Nighttime cyclist fatality Grand Ave in Phoenix

6/25/2015 Strike from behind in the roadway, Grand Ave in the area of 37th Ave.  Dark. No rear reflector or light.

Victim Gregory R. Stout, 46/M.

I was informed of this incident by an email, and never found any media on it.

Other random oddities: this road is part of the state highway system (its US Route 60) and as such doesn’t “belong” to the City of Phoenix. Phoenix PD did investigate (as opposed to DPS) not sure exactly how that all works.

Crash Report

This is ADOT incident=3019899  Phoenix Incident number  15001205185; the ACR is available.

Both units southeast, going straight ahead in LANE3. There was another bicyclist (the victim’s brother) riding to the right of the victim.

The bicyclist was faulted for KNOWINGLY OPERATED WITH FAULTY MISSING EQUIPMENT, due to lack of a reflector. That all seems consistent; there was one troubling/incorrect statement in the narrative. Here is what the road looks like Grand Ave in the area of 37th Ave. The lanes there are plainly too narrow, as detailed in exception #4 of 28-815A. When 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”  bicyclists are not required to ride as far right as practicable 28-815, therefore the statement below (emphasis added) is incorrect. This would not change fault assessment, due to the violation of nighttime lighting requirements, but it’s important for police to actually understand the law, this investigator doesn’t, here’s the narrative:

Unit one (bicycle) was riding southeast approximately five feet from the raised curb in the #3 (curb lane) of Grand Avenue when it was struck by unit two (passenger car) which was also traveling southeast in the curb lane. One of the listed witnesses (…) was also riding a bicycle southeast in the #3 lane but behind unit one and riding next to the curb. The witness was not struck by unit two. The investigation revealed unit one was not equipped with a red reflector to the rear as required by law (ARS 28-817A) and unit one was not riding as close as practicable to the curb as required by law (ARS 28-815A).

Det. G Gibbs #6490

The City of Glendale has taken the bold and commendable step to educate their entire police force — how about Phoenix? How about at a minimum educating the handful of investigators of serious/fatal crashes so they don’t carry around these misconceptions?


FARS, which is case 40417. Motorist overtaking / undetected. I don’t see anything within PBCAT data fields that would indicate there was a lighting issue (bicyclist didn’t have a rear reflector) which seems strange. Does PBCAT really not have that data field somewhere?



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *