Tag Archives: flagstaff anomolies

Flagstaff Bike / Ped Crash Report

The City of Flagstaff has put together crash data DRAFT Working Paper 4 Pedestrian and bicycle crash data. This report released in Oct 2015 geographically covers Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) region — so the city of Flagstaff and surrounding area —  for the 10-year period from 2005 to 2014. It is well documented and uses the ADOT Safety Data Mart exclusively. As such, it doesn’t add any additional data of the sort that was added by the City of Phoenix’s collision summary. E.g. The City of Phoenix summary breaks down the cyclist’s position (accurately, by reading each crash report narrative) to reveal 70% of cyclists involving in collisions were on the sidewalk just prior to the collision (either at a crosswalk, or driveway). Continue reading Flagstaff Bike / Ped Crash Report

News article: Sharing the road: FPD launches bike safety campaign.

photo: Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sharing-the-road-fpd-launches-bike-safety-campaign/article_e925b5ee-2439-55c8-a275-fc127578ed53.html
photo: Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun — yes, this bicyclist is literally riding IN the gutter.

[ Grrr,  Dec 2015 article Despite safety campaign, Flagstaff bike collision stats unchanged (referring to this report) the Sun ran same offensive picture again, with similar misleading safety/law advice ]

8/2/2015 News article: Sharing the road: FPD launches bike safety campaign. About 75% of this article is OK. And the good news is Flagstaff is setting up a bicyclist diversion program. I would normally consider this an unalloyed good thing, however some that other 25% gives me reason for concern about what might be taught at such classes. Continue reading News article: Sharing the road: FPD launches bike safety campaign.

NAU student cyclist killed in hit-and-run

9/9/2012 Hit and run incident. Witnesses say driver was excessive speed in a residential neighborhood, near the intersection of Walapai and Mohawk Drives, in Flagstaff. “22-year-old Kelsey Lou Cody of Flagstaff was arrested on charges of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of a fatal accident”… police say alcohol was a factor. victim: Jordan A. Murphy-Mahoney, 21 years old. azdailysun.com story Continue reading NAU student cyclist killed in hit-and-run

Bike Facilities Maps

Maricopa County / Phoenix area

I had a hard time finding this, so here it is: It’s on the page of the MAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, and note that the MAG region includes not only Maricopa, but also portions of Pinal and Gila counties. There is a pretty neet online version that overlays google maps, or an old-school .pdf download (it’s pretty big).

Alternately, Maricopa County DOT (“McDOT”) has an active transportation plan along with an interactive map that is built from the same database as above, but in this version, users can leave comments about specific areas of concern for bicycling / walking.

There is also a printed City of Tempe published map I’ve seen floating around; not sure if it’s online.

On the MAG interactive map, designated bike lanes are clearly labled (they’re ‘blue’); and are distinct from other sorts of not-bike lanes, e.g. bike routes.

Pima County / Tucson area

There are two i know of; perhaps/presumably based on the same data. One is published apparently by the Pima County Dept of Transportation. Currently linked here at the Pima county bicycle and Pedestrian Program. There are several links there, e.g. current link to page1 Tucson area.

This map suffers from far too much ‘red’ which the key says:

Bike Route with Striped Shoulder, Bus/Bike Lanes
On major street, with white-edge line, approx. 4 ft. to 10 ft.
wide paved shoulder, with speed limits of 25 mph or more.
Includes Bus/Bike Lanes on major streets, 10-12 ft. bus and right-turn lane, shared use with bicycles.

Virtually every major road throughout the region is ‘red’. Are these designated bike lanes, or not? (a bike lane is part of the roadway, a shoulder is not). What is frustrating is the answer seems to depend on when (it seems to evolve over time) and who asks the question, and who is answering.

There is a second map, covering the same territory, at pagregion.org. and current link to .pdf. Here we see virtually all major streets (the same streets, by the way) are ‘blue’ which the key says are “Bike Lane”.  Really? Are these really all designated bike lanes? Are they wide enough to be bike lanes? E.g. The Dodge Bridge is in ‘blue’.

Flagstaff

City of Flagstaff bike map page. (.pdf) Major streets are all marked in ‘purple’ , which the key says is

Bike Lane or Shoulder: An outside lane of four to five feet in width for the exclusive use of bicycles, separated from vehicular lanes by a white stripe. This definition include bike lanes designated by signing and pavement markings, as well as paved shoulders delineated by a stripe, but not pavement markings or signing.

So there’s no way to tell from the map what is a Bike Lane and what is a shoulder. Nice. And by the way, Flagstaff,  shoulders are not lanes.

As far as i can tell, there’s not really a Coconino county bikeways map.

Summary

MAG (Maricopa) Bikeways map is honest. The maps for Tuscon, Pima, PAGregion, and Flagstaff are at best non-informative and at worst dishonest.

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 occurred 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 (same date as next one?) TR-2010007979 BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
10/28/2010 Trial held: dismissed.

Comments: don’t know the details.


9/30/2010 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;
Trial was held.

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. The charges seem to have been filed by police simply on the say-so of the motorist.

At trial, the cyclist was found guilty of Criminal Damage, and responsible for the 28-815A, not responsible for 28-724.

Appeal CV2012-00145 Superior Court Judge  Mark Moran’s Order: The finding of responsible for 28-815A is left standing, the criminal charge is vacated  “The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence presented in the record to sustain the Defendant’s criminal conviction for a violation of A.R.S. §13-1602(A)(1), criminal damage. Court finds as a matter of law that the State failed to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the Defendant possessed the necessary mens rea for the crime of criminal damage… The Court vacates the finding of guilt on the charge of criminal damage” (emphasis in original).

 


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-2012000553 1) (local charge) 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), and appears to have taken effect no later than 1/19/2012 (30 days after the council approved it). This is an egregiously discrimatory rule against bicyclists.
The second charge, 28-730, is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute. Sigh.


photo: Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sharing-the-road-fpd-launches-bike-safety-campaign/article_e925b5ee-2439-55c8-a275-fc127578ed53.html
photo: Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun

8/2/2015 News article: Sharing the road: FPD launches bike safety campaign. Yes, the photo accompanying the article depicts a bicyclist riding literally IN the gutter.

Oh, and the same photo (not that i blame them for being lazy) ran again Dec 2015 article Despite safety campaign, Flagstaff bike collision stats unchanged


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. Continue reading Some cyclists just won’t stay in the gutter

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 Continue reading An Historic Citation

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”) Continue reading The City of Flagstaff Hates Bicyclists

Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan

[update sometime in 2012(? in any event, well after this ticket and trial) the deputy who wrote this citation was relieved of duty with the CCSO, he apparently had some truthfullness and other job-performance issues]

A Flagstaff cyclist 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. Continue reading Judge to cyclist: ride in the gutter pan