly rare for a City Attorney to litigate a civil traffic ticket — yet they have. Again and Again. Why? See rule 12.
  Why won’t the City Attorney allow reference material to be introduced into evidence? E.g. Arizona Street Smarts? (this is published by ADOT for cryin’ out loud). See Rule 17.

  Excerpted Arizona Rules of Procedure in Civil Traffic Violation Cases:
  “Rule 12 . Representation by the State The State need not be represented by counsel…”

  “Rule 17. Rules of Evidence and Burden of Proof (a) The Arizona Rules of Evidence SHALL NOT APPLY in civil traffic cases. Evidence may be admitted subject to a determination that the evidence has some probative value to a fact at issue.”

• 

  azbikelaw August 18th, 2011 at 19:57

  From CR-2011000581 trial transcript:

  Witness Walter Link, an ADOT engineer quotes authoritatively and accurately from memory from the AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilites:
  “ASSHTO (sic) provides for a curbed urban area, a requirement — a minimum requirement of five feet from the — center of the edge stripe to the face of the curb. Of that five feet, three feet 3 has to be a ride-able, relatively reasonably smooth surface”

  However, disappointingly, he could not answer this question put forward by the defendant:
  Q: …do you happen to remember the ASSHTO guidelines for minable — minimum shareable lane widths…?
  A: I can’t — I do not recall that specific minimum shared width

  It’s pretty simple. The answer is 14 feet. He elsewhere testified the lane there is only 11 feet.

  much was made of the supposedly 3′ of consistent shoulder; however Link said “I believe there is less than three foot of asphalt shoulder available.” (in some areas).

  And so we get to the crux of the matter, from Mr. Brown’s closing argument (p. 66) “the three foot wide asphalt shoulder and can you see — actually it’s a bike path separate from the roadway on the south side of the roadway”…. if only the cyclist would use the shoulder, or the seperated sidepath!
  “…And then we see (the cyclist), by his own admission, smack dead center in the lane with this car — with this truck here behind him probably not knowing what to do in the circumstance” Imagine! not knowing what to do?

  In Flagstaff Muni Court Magistrate Sandra Wagner’s ruling we see that the seperated side path weighs HEAVILY:
  “There was evidence that there was a bike path on the south side of that road where you could have safely ridden, operated your bicycle”…”And you continued on with that dangerous behavior, endangering not only yourself but other people on that roadway that have — that could have been involved in accidents by trying to avoid hitting you. If there’s no bike path, that would be one thing, but even then you should have been off when the speed limit is so much faster than what you were able to ride… There was a bike a path and for all of those reasons, that is why I did find that you are guilty.” (of criminal obstruction of a public highway).

  Can you say: legislating from the bench? (the mandatory bike path law was repealed some 22 years ago).
  ….
  It would seem as though this is analogous to the Reed Bates case in TX… JF writes:
  As for the Bates affair, Bates was prosecuted for operating within the law but outside what Texans, including, especially Texan police and prosecutors, thought that the law should require of cyclists. Being prevented by judges from prosecuting Bates for violating the FTR law, those persons prosecuted him for reckless driving, and won. However, there was no evidence at all that Bates was driving recklessly. Indeed, the only evidence presented was that from persons who were hindered, by Bates’s action, from their pursuit of driving recklessly.
  Here’s a thread on BicycleDriving (login required), pointing out some CA case law involving motorist negligence when striking bicyclists using the right-hand lane on a 4 lane roadway: Fraser v. Stellinger, 52 Cal.App.2d 564 [126 P.2d 653] Summarized in another case, Stickel v. Durfee as follows: “The truck driver testified that he was then “traveling in about the middle of the slow lane.” That was the extreme outside lane where the plaintiff was riding his bicycle near the outer edge. The truck driver, traveling 35 or 40 miles per hour, clearly intended to pass the bicycle. He therefore belonged in the adjacent fast traffic lane. If the truck had been in the unobstructed lane where it belonged the accident could not have happened.”

  (August 2011) Eli Damon harassment lawsuit in federal court, story. copy of the lawsuit.

• 

  ChipSeal August 19th, 2011 at 06:20

  Once again, a statutorily lawful act has been ruled a criminal act. All hail the mighty motor-car and the culture of speed!

• 

  John S. Allen August 25th, 2011 at 14:51

  Too bad the judge didn’t read this. It’s been cited before on this blog.

  http://www.richardcmoeur.com/pres/b40flag.ppt