ArizonaBikeLaw

Difficulty of proving Neg Hom

This is why prosecutors don’t like to bring neg homicide charges against drivers who are not impaired. A San Antonio jury found the driver not guilty:

Gilbert John Sullaway Jr., 43, could have faced up to 10 years in prison if found guilty of criminally negligent homicide for the Oct. 1, 2009, deaths of Gregory and Alexandra Bruehler.

The married couple were sharing a tandem bicycle on a wide, paved shoulder of Texas 16 when they were struck by the defendant’s pickup.

— mysanantonio.com

Although there was some wrangling about the driver’s speed and actions just prior to the collision, but the general facts of the case were clear-cut —

a driver left the roadway at speed and rear-ended a pair of cyclists (on a tandem), killing them. There were no visibility limitations; (it was daylight, straight ahead, no sun glare; cyclists were wearing “brightly colored” jerseys… “There’s no explanation as to why he never saw two brightly dressed people riding an 8-foot-long bicycle, Assistant District Attorney Lorina Rummel said”).

The defense, as would be expected, used the there-but-for-the-grace-of-god-go-i argument (But Sullaway’s mistakes that day could have been made by anyone in the courtroom, the defense countered. “Have you ever drifted? Have you ever looked off the roadway?” Mark Stevens asked jurors. “That’s what people do. It doesn’t mean they’re criminals when they do it.”).

—

For the curious; in Arizona, the neg hom statute ,§13-1102, says the accused must be shown to be criminally negligent

” ‘Criminal negligence’ means… that a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk…
of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a
reasonable person would observe in the situation.

—

More AZ photo enforcement politics

Much to the chagrin of the small group of individuals who run the Arizona legislature; it’s been discovered that ADOT (yes, the ARIZONA dept of trans) has routinely been allowing cities to install and use photo enforcement along state highways that run through their jurisdictions. ADOT appears to be following a common sense approach to allowing them: “ADOT has generally given cities and towns permission to install photo-enforcement cameras on state rights of way where the municipality takes the lead on enforcing traffic laws and responding to emergencies”. We can look forward to polictical pressure on ADOT to deny all requests.

In 2010, the (Arizona State) DPS (Dept of Public Safety — i.e. the state police) in what was presumably a politically-motivated decision by Brewer’s appointee, ended all use of cameras along state freeways.

We can look forward to this group of legislators, once again (click here for a roundup of last session’s half-dozen bills), spending an inordnate amount of legislative energy into preventing cities and towns from enforcing traffic laws. Their claim is they actually support enforcement; they just prefer it be done live and in person. This is, of course, disengenous — they know that the costs involved in putting additional sworn officers out on the street is horrendously high, and oh by the way, they (the legislature) don’t have any money to help do so. Continue reading “More AZ photo enforcement politics”

Arizona Road Deaths Increase — 2011 data

ADOT recently released 2011 Crash Facts.

In summary: The overall traffic death toll bounced up after several years of significant declines. The number of fatalities is up 9% year-over-year, despite a 3% decrease in the number of crashes.

Year over year: ped injuries and fatalites were nearly flat; bicyclist injuries were also nearly identical. There were 23 cyclists killed in 2011 (versus 19 in 2010)

Here’s a news piece: azcentral.com/news/articles/20120816arizona-road-deaths-increase It has a graph of fatals per 100million VMT which appears to be drawn wrong; for example line chart shows Arizona’s virtually on top of the overall-US figure for 2009, and 2010 but that’s not correct; although in recent years Arizona has been closing the gap, it remains markedly higher than overall-US:

2009: 1.14 vs. 1.31

2010: 1.11 vs. 1.27

It’s a pretty small graph but it’s clearly not right — the Arizona Line is drawn incorrectly for those two years.

Another driver jumps curb in Phoenx; sends ped to the hospital

Seriously? Seriously how often does this happen? — apparently with alarming regularity. In June a man was killed as he stepped foot outside the front door of a Sun City CVS by an out-of-control driver. Rene Karlin was killed last August while jogging in her Ahwatukee neighborhood when a driver jumped the curb. Drivers routinely mount the curb nearby my neighborhood after losing control and knocking down walls. Randy and Doris Bjerken were both killed walking on a Scottsdale sidewalk in May of last year as an SUV jumps the curb and wipes them out. In November of 2010, gifted plastic-surgeon and “top-doc” Richard Parvese was killed while walking on the sidewalk near his home in Paradise Valley…. I could go on. This is just a roundup of a handful of egregious incidents from the past year or two, and just the ones i know about; I’m sure there are many more, just around the Phoenix area.

From AZcentral 8/12/2012:

A 32-year-old man was hospitalized Sunday [8/12/2012] morning after being struck by an impaired driver. David Kerhoulas, 25, was booked into the Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail for Aggravated Assault and Endangerment, about 10:20 a.m., Sunday. Sgt. Trent Crump, a spokesman for the Phoenix Police Department, said Kerhoulas hit a man after driving over a curb and onto a sidewalk, near the 11000 block of North 7th Street, at about 7 a.m. He also nearly hit another pedestrian, Crump said. It is unknown how the driver was impaired. “The actual drug will be determined by blood or alcohol testing which can take some time,” Crump said. The investigation is ongoing.

Do all Crashes “Count”?

sigh. File this under seriously how often does this happen, and ‘are cars dangerous’?

A man steps out the front door of his local CVS and gets mowed down on the sidewalk. Dead. One of the news reports said police believe the un-named female driver mixed up the gas and brake pedals. oops.

69-year-old man hit, killed by car in Sun City CVS parking lot

by Jane Lednovich – Jun. 27, 2012 10:07 AM The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team

A 69-year-old man was pronounced dead after he was struck by a car Wednesday morning in Sun City, a Sheriff’s Office official said.
The four-door sedan was making a U-turn in the parking lot of a CVS pharmacy near 107th Avenue and Bell Road about 8 a.m., authorities said.
The car drove onto the curb in front of the store and ran over the man, pinning him under the front wheel of the car, Maricopa County Sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Brandon Jones said.
The sedan hit a parked car after striking the man, Jones said. Firefighters used airbags to lift the sedan and get the man out, but paramedics were unable to revive him, Jones said.
Witnesses told authorities the man was unresponsive while he was trapped under the car. It is unclear how long he was trapped. The CVS store is closed while officials investigate the scene, Jones said.

yourwestvalley.com has a picture showing the silver car that struck the ped at rest on the sidewalk; along with a red car that was also struck.

SUN CITY, AZ (CBS5) – A man has been killed after he was hit by a car while walking out a CVS pharmacy in Sun City, according to authorities. Sgt. Brandon Jones with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said preliminary reports are that a woman driving a tan vehicle was heading eastbound in the parking lot Wednesday morning when she decided to make a U-Turn and accidentally hit the gas instead of the brakes, causing the car to accelerate. The vehicle ran over a 69-year-old man and hit a red car parked in the lot. Jones said officers found the man trapped under the tan vehicle about 20 feet from the front doors of the CVS. Once the man was pulled from under the vehicle, he was pronounced dead. The driver of the red car was not hurt. Jones said the driver of the tan vehicle has not been charged at this point. Investigators said they do not believe alcohol or drugs were a factor.

Reporting Motor Vehicle crashes

There are a bunch of rules about when traffic crashes must be reported. This bears on how collision and injuries get measured and reported for statistical purposes.

Arizona Statutes

There are statutes that spell out, at a minimum, what all law enforcement agencies in Arizona must report on, reports must be filed with “the Department” (i.e. ADOT). ADOT then collates and tablulates this data — see adot-traffic-collision-database. Somehow or other ADOT forwards this the feds for national statistical purposes, for example, in the case of fatalities see FARS.

ARS §28-667 Written accident report; definition says that any “law enforcement officer or public employee who, in the regular course of duty, investigates a motor vehicle accident resulting in bodily injury, death or damage to the property of any person in excess of one thousand dollars or the issuance of a citation shall complete a written report of the accident” (667A) and that the agency employing the officer “Shall immediately forward a copy of the report to the department of transportation for its use” (667C5). Continue reading “Do all Crashes “Count”?”

ADOT Traffic Collision Database

ACIS — Arizona Crash Information System; was ASDM?

It turns out (who knew?) that ADOT sells their crash database for a nominal sum. I purchased the 2010 version, the latest full-year available (2011 is supposed to be ready in July). This data is either similar to (or synonymous with) something referred to as the Arizona (or ADOT?) Safety Data Mart — thus the acronym asdm sprinkled throughout. Continue reading “ADOT Traffic Collision Database”

Arizona Agency NCIC Numbers

This info will be only of interest for those working with the ADOT Data Safety Mart database.

There are a couple of places on the ACR form for NCIC numbers. That stands for National Crime Information Center; and the actual number in question apparently is called an Originating Agency Identifier (ORI) and it’s keeper is the FBI. Below I will refer to this number only as the “NCIC number”.

I found it surprisingly difficult to find a list. The only place I found it was in a 12 year old(!) AZ Crash Manual (“Manual of Instructions for use with State of Arizona Traffic Accident Report Forms” published by ADOT dated December 2000), so the info regarding Agency name should be suspect.

It is plain to see that some of it is easily verifyable and correlates to any of the “big” cities/jurisdictions: Phoenix PD is 0723, DPS is 0799, Tucson PD is 1003, etc. Beyond a couple of dozen, though, things get pretty sketchy.

Of more interest is the meaning of the distinction between data fields ExtendedNcic, and OfficerNcic — the field on the ACR is marked simply NCIC No. (Block 1e), which i imagine maps to ExtendedNcic; however I can’t find a block on the ACR that might correspond to OfficerNcic. They are usually, but by no means always, the same. There’s another thing called Officer ID No., Block 1f, but that maps to OfficerID in table incident.

This info is also in my famous catch-all spreadsheet adsm.xls; and will undoubtedly either turn into enumerations, or probably its own table.

Arizona NCIC Numbers

National Crime Information Center number is a code that uniquely identifies each law enforcement agency. Numbers are assigned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (See pages 66 through 68 [of the year 2000 version of AZ Crash Manual] for a complete list of Arizona NCIC Numbers.)
ExtendedNcic, OfficerNcic’s value/count data from ADOT safety data mart year 2010. Agency name list from pages 66 -68 of the year 2000 version of AZ Crash Manual

ExtendedNcic		OfficerNcic		From 2000 AZ Crash Manual
value	count	value	count	agency name	value
100	474	100	40	Apache County S.O.	100
101	28	101	28	Eagar	101
103	18	103	18	St. Johns	103
105	12	105	10	Springerville	105
				Whitemountain Apache Res. (Apache)	162
		189	73	Navajo Reservation (Apache)	189
200	693	200	224	Cochise County S.O.	200
201	89	201	55	Benson	201
203	4	203	1	Bisbee	203
205	41	205	37	Douglas	205
207	7	207	8	Huachuca City	207
209	756	209	763	Sierra Vista	209
211	1			Tombstone	211
213	39	213	32	Willcox	213
300	1539	300	223	Coconino County S.O.	300
301	1909	301	1762	Flagstaff	301
		302	1	Hualapai Reservation (Coconino)	302
		303	6	Fredonia	303
307	97	307	43	Williams	307
308	21	308	21	Page	308
310	195	310	197	Sedona	310
				Hopi Reservation (Coconino)	365
		389	34	Navajo Reservation (Coconino)	389
				Northern Arizona University	397
400	484	400	134	Gila County S.O.	400
401	172	401	178	Globe	401
403	2	403	1	Hayden	403
405	13	405	13	Miami	405
406	142	406	139	Payson	406
407	1	489	4	Winkelman	407
				Whitemountain Apache Res. (Gila)	465
				San Carlos Reservation (Gila)	489
500	124	500	38	Graham County S.O.	500
501	3			Pima	501
503	105	503	95	Safford	503
505	45	505	49	Thatcher	505
				San Carlos Reservation (Graham)	562
600	60	600	13	Greenlee County S.O.	600
601	6	601	3	Clifton	601
603	4			Duncan	603
700	5242	700	3036	Maricopa County S.O.	700
701	1044	701	890	Avondale	701
703	405	703	256	Buckeye	703
704	56			Cave Creek	704
705	3516	705	3007	Chandler	705
707	321	707	311	El Mirage	707
709	20			Gila Bend	709
711	2378	711	2250	Gilbert	711
713	4822	713	4492	Glendale	713
715	939	715	635	Goodyear	715
				Ft. McDowell Reservation	716
717	6130	717	4744	Mesa	717
719	193	719	131	Paradise Valley	719
721	2237	721	1855	Peoria	721
723	29065	723	21442	Phoenix	723
725	3529	725	3329	Scottsdale	725
727	1027	727	904	Surprise	727
729	6659	729	4084	Tempe	729
731	366	731	237	Tolleson	731
733	93	733	89	Wickenburg	733
735	13			Youngtown	735
739	300			Guadalupe	739
		744	3
753	41
755	116
756	97			Fountain Hills	756
760	15			Carefree	760
				Gila Bend Reservation	762
				Tohono O’Odham Res. (Maricopa)	763
				Gila River reservation (Maricopa)	764
		789	1	Salt River Reservation	789
				Arizona State University	797
		799	25587	Dept. of Public Safety	799
800	1140	800	326	Mohave County S.O.	800
801	537	801	478	Kingman	801
804	629	804	632	Hualapai Reservation (Mohave)	802
805	683	805	684	Lake Havasu City	804
806	18	806	18	Bullhead City	805
				Colorado City	806
				Kaibab-Paiute Reservation	860
		862	3	Ft.Mohave Reservation	862
900	647	900	141	Navajo County S.O.	900
901	60	901	41	Holbrook	901
		902	19	Hopi Reservation (Navajo)	902
903	164	903	167	Show Low	903
905	64	905	81	Snowflake	905
907	19			Taylor	907
909	134	909	117	Winslow	909
913	118	913	124	Pinetop/Lakeside	913
		962	72	Navajo Reservation (Navajo)	962
		989	2	Whitemountain Apache Res. (Navajo)	989
1000	4424	1000	3324	Pima County S.O.	1000
1001	70	1001	69	South Tucson	1001
1003	9718	1003	9058	Tucson	1003
1004	192	1004	157	Sahuarita / Green Valley (both same code??)	1004
1007	454	1007	462	Oro Valley	1007
1009	916	1009	679	Marana	1009
				San Xavier Reservation	1062
		1089	220	Tohono O’Odham Res. (Pima)	1089
		1097	117	University of Arizona	1097
1100	1779	1100	703	Pinal County S.O.	1100
1101	853	1101	796	Casa Grande	1101
1103	172	1103	179	Coolidge	1103
1105	149	1105	97	Eloy	1105
1107	81	1107	111	Florence	1107
1109	5	1109	4	Kearney	1109
1111	4	1111	4	Mammoth	1111
1112	2	1112	1	Superior	1112
1113	417	1113	377	Apache Junction	1113
1117	215	1117	211
		1164	7	Tohono O’Odham Res. (Pinal)	1164
				Maricopa Reservation	1165
		1189	345	Gila River Reservation (Pinal)	1189
				Central Arizona College	1197
1200	294	1200	75	Santa Cruz County S.O.	1200
1201	342	1201	313	Nogales	1201
				Patagonia	1203
1300	1378	1300	283	Yavapai County S.O.	1300
1301	1	1301	1	Clarkdale	1301
1303	244	1303	237	Cottonwood	1303
1305	6	1305	5	Jerome	1305
1307	760	1307	749	Prescott	1307
1311	539	1311	536	Prescott Valley	1311
1312	87	1312	87	Chino Valley	1312
1313	92	1313	72	Camp Verde	1313
		1314	1
1358	11
				Hualapai Reservation (Yavapai)	1363
1400	716	1400	484	Yuma County S.O.	1400
1403	26	1403	31	Somerton	1403
1405	1891	1405	1849	Yuma	1405
1407	7			Wellton	1407
1408	137	1408	139	San Luis	1408
		1410	5
		1497	1	Arizona Western College	1497
1500	330	1500	32	La Paz County S.O.	1500
1501	33	1501	31	Parker	1501
1503	35	1503	18	Quartzite	1503
				Colorado River Reservation	1506
Sums →	106301		106301

Below are listed Federal Parks and Monuments, and US Military – it is not clear how, or even if, these codes (from 2000) map to the Adot data, which is all numeric; and perhaps doesn’t even cover “federal” investigations?
				Canyon De Chelly National Monument	I007
				Casa Grande Ruins National Monument	I012
				Chiricauha National Monument	I013
				Glen Canyon National Monument	I003
				Montezuma Castle National Monument	I014
				Navajo National Monument	I009
				Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument	I015
				Petrified Forest National Park	I004
				Saguaro National Monument	I005
				Sunset Crater National Monument	I010
				Tonto National Monument	I016
				Tumacacori National Monument	I017
				Tuzigoot National Monument	I018
				Walnut Canyon National Monument	I019
				Wupatki National Monument	I011
				Davis Monthan AFB	F001
				Ft. Huachuca Army Base	USA0
				Luke AFB	F003
				Yuma Proving Grounds Army Base SA02	SA02

Most at Fault vs. NCIC

Most at Fault is defined in the Arizona Crash Form Manual

Traffic Unit #1 is the vehicle, pedestrian, pedalcycle that caused the collision or was most at fault.

Police determine or decide who is most at fault, by assigning #1 to that person/operator when filling out the Arizona Crash Report; note that there is no defined way to indicate that investigators find it impossible to determine fault; there must be a unit #1.

(The stats quoted can be found in this comment below)
It can be illuminating to study who, the bicyclist or the motorist, was most at fault (MaF) in a Bike-MV collision. All things being equal, we would expect a 50:50 split, because in the vast majority of collisions there is one bicycle operator, and one MV operator.

The MaF data is available in the yearly collision database from ADOT, a.k.a. the ASDM; the vehicle/person/bicyclist listed as Unit #1 is always the MaF, in the determination of the investigating officer.

Reassuringly, overall the MaF rates are indeed fairly close to 50:50 — for example, the seven year period 2009-2015 the split was 51:49, indicating bicyclists were every so slightly more likely to be found at fault that the driver they collided with. Deviations from this nominal rate might indicate something is amiss; perhaps bicyclists in one community are more likely to break the law, or perhaps police are misinterpreting laws in someone’s favor…

The NCICs associated with the city of Phoenix has a particularly high bicyclist MaF rate: e.g. 68% in 2010 — compare this to, e.g. Scottsdale where it was only 48%. I find it pretty unlikely that bicyclists in Phoenix behave significantly different than Scottsdale; though without looking at a lot of ACRs it’s not possible to tell. On the other hand, 2010 seems to have been anomalously high that year, 2011 and 2012 were 61 and 60%, respectively; so perhaps just a data glitch. On the other hand Tempe, at 68% in 2012, and seems persistantly somewhat high. Yuma, a small city, had a persistently very high bicyclist MaF rate, as high as 80%!, this may be changing after the local ordiance restricted & clarified sidewalk use rules in 2015.

Here are some queries; note that similar results are used using either OfficerNcic as ExtendedNcic. The first is very fancy, computing the percentages and everything!

SELECT sum(atfault)/count(1), Name, sum(atfault), count(1) FROM LOVNcic, (SELECT ExtendedNcic, u.eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST' atfault FROM 2012_incident i, 2012_unit u WHERE i.IncidentID=u.IncidentID AND EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u2 WHERE u2.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u2.eUnitType='PEDALCYCLIST') AND UnitNumber=1) x WHERE ID=ExtendedNcic GROUP BY ExtendedNcic HAVING count(1)>20 ORDER BY 1;

Here is how to select the total number of bike crashes by ncic, and then the number of those where bicyclist is MaF

SELECT ExtendedNcic,count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN ('PEDALCYCLIST')) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1 ASC;
SELECT ExtendedNcic,count(1) FROM 2012_incident i WHERE EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM 2012_unit u WHERE u.IncidentID=i.IncidentID AND u.eUnitType IN ('PEDALCYCLIST') AND u.UnitNumber=1 ) GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 1 ASC;

…

[civil suit finally settled] Rumsey guilty of manslaughter

[ UPDATE May 2012: Final awards in Jose Rincon’s civil lawsuit after a trip to appellate court; azstarnet.com (though their links seem to regularly go dead). Note that the original award of $13 was the LARGEST judgement ever against the city:

…Chuy’s settled before the February 2010 civil trial for an undisclosed sum. During the trial, jurors were told that a city engineer had abandoned plans to add five feet of asphalt to the roadway during an improvement project, creating a large offset in the lanes on either side of Vozack Lane, just east of Harrison. As a result, Rumsey ended up in the bike lane when her lane ended and she tried to merge.

The jury decided Rumsey, the city of Tucson and Chuy’s were equally responsible and awarded $40 million to the Rincon family. The city’s $13 million share was the largest individual judgment ever against the city. The city appealed, and Pima County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Lee denied the motion for a new trial but granted the defendants’ request for a reduced judgment, slashing the judgment to $12 million.

The city then went to the Arizona Court of Appeals, and it decided in March 2011 that the case should be retried. The Rincons settled with both Rumsey and the city recently.

The settlement with Rumsey is confidential; the settlement with the city specifically states the city was making “no admission of liability, culpability or fault, either by expression or implication.” …. Back when Lee reduced the $40 million judgment, Rincon said he and his wife had agreed to settle the lawsuit for $950,000 before trial, but the city refused. He bemoaned the fact that because the public didn’t know the city hadn’t accepted the settlement offer, residents were under the impression he and his wife were “money-grubbers.”…

The city’s appeal is online at justia.com RINCON v. RUMSEY, CITY OF TUCSON, contains some interesting stuff. (it should also be online via court-of-appeals div 2 website, but i haven’t looked for it there). Note that the superior-court appeal upheld the trial judge; while the court of appeals found the trial court judge (and thus the superior court appeals judge) erred.

]

Glenda Rumsey was found guilty of manslaughter in the death of Tucson teenager Jose Rincon. (see here for a roundup of types of murder). Like many drunk drivers, she also tried to run. Continue reading “[civil suit finally settled] Rumsey guilty of manslaughter”

So you’ve killed somebody with your car, now what?

Motor-vehicle collisions remain the leading cause of death in the US for a broad swath of ages. Notably, you are more far more likely to be killed by a driver than you are to be the victim of murder. A minority of traffic fatalities which involve impaired (mostly alcohol, and a few drug impairments) are treated as serious homicides (something like 30%) however the majority elicit no more than a traffic ticket.

The numbers for serious injury are analogous; e.g. you are far more likely to be injured by a driver than by a mugging or forcible assault, or fall or whatever.

So, suppose you’ve killed or seriously injured somebody with your car, now what? The remainder of this article will focus on the only civil sanctions, and minor criminal offenses — in other words, there is no impairment either suspected or otherwise. It also excludes the possibility of hit-and-run; you didn’t do that, did you?

Arizona has no specific vehicular homicide (or vehicular assault) law, see here for some background.

You will, or perhaps may receive some special treatment in the following ways:

Defensive Driving (DDP) school, a.k.a. diversion, which dismisses the citation is not an option,
Traffic Survival School (TSS) is required if found or plea responsible,
You MAY be required to appear in court, even if you plea.
You MAY be subject to an enhanced fine if you plea or are found responsible for a particular infraction.
Police have a longer time to cite you in crashes involving serious injury or death

Continue reading “So you’ve killed somebody with your car, now what?”

Oft-delayed Foshee Trial to begin

[Link to all case minutes for CR2009154132; Direct link to case on Maricopa Co Superior Court ]

[ The old format, the one linked thru caselookup, no longer works and throws a 500/internal server error. e.g: www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/scripts/meeds/qreturn.asp?casenumber=CR2009154132 ]

[SENTENCING finally actually happened 4/18/2012; the matter is finally (hopefully) put to rest. According to my correspondent, Foshee received 10.5 years for manslaughter 6 years each on the endangerment, 22.5 years, but to be served concurrently so 10 1/2 years, TOTAL, which is the presumptive sentence for manslaughter all by itself, a dangerous class 2 felony (see 28-704). Off-hand, not knowing all details and back-story — this seems too light given the hit-and-run, the other aggravating circumstances, the prior DUI conviction, and the (I presume) rejection of a plea deal. In short, it seems to me the justice system is sending many wrong signals here, for example it appears that, once again, there is no penalty whatsoever for hitting-and-running. You can read the sentencing case minute here. ]

[Updates from case minutes 3/28/2012: The motion for a new trial has been DENIED. And separately, on the Defendant’s Motion, the defendant has been found to be indigent. I assume this has something to do with lawyer’s fees. Sentencing remains scheduled for 4/6/2012]

[Sentencing Update; 3/23/2012 — to the surprise of probably no one, sentencing did not occur as scheduled. The defense has filed a motion for new trial (here is the case minute, but it doesn’t explain anything), the prosecution has until 3/23 to respond. The sentencing has be re-scheduled for 4/6/2012]

[breaking news update: 2/14/2012 — guilty on all counts / and all counts are “dangerous”; the jury in a seperate phase found the charge to be aggravated (will make sentencing, scheduled for March 23, harsher). Man guilty of manslaughter in bicyclist’s death, Jim Walsh. Here is the verdict case minute, it is quite detailed ]

The manslaughter trial stemming from an incident where a cyclist was killed in August of 2009 is actually going to trial 1/30/2012 after many delays — yes, that was almost two and half years ago!

My correspondent told me that jury selection did begin on Monday.

According to police, issued to the media, at the time:

A WB driver crossed over into the EB lane and collided head-on and killed Russell Jenkins
“The rider… had a working headlight on his bike”
“The surviving cyclists … reported that Foshee had a strong odor of alcohol”
“The driver fled the scene, but the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Traffic Unit later arrested Gary Foshe [Foshee], 53”
“two deputies reported that Foshee had a strong odor of alcohol and several signs of intoxication”

The defendant’s prior DUI conviction, as well as his blood test results are likely to be key factors. On the other hand, the issue of the victim’s posthumous blood test results is, from what i can tell, irrelevant because it did not affect the crash in any way.

[UPDATE added August 2014; i was unaware that the AZ supreme court publicaccess lookup does NOT include any Maricopa County Justice Courts. Searching justice courts turns up more brushes with the law; though the outcomes aren’t searchable (you would have to call the court), including a criminal traffic violation filed in San Tan Justice Court in March of 2010 where he was represented by the same attorney that handled his manslaughter case]

Much more background here and here.

The Criminal Case

Superior court criminal docket, case number CR2009-154132. , or lookup via supremecourt.az.gov

According to case minute entry “Defendant needs additional time for expert to complete investigation and make a complete expert opinion”; which was granted resetting the trial for 07/26/2010…. oops, more delays, now showing another conference for 1/4/2011 and the “new last day” is 2/10/2011. The minute entry from 9/28/2010 “regarding the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 12-2203“, a statute which relates to the Admissibility of expert opinion testimony. hmmm….

The trial has been reset AGAIN, as of the case minute entry from 3/14, the trial is set to begin 3/28/2011. This case has more minute entries and notations than I’ve ever see. The DPS criminologist is Herlinda Graham, and apparently the defense’s expert witness is Chester Flaxmayer. See, e.g. “AACJ 23rd Annual Seminar on Aggressive Defense of the Accused Impaired Driver”, or phillipslaw.com.

Pick up trial coverage (and eventual outcome) here.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

In an unpublished Memorandum Decision; Arizona v. Foshee, No. 1 CA-CR 12-0249 filed 1/30/2014 The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s findings. Foshee asserted three errors

Foshee contends the trial court erred when it granted the
State’s motion to exclude evidence of methamphetamine in the decedent’s system: “At a pretrial hearing on the State’s motion to exclude, a forensic toxicologist testified there were ‘trace’ amounts of methamphetamine and one of its metabolites in the decedent’s blood. The amount present was similar to that one would find in a person who had taken a medically prescribed form of methamphetamine for weight loss. Further, the decedent ingested the methamphetamine at least six hours before his death. The toxicologist testified that due to the amount of methamphetamine in the decedent’s system and the amount of time that had passed since its ingestion, the decedent was not impaired at the time of the incident.” Furthermore “there is nothing in the testimony of the two witnesses he (Foshee) identifies to even hint the decedent was negligent, let alone impaired” [see footnote]
Foshee asserts the trial court erred when it allowed an expert
witness to testify that Foshee’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) two hours after the incident was between .144 and .194. The defense’s expert disagree; however both experts were permitted to testify — allowing to the jury to decide that matter of fact.
Foshee argues the trial court erred when it admitted evidence of his prior conviction for driving under the influence.

The CoA found no error.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Foshee left a bar sometime before 2:00 a.m. on the morning
of August 15, 2009 after the bar refused to serve him further and security personnel asked him to leave. At some point after he left the bar, Foshee drove his pickup truck east on a two-lane road. Ahead of Foshee on that same road, three men on bicycles rode west on and/or near the shoulder of the westbound lane. The decedent and at least one of the other cyclists had lights on their bicycles.
Shortly after 2:00 a.m., Foshee drove east in the westbound
lane to overtake and pass another eastbound vehicle. Once he passed the vehicle, Foshee drove down the center of the road. Foshee then moved into the westbound lane again, possibly to attempt to pass another eastbound vehicle. Regardless of the reason, Foshee drove towards the three cyclists as they rode west on or near the shoulder of the westbound lane. At some point in the sequence of events, Foshee swerved left and then right. Two of the cyclists turned right to avoid being struck by Foshee’s truck. The decedent, however, apparently turned left. Foshee struck the decedent with the right front corner of his truck…

One thing not present in the FACTS recited is any mention the incident was a hit-and-run as was stated by police in the media.

PCR (Post Conviction Relief)

[Updates Aug 2014: some PCR (post conv relief) line items popped up. 8/12/2014 minute refers to a “Rule 32” proceeding; appears to have a public defender appointed to prepare pcr stuff]

From what i can tell from case minute 02/13/2015 all possible PCR has been exhausted.

Footnotes

On the inadmissibility of victim’s impairment as unduly prejudicial under Rule 403 see

State v. Krantz, 174 Ariz. 211, 213, 848 P.2d 296, 298
(App. 1992) (excluding the victim’s alleged use of methamphetamine), which was cited in the Foshee Court of Apeals decision, above. But, for contrast, see also:
the unpublished State v. Aguilera (victim’s BAC should have been admitted). In this case the drunk driver’s aggravated assault conviction was tossed; the defendant asserted the victim was driving his motorcycle too slowly, and that the motorcycle’s taillight was “weak”; and so it was okay to drive into the back of the motorcyclist. There were also three other interesting discussions, that weren’t relevant to the 403 issue: failure to instruct the jury on a) causation, b) superceding causation, and c) lesser included offense. [Since inquiring minds want to know… Aguilera ultimately plead guilty in a deal to non-dangerous agg assault, see case minutes for CR2007008373, 1/14/2011 (I can’t find the sentencing minute? the last case minute implies he did go to prison. I would think the non-dangerous classification would have yielded a suspended sentence / probation)]

Violation of a statute enacted for the public safety is negligence per se

Sisk v. Ball, 91 Ariz. 239, 371 P.2d 594 (1962):

“Violation of a statute enacted for the public safety is negligence per se,Anderson v. Morgan, 73 Ariz. 344, 241 P.2d 786 (1952), and when this theory is supported by the evidence, [a party] is entitled to have a properly worded instruction on this issue read to the jury. Of course, a violation of the statutory duty must be also a proximate cause of the injury to constitute actionable negligence. Caldwell v. Tremper, 90 Ariz. 241, 367 P.2d 266 (1961).” 91 Ariz. at 242, 371 P.2d at 595-96.

Here are a couple of definitions of negligence per se: nolo.com, lexisnexis.com

…

This 2013 CA appeals court ruling involving a wrong-way sidewalk rider has a lot of references to “negligence per se” Spriesterbach v. Holland

IIHS: SUVs Becoming Less Deadly

It used to be that SUVs were both more deadly to others, because of something dubbed poor “crash compatibility”, and not particularly safe (or perhaps i should say: not as safe as they could have been) for their own occupants due to a propensity to roll over; see this 2005 IIHS study that looked at 1999-2002 model years. It was a bit of a lose-lose proposition.

The latest version of looking at the risk of dying in any particular car, which covers model year 2005-2008, shows a marked decrease in SUV rollover deaths, presumably due to design changes in SUVs the most prominent being stability control “Recently calculated driver death rates for 2005-08 models show that drivers of SUVs are among the least likely to die in a crash. That change is due largely to ESC (Electronic Stability Control)”

Who is your Crash Partner?

Those studies look only at the risk of death to the driver of any particular vehicle — without regard to any other factors of the collision. It has long been known that SUVs pose a higher risk to others, because of their rigid frame design, which is also rides higher; in a collision with a car, particularly a t-bone, the rigid frame tends to slice into the car, disproportionately killing the car occupants. Happily, design changes made to SUVs have helped the sit

uation, to the point where similar weight vehicles, whether they are SUVs or cars, have similar risk of death.

“Whether you’re in an SUV or just sharing the road with one,” Nolan says, “recent improvements to these vehicles are making you safer.”

The results don’t contradict the basic physics of crashes. Size and weight are still key, and a small, lightweight vehicle is going to fare worse than a big, heavy vehicle in a crash. In general, SUVs and pickups are heavier than cars, so in that sense different types of vehicles always will be mismatched. But the study shows that, beyond weight, differences in vehicle styles don’t have to be a safety problem.

— IIHS, Effort to make SUVs, pickups less deadly to car occupants in crashes is paying off, news release 9/28/2011

Pickups remain problematic, though even they have shown improvement.

What if your Crash Partner is a Pedestrian?

None of the above addresses this topic. Other studies have shown SUVs/Light Trucks are significantly more dangerous to pedestrians compared with automobiles: “Analysis of these three databases has clearly demonstrated that pedestrians have a substantially greater likelihood of dying when struck by an LTV (light truck or van) than when struck by a car.” The fatality and injury risk of light truck impacts with pedestrians in the United States, Devon E. Leﬂer, Hampton C. Gabler, Accident Analysis and Prevention, v.36, pp. 295-304, Elsevier (2004) (see also an earlier paper/version from the same authors sounded the alarm did anyone pay attention, or even care? The Emerging threat of Light Truck Impacts with Pedestrians is basically the same article)

Similar study published in 2005 Injury Prevention: United States pedestrian fatality rates by vehicle type by L J Paulozzi of the CDC, using 2002 FARS data “Compared with cars, the RR (relative risk) of killing a pedestrian per vehicle mile was 1.45 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.55) for light trucks… The greatest impact on overall US pedestrian mortality will result from reducing the risk from the light truck category”. This methodology is very straightforward, it takes the FARS data and segregates it by bodystyle (the paper does not state exactly how that was done; it looks easy, see below); and computes the RR (relative risk) based on Table VM-1, which is in Section V of FHWA Highway Statistics 2002. UNFORTUNATELY, the fhwa stopped reporting VM-1 in that way. Commencing with 2007 they no longer differentiate between passenger cars and LTVs; inexplicably they now differentiate by wheelbase, thus that data is useless for this purpose; so i guess we’ll never know how many more pedestrians are killed by LTVs (SUVs, pickups, etc). There are some footnotes to VM-1, saying methodology changes due to motorcycle reporting that do not seem to explain this change.

However, the data is all available in any Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report, e.g. here is 2011 and 2012 (search the library for newer ones). It is in Tables 7, 8, 9, 10 for Passenger cars, Light trucks, heavy trucks, and motorcycles. It lists VMT, and registration data; the only thing left to do is to extract from FARS the quantity of non-occupant fatalities split by those 4 vehicle types. I’ve already added a “synthetic” field to my FARS mysql data called sMODEL, it is based on the FARS field MODEL.

Here is a newer meta-study, that i would guess references the Paulozzi study and has very similar result, that i need to look up from Traffic Inj Prev. 2010 Feb;11(1):48-56. doi: 10.1080/15389580903390623.Do light truck vehicles (LTV) impose greater risk of pedestrian injury than passenger cars? A meta-analysis and systematic review. ” the risk of fatal injury in pedestrian collisions with LTVs compared to conventional cars was odds ratio 1.54, 95 percent confidence interval 1.15-1.93″

—

(given the dramatic change in the mix of the US vehicle (higher percentage of light trucks) fleet since whenever the cross and fisher data came from (mid 70s)…. it would be interesting to know if anything could be shown more statistically in, say, 2005.

There’s something called the “household” fleet, see exhibit 1 of the NHTS (Nat. Household Trans Survey)… mixture changed from 80/20 (automobiles/light trucks) to 50/50(!) from 1977 to 2008

There’s also this from the Cross and Fisher data (mid 1970’s or so):

TYPE OF MOTOR VEHICLE DRIVEN BY MOTORISTS IN THE FATAL AND NON-FATAL SAMPLES

[…]

Table 12 shows that trucks are involved in a proportionately greater number of fatal accidents (19%) than non-fatal accidents (9.4%). More than 80% of the trucks were pickups or vans; the remainder were larger types of trucks. These data suggest that the likelihood of fatal injuries increases as a function of the size of the vehicle. For instance, dividing the proportion of fatal cases by the proportion of non-fatal cases yields a ratio of .9 for passenger cars, 1.9 for pickups and vans, and 3.2 for larger types of trucks. However, because of the small number of cases involving a truck, these data can only be considered suggestive.

Bad weekend in Scottsdale

[ Adot Incident 2609053 Update / FINAL on cyclist McCarty death: azcentral.com The motorist who killed Shawn McCarty was fined a total of $420 (and the case is apparently closed). Regardless, It would appear that $420 is the “normal” fine schedule that anyone would pay. That would mean that the enhanced fine for 28-735 (section B) was exactly ZERO. How can that be? Would a judge or magistrate actually make that decision, or it is some sort of court “bug”? Continue reading “Bad weekend in Scottsdale”

One Arizona legislator REALLY doesn’t like photo red cameras

Our legislative elves have been hard at work trying to de-rail photo-enforcement. Again (click here for last year’s festivities). The biggest single item is supposedly dead as of March 6, 2012 — this would have referred a ballot measure which would prevent cities and towns from using photo-enforcement.

Safety studies have consistently shown a net safety benefit for photo-red enforcement. Net means that there are fewer serious injuries and fatalities. A few studies have shown an increase in the number of collisions accompanying the safety gains. See, e.g. the IIHS study, Red Light Running Kills, linked at trafficsafetycoalition.com. Or more locally, also see Scottsdale-based redmeansstop.org.

Here is a list of items in the current session (50th 2nd Regular. The Spring of 2012) of the Arizona Legislature, assembled by the Traffic Safety Coalition:

SB1315 – mandate personal service or certified mail for photo enforcement tickets
SB1316 – mandate that photo enforcement cameras cannot take pictures of red light running violations unless the light has been red for at least one second
SB1317 – mandate a study of intersections with red light cameras
SB1318 – force photo enforcement companies to obtain a PI License for each worker
SCR 1029 – put photo enforcement ban to the voters for approval

As noted above Senate Concurrent Resolution 1029 is for the time-being anyway dead… The first thing I noticed that was odd is that they are all in the senate. Upon closer inspection all four of the the senate bills have only one sponsor, and all four are the same guy; a Frank Antenori (R-30, Tucson). He clearly doesn’t like photo-enforcement, and is apparently making it his life’s work to defeat it’s effectiveness; if not ban it outright.

Aside from safety issues, the cameras can, and do, provide evidence that has been used to solve crimes; including (that I know of) catching a hit-and-run driver who seriously injured a cyclist in Tucson, a hit-and-run-driver who killed a cyclist in Tempe, and a assault-robbery-murderer in Tempe.

Stats?

Arizona has a particular problem with red-light running; despite improvement over the years, Arizona continues to be over-represented. For example in 2009 Arizona had 37 red light running (RLR) fatalities while New York had only 29…. Arizona being three times as dangerous as New York on a per capita basis.

The words below, written over 10 years ago continue to ring true today, from a 07/13/00 article in USA Today, Ariz. has deadliest red-light runners in USA:

Arizona has the nation’s deadliest red-light runners, with three of the country’s worst cities for fatal intersection crashes, according to a study of federal transportation data obtained by USA TODAY…. Arizona had by far the worst death rate among states, with 6.5 fatalities for every 100,000 people… Arizona also had three of the four most dangerous cities. for red-light fatalities. Phoenix topped all urban areas, followed by Memphis, Mesa and Tucson

In addition, cities with speed limits of 45 mph and higher on surface streets faced more serious red-light -running accidents… The Phoenix police officer says said that with an average of 330 days of sunshine a year, it’s typically usually perfect driving weather. That doesn’t mean motorists drive perfectly, however. Just the opposite. “If we got more rain or inclement weather, maybe it would slow people down some, particularly at the intersections,” Halstead said says. “As it is, they zip around the city at a pretty good clip.” And, according to the institute’s study, Phoenix drivers run red lights at an unrivaled pace. The city has by far the nation’s deadliest rate of fatal red- light running crashes, nearly five times the national average. Arizona and other fast-growing Western states have been particularly stung by red light crashes “because their wide open roads are suddenly seeing schools, businesses, and busy intersections crop up,” says said Phoenix traffic engineer Paul Wellstone. “The West has a reputation for being a drivers’ paradise; a place you can lay on the accelerator and not worry about the traffic and dangers. That’s changing now. Cities are struggling with getting their citizens to slow down.”

The FHWA has a page on red light running.

Bicycle Driver’s License?

Since bicyclists are granted all the rights and responsibilities as drivers of vehicles by §28-812, are cyclists required to have a driver’s license? §28-3151 sets forth the conditions requiring a license: “a person shall not drive a motor vehicle … on a highway without a valid driver license”. But that rule appears in Chapter 8.

The rules which apply to bicyclists are restricted to those in Chapters 3, 4 and 5 as set forth in the applicability statute, and since 28-3151 resides in Chapter 8, it does not apply to bicyclists.

Nor would it apply regardless of which chapter it appeared in, since it specifically only applies to drivers of MOTOR vehicles. (see bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters for some further discussion)

2018 E-bike Law Update: But what about e-bikes? E-bikes have a motor, so that means they must be motor vehicles, right? Wrong. See 28-101; electric bicycles are explicitly excluded from the definition of a motor vehicle.

Also see stuff about ID’s in Arizona for other than Drivers of motor vehicles. Which has been in flux for years since that section was found to be unconstitutionally vague. More at Evidence of Identity.

It’s not unheard of for police to insist a bicyclist is required to have a license, I pulled this 2012 story from archive.org; reported in the March 2012 edition of “Arizona Road Cycling News”, a very informative e-mailed newsletter published ~ mid 2000s through about late 2012, by Jack Quinn:

March 13, 2012 — Paradise Valley Still Harassing Cyclists

Those of us who thought that police harassment of cyclists in Paradise Valley would cease with the retirement of the anti-cyclist former police chief John Wintersteen were wrong. The harassment continues under Chief John Bennett.

My most recent experience occurred on this past Saturday as I was cycling home from the Wheezers and Geezers ride. I was cycling eastbound on McDonald Drive when a passenger car attempted to squeeze by me in violation of the three-foot law in a spot where there was obviously no room to pass. I yelled at the driver: “That was really stupid!” The driver turned out to be Paradise Valley police officer Corporal Nigel Williams in an unmarked police car. He pulled me over and asked me to repeat what I had said, and I did.

To make a long story short, he tried to find a statute to cite me, but he couldn’t until he asked me for my driver’s license. When I told him that I wasn’t required to carry my driver’s license while cycling, he disagreed. He finally wrote me up under ARS 28-812, the statute that states that many of the laws that apply to motorists (although not the one requiring motorists to be in possession of a driver’s license) also apply to cyclists.

I have written an open letter to Paradise Valley Police chief John Bennett requesting that the Paradise Valley Police stop harassing law-abiding cyclists and that a citation be issued to Corporal Nigel Williams for violating the three-foot law. Evidence for the violation should have been recorded by the video camera mounted on the windshield of his unmarked patrol car. If you wish to read that letter and join the campaign to stop the harassment and get this scofflaw police officer cited, a copy of the letter and the email addresses of many Paradise Valley officials who have influence over the Police Department are posted farther down this page.

Open Letter on Pardise Valley Police Chief John Bennett

Police Chief John Bennett — jbennett@paradisevalleyaz.gov
6433 East Lincoln Drive
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

Cc: Police Commander Alan Latsch — alaitsch@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Mayor Scott LeMarr — slemarr@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Vice Mayor Mary Hamway — mhamway@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Town Manager James C. Bacon Jr. — jbacon@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Town Attorney Andrew M. Miller — :amiller@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Paradise Valley Town Council Members
Lisa Trueblood — ltrueblood@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Michael Collins — mcollins@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Pam Kirby — pkirby@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Paul E. Dembow — pdembow@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Vernon B. Parker — vparker@paradisevalleyaz.gov
Arizona Road Cyclist News Website http://www.azroadcyclist.com/
Wheezers & Geezers Mail Blog geezerride.blogspot.com

Subject: Police harassment of cyclists in Paradise Valley.
Ref: Officer #157 and traffic complaint #37502, DR# 2012-3791

Dear Chief Bennett,

Please excuse the long missive, but I cannot find a way to make it shorter.

I am writing about a longstanding complaint that Paradise Valley police officers harass cyclists who are cycling in full compliance with the law. I have had several experiences in the past of riding in groups who were harassed by Paradise Valley police officers. My latest experience involves one of your officers who, in my opinion, misused his authority as a police officer by writing a bogus traffic ticket to get revenge on me when I accused him of endangering my life and violating ARS 28-735 in his unmarked police car. I request in the interest of justice that the officer be issued a traffic citation for his infraction. The evidence to support the citation should be found in the video recorded by the camera mounted in the windshield of his patrol car.

I cannot make out the officer’s name on the citation, but his ID# is listed as 157, and I have since learned that that ID# belongs to Corporal Nigel Williams.

On Saturday, March 10 at approximately 11:45 a.m., I was cycling eastbound on McDonald Drive, which is a narrow street with a median. I was wearing a mirror on my glasses, and I was therefore very aware of traffic approaching from behind. Although under ARS 28-735 the street is too narrow for a motor vehicle to legally overtake a bicycle in the sections where there is a median, each time a car approached from behind, I pulled over onto the concrete shoulder to allow it to pass.

As the officer approached me from behind in his unmarked patrol car, I would have pulled onto the narrow concrete shoulder to allow him to pass also, but the shoulder and part of the traffic lane were occupied by pedestrians, forcing me to remain in the traffic lane, as was my legal right. If I remember correctly, I put out my left hand to signal to the driver not to pass until it was safe to do so.

According to ARS 28-815, I had a right to move away from the right side of the lane according to two sub-paragraphs: “If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including…pedestrians…” and “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.” I was cycling in full compliance with that law. The officer would have only had to wait a few seconds for me to be able to pull off the street and allow him to pass, but he chose not to wait.

ARS 28-735 reads in part “When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet….”

The officer attempted to overtake me, even though there was obviously no room for him to do so. At the last moment and touched his brakes when his bumper was much closer to my bike than the legally required three feet. He came very close to striking the rear of my bicycle.

After I passed the pedestrians and moved out of street and onto the narrow shoulder, I yelled at the driver of the car (I did not yet realize that the scofflaw driver was a police officer) “That was really stupid!” At that point, the officer sounded his klaxon, and I pulled off the road to the right onto Cameldale Way and stopped. As the uniformed officer got out of his car, he asked me what I had said, and I repeated “That was really stupid!”

Admittedly, pointing out to a uniformed police officer that he’s done something stupid is not wise, especially when it is true, but it is not against the law, and I was understandable angry at the officer’s disregard for the law and for my safety.

I won’t go though the entire discussion that ensued, but suffice it to say that the officer was very angry and self-righteous about being accused of wrongdoing. Out of anger, he adopted the attitude that it had been me and not he who had just committed a traffic infraction, although he was unable to name which infraction I might have committed until he asked me for my driver’s license, and I replied that I was not required to carry a driver’s license while cycling. He alleged that I was breaking the law by cycling without carrying a driver’s license. I pointed out that Arizona Law [ARS 28-3151] requires a person who operates “a motor vehicle” to have a driver’s license and does not apply to self-propelled means of transportation. As he was unable to come up with any specific statute that I had violated (although he continued to insist that a driver’s license is required to ride a bicycle) he wrote me a ticket for supposedly violating ARS 28-812, which reads:

A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.

He claimed that that citation would cover my riding a bicycle without carrying a driver’s license.

I think this is plain silly. First, as the statute above states, not all laws apply to both bicycles and motor vehicles. Some laws apply specifically to bicycles, and others apply specifically to motor vehicles. The requirement to have a driver’s license applies specifically to motor vehicles. If bicycle riders were required to have a driver’s license, the police could pull over and ticket every kid cycling to school. Additionally, ARS28-812 states that it applies only to Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. ARS 28-3151 is in Chapter 8.

Second, if I had not been in compliance with ARS 28-812, I must have violated some statute that applies to both bicycles and motor vehicles, and I should have been cited for violating that statute, but I was not and for good reason: There was no such violation. By writing such a generic citation that could cover the violation of any number of statutes in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Corporal Williams may believe that he has the flexibility to accuse me of almost anything in the civil traffic hearing, but according to Arizona’s Civil Traffic Rules and Procedure, that is not the case. Rule 8 reads: “A complaint is legally sufficient if it contains either a written description or the statutory designation of the alleged violation.” There is no written indication of what I am alleged to have done wrong.

My case is not unique. You may be aware that cyclists’ complaints about Paradise Valley Police harassment go back years and predate your position as Chief of Police. Let me be clear: The Paradise Valley Police Department has every right to stop, warn and/or ticket any cyclist who violates a traffic law such as running a stop sign, but it has no right to continue to harass cyclists who are in full compliance with the law, and its officers have no right to endanger cyclists by violating the laws themselves.

I plan to use my traffic ticket as a means of bringing the problem of police harassment of cyclists in Paradise Valley to public attention in the hope of generating pressure for reform. I don’t know if the problem that some of your police officers have with cyclists is caused by a poor attitude or if it due to a lack of training. I suspect it is a combination of both. Only you can change the attitude part by indicating to your officers that scofflaw behavior towards cyclists will not be tolerated. As mentioned above, a good start would be to cite the officer who endangered me for violation of the three-foot law, ARS 28-735.

The second step is to educate your officers as to what is and what is not legal cycling behavior. Many of them do not know that now, especially when ARS 28-815 is concerned. The Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists offers a course in traffic law pertaining to bicycles, a course that is especially designed for law-enforcement officers. It might be a good idea to arrange such a course for your officers with a special emphasis on ARS 28-815.

Returning to this particular officer, I once again beg you to review the video from the camera in the unmarked patrol car that Corporal Nigel Williams was driving that day. If the video substantiates my claim that the officer violated ARS 28-735, I request that he be issued a traffic citation, not for my sake, but to send a message to all cyclists that the Paradise Valley Police Department is finally going to adopt a zero-tolerance policy when it come to officers’ misusing their authority to harass law-abiding cyclists.

In summary, although I have related a personal experience, my experience is indicative of the problems that many cyclists have been having with the Paradise Valley Police Department for years. I do not understand why the Town of Paradise Valley, through its police department, continues to alienate a large segment of the population including people who are in full compliance with the law.

Best regards,
Jack Quinn, editor
Arizona Road Cyclist News