[ 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”
Author: ArizonaBikeLaw
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
Is Phoenix Safe?
[ Updated Sept 2018; this year’s Allsate 2018 America’s Best Drivers Report lists Phx rather low (less “safe” than average); not sure if anything has changed in methodology(?). ]
Sept 2015 Update: Each year we’re treated to this recurring tidbit of stupidity via Allstate Insurance press release which always gets picked up and published in the media: Arizona’s urban drivers score well for safety. ‘Well’ for safety? Unfortunately Arizona remains significantly less-safe (i.e. more dead bodies) than average in US, and far worse than the best state. Like as much as hundreds of percent worse, depending on which metric is chosen (VMT vs. per capita)
NHTSA state-by-state stats.
Phoenix was reputed to be America’s 7th safest city, according to this survey which looked at three factors relating to insurance. Clearly the stuff of newspaper-filler stories. Intrigued, I see that the survey involves ranking cities in three categories 1) Crime, 2) Natural disasters, and 3) Traffic safety; though it wasn’t clear how they were weighted. For example, traffic fatalities claim far more lives than murder, and the number of deaths in the U.S. due to natural disaster is miniscule.
That being as it may, their source for traffic safety rankings is the “Allstate America’s Best Drivers Report” (tm!), which Allstate claims “Reveals Safest Driving Cities”.
What it actually measures is the statistical likihood of having an auto insurance claim. Which Allstate claims, and I think sounds reasonable, as a proxy for the number of MV collisions. The next leap, which is demonstrably false, is that fewer collisions translates into “safety”. One glaring data point is enough to disprove this: cities of similar size are frequently and for good reasons ranked against one another; it just so happens that Phoenix and Philadelphia have virtually the same population, and are currently the 5th and 6th largest city in the U.S. Actual fatality data reveal that Phoenix is significantly more dangerous than Philadelphia, yet Allstate’s proxy data says just the opposite:
| NHTSA Fatality Data | Allstate data | |||||
| City | Killed | population | killed per 100K | time between collisions | rank (higher=worse) | |
| Philadelphia | 95 | 1547297 | 6.14 | 60.2% worse | 6.2 years | 187 |
| Seattle, WA | 30 | 616,627 | 4.87 | 25% worse | 8.0 years | 147 |
| Phoenix AZ | 159 | 1593659 | 9.98 | 1.1% better | 10.1 years | 74 |
Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2009 (latest year available), Table 124 811402.pdf, and Allstate (follow link above; current year result they refer to as 2011, is similar to 2005-2010 ). Notes: overall U.S. fatals/population/ratePer100K = 33,808/307,007,000/11.01
So, Allstate’s data merely shows that Phoenicians suffer from fewer fender-benders than Philadelphians; but say nothing about safety.
Why is Phoenix so dangerous? The main reason is probably because it’s “Dangerous by design”, with a higher priority on moving more cars, at higher speeds; and a lower priority on getting everyone to their destinations without being killed. More driving could explain some but not all of the gap; this, in itself, a symptom of poor land-use choices.
I threw Seattle into the table simply because of this recent op-ed that aggravated me: why-seattle-is-safer-than-phoenix. Phoenix and Seattle are quite dissimilar in population, but here again the Allstate data claims Seattle is significantly more dangerous than Phoenix when just the opposite that’s true.
2014 Update
Here’s the figures based on Allstate released in Sept 2014. Phoenix is the “best” large city at 9.2 years; and coincidentally Philadelphia is the “worst” large city at 6.2 years.
Auto Insurance Center Fatality Statistics
An outfit called the Auto Insurance Center put out a statistical roundup that looked only at fatal crashes (covering data years 2005-2015) and then normalized each stat to each state by population, and then ranked the states. It’s a FARS data-mining exercise that comes up with sometimes curious stats of dubious value but interesting nonetheless, e.g. “Fatal car crashes caused by road rage were the most prevalent in Indiana (almost 13 fatalities per 100,000 residents)”. Variations like that tend to come from wide variations in reporting, not that there’s a lot more road rage in one state versus another.
By the way
I always have trouble finding this page at www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov (which can be found by searching for FARS, then clicking on “publications”) where it lists publications like Traffic Safety Facts; e.g. 2009 Traffic Safety Facts Data Summary Booklet ; and 2009 Traffic Safety Facts FARS/GES Annual Report, they list back to about earlier 1990’s.
NTSB calls for complete cell ban: LaHood backpedals
The NTSB has called for a complete ban on personal electronic communications device usage by drivers on the grounds that any non-emergency usage is unacceptable risky. Here is Deborah A. P. Hersman, NTSB chairman writing in USA Today on 12/15/2011:
Distraction, whether it’s hands-free or handheld, whether it’s texting or talking, is deadly. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) said distraction-affected crashes killed 3,092 people last year
Handheld-only bans, such as that proposed in the city of Tucson, are at best not likely to improve safety much; and in fact may have perverse effects. If handsfree become explictly permitted, it may well change behavior of those who formerly chose to abstain entirely, thus increasing risky behavior rather than reducing it.
Fast forward a couple of weeks, in late December “U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he won’t back a proposal to prohibit drivers from talking on cellphones, even hands-free devices, giving a boost to car makers and mobile-phone companies that stand to lose if regulators impose a ban” [wsj]. So there you have it, distracted-driver warrior LaHood won’t back a ban; along with an explanation of presumed pressure from business interests.
At this point, you might be wondering and confused about who-is-who in this Federal alphabet soup: What is the NTSB? This is a both interesting and intricate. One might think that NTSB resides under the DOT, however it turns out that is incorrect: “In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a completely separate entity, outside the DOT”. The NTSB is run by a five member board; each nominated by the president for five year terms. Read that as far less politically sensitive, as compared to the Secretary of Transportation.
So Ray LaHood is Obama’s Secretary of Transportation; who runs the U.S. DOT, the United State’s Department of Transportation. And the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) is the group, under DOT, tasked with highway safety.
…
There is an enjoyably-cycnical view of the subject at LaHood says hands free calls are A-okay; throws NTSB under the bus.
…
Recent DOT blog fastlane.dot.gov touts enddd.org.
…
Listening to Phoenix’s Bicycle Collision Summary
[Updated Jan 2015: There are more recent summaries posted at phoenix.gov/streets/safety-topicss; direct links (unfortunately, many of these links now are 404 or link to the wrong report): bike (2010) ; ped(2012) ; all traffic(2012); bike (2013) (see section below for 2013 numbers) also an interesting MV collision rate study spanning 2006-2010. I did a quick glance at the bike and numbers are very similar to the 2007 which is detailed below… including the tendency of Phoenix PD to mis-characterize collisions at driveways and crosswalks as the fault of the bicyclist ]
[Update 2023: I see a bicycle summary for year 2020 , see below, which was released in 2022; ]
Phoenix, and many other entities issue a report, usually called something like a Bicyclist Collision Summary. For some background, complaints, and links to others, see Understanding Collision Summaries.
At hand, I have the most recent, 2007, report from the City of Phoenix, which can be still be found here ( Local copy in case that link breaks) Continue reading “Listening to Phoenix’s Bicycle Collision Summary”
Jaywalking in Arizona
Tom Vanderbuilt’s latest Slate column discusses jaywalking and why its enforcement is really just pro-car bias, and not the danger to pedestrians that is claimed. Tom is the author of Traffic:Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), and blogs at howwedrive.com. Continue reading “Jaywalking in Arizona”
Mesa traffic cameras to stay 2 more years
Story from AZ republic (via Tucson Citizen site; i don’t see it online otherwise. Also it ran in condensed form as an east valley brief 2/14/2012) Mesa traffic cameras to stay 2 more years.
Story mentions the Sean Casey fatality from 2005 where a junior high school student was killed while walking his bike through a crosswalk with a green light when he got whacked by a motorist who ran a red light. This whole story seems to have been a huge miscarriage of justice. A judge dismissed neg hom charges against the driver. And to add insult to injury, according to news reports the driver did not even pay her fine, or attend traffic school as ordered.
In any event the gist of the story is camera enforcement (among other factors) is credited with reducing crashes, according to Mesa Police commander Bill Peters: “Crashes at intersections now monitored by cameras dropped from 694 in 2005 to 370 in 2010, Peters said.”
They Drive among Us
Story and pic from the Ahwatukee Foothill News. Note that this turn the driver inexplicably failed to execute has an enormous radius. I note that police are unsure if any of this is illegal, how about “failure to control”? : Continue reading “They Drive among Us”
Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers
(this article relates to bills introduced in the 50th Second Regular Session of the Arizona Legislature, spring of 2012)
Here’s a news item that has a pretty good rundown on SB1056, introduced by John McComish (R-20, which happens to be my district).
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, the NTSB has called for a total ban on use of portable electronic communications by drivers — thats text, talk, handsfree or not — the whole shootin’ match.
This bill is a total ban; but targets only permitees and new drivers under 18 (but only for six months); which seems like a pretty logical place to start. The youngest drivers don’t have the experience and also tend not to understand the consequences of their actions that only comes with maturity and experience. When questioned about difficulty of enforcement, McComish pointed out that it is a secondary offense, like seat-belt laws, and that it will give parents a useful tool.
In case you’re wondering how this affects bicycle riders; it doesn’t. The licensing statutes are in Chapter 8, and bicyclists are only bound to follow Chapter 3, 4, and 5, see 28-812.
The hearing in front of the senate Public Safety and Human Services committee 1/18/2012 (direct link, does that work?) was very good; it’s near the end, and is about 10 minutes. This bill is something of a follow-on to some graduated driver’s license restrictions (the Teen Driver Safety Act, enacted in 2007. Bill number?). Stuart Goodman spoke in favor on behalf of AAA; i would like to quote him, and i might be in the minutes(?) but in sortof paraphrase he said that according to CDC the number one cause of death for teens is traffic collisions; that the graduated license restrictions were good/helpful and there is evidence that as from 198?-2007 as alcohol-involved teen deaths have decreased, the overall rate of teen fatalities has remained largely unchanged… and that is largely attributed to an increase in distracted driving as becoming the primary culprit. He then rattled off a bunch of age-related stats that seemd to indicate teen deaths are way down (due presumably to graduated license restrictions, like nighttime driving, and limiting the number of passengers for novice drivers). It passed unanimously out of committee. Also of note, Representative Vic Williams (R-26) , chair of House Transportation Committee, is a co-sponsor indicating if the bill makes it to the House, it would probably have an easy time getting through committee.
Here are the new sections, as introduced:
28-3154
C. A PERMITTEE SHALL NOT DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE USING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT DURING AN EMERGENCY IN WHICH STOPPING THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS IMPOSSIBLE OR WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY OR SAFETY HAZARD. A PEACE OFFICER SHALL NOT STOP OR ISSUE A CITATION TO A PERSON OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A HIGHWAY IN THIS STATE FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS SUBSECTION UNLESS THE PEACE OFFICER HAS REASONABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE LAW OF THIS STATE.
28-3174
F. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION K OF THIS SECTION, FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS THAT A CLASS G LICENSEE HOLDS THE LICENSE, THE LICENSEE SHALL NOT DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE USING A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION DEVICE FOR ANY REASON EXCEPT DURING AN EMERGENCY IN WHICH STOPPING THE MOTOR VEHICLE IS IMPOSSIBLE OR WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY OR SAFETY HAZARD.
…
There’s also a recurring generic texting ban bill that has once again been introduced by Steve Farley (D-28), HB2321 texting while driving; prohibition. I’m not sure if it is significant or not, but it’s worth mentioning that this go-round, Vic Williams (R-26) , chair of House Transportation Committee, is a co-sponsor.
Why Seattle is safer than Phoenix
An op-ed written by one of the wsj editorial board staffers illustrates a certain strain of belief in have-your-cake-and-eat-too-sism. Kaminski, in decrying how the mayor Mike McGinn (whom he gleefully points out is referred to as mayor McSchwinn by his political foes. Get it? it rhymes with McGinn) of Seattle worked to block the building of some car-based project; later claims that “Seattleites say they want to save the planet from global warming, but in their personal lives they want safe streets…”.
The disconnect Kaminski, and others of his ideological ilk, is this; that somehow streets can be made safer by ever-expanding the number and speed of privately operated motor vehicles. But this is simply not possible. Faster and more always equals more dead; mostly more motorists, but also more dead peds, and more dead bicyclists. The numbers are stark; comparing e.g. Phoenix with Seattle (metro areas), the Dangerous by Design survey estimates Phoenix to be FOUR TIMES more deadly to pedestrians than Seattle. The number spills over not just in pedestrian deaths, but also cyclists deaths, and also to MOTORISTS deaths; see e.g. Beyond Safety in Numbers: why bike friendly cities are safer (for everybody).
Thus Kaminski rejects car-user-fees as hair-brained; yet motorists are the source of enormous externalities — economic impacts that aren’t paid for by their users — from air pollution (never mind ‘global warming’), to mayhem, to free parking.
By the way, McGinn has only been mayor for the past two years; I’m not suggesting that McGinn has made it safer. It was already safe, relatively speaking — due in no small part to its general overall “anti-car” culture.
Addendum
Seattle DOT (SDOT) puts out a fancy traffic safety report (every year, i imagine), e.g. here is 2011. Note the “speed studies”, p 7-7… their major streets are posted speed limits of mostly 35, with a few at 30, and one at 45. The 85th percentile speeds were running in the high 30’s.
Three Foot Passing Laws
[Updating this is cumbersome and I am probably missing some… This page at ncsl.org says it’s updated to the end of 2015]
As of the 2015 legislative season, by my count, 22 US states have added three-or-more-foot passing provisions (not counting NY, Missouri or SC, which both relatively recently added “safe passing” laws without specifying a distance):
| YEAR ENACTED |
STATE | |
| 2018 | Michigan | news item. amends section 257.636 |
| 2015 | South Dakota | HB 1030 minimum 3/6 foot. |
| 2013 | California | AB 1371 |
| 2012 | Pennsylvania | HB 170 3303(3) FOUR foot passing |
| 2011? | Delaware | see below |
| 2011 | Kansas | HB2192 K.S.A. 8-1516 |
| 2011 | Georgia | |
| 2011 | Nevada | SB248 NRS 484B.270; 3-feet AND must change lanes on multi-lane |
| 2010 | New York* | A10697 S 1122-A (right section, wrong bill?) |
| 2010 | Mississippi | info |
| 2010 | Maryland | SB51. code 21-1209. has bad features |
| 2009 | Louisiana | |
| 2009 | Colorado info |
|
| 2008 | South Carolina * | |
| 2008 | Connecticut | |
| 2008 | New Hampshire | |
| 2007 | Tennessee info | |
| 2007 | Maine info | |
| 2007 | Illinois info | |
| 2007 | Arkansas info | |
| 2006 | Florida | |
| 2006 | Oklahoma | |
| 2005 | Utah | |
| 2005 | Missouri * | |
| 2004 | Minnesota | |
| 2000 | Arizona | HB2625 44th/1st Regular. ARS 28-735 |
| 1973 | Wisconsin |
*NY, SC and MO: requires “safe operating” — not specific distance. I also need to look up NC; i seem to remember they have a 2-foot specification for passing. Continue reading “Three Foot Passing Laws”
FARS and PBcat
Commencing with the recently-released 2010 data FARS (The USDOT’s Fatality Analysis and Reporting System) will have far more specialized detail on Pedestrian and Bicyclists crashes.
618 cyclists (person type 6 bicyclist, and 7 other pedalcyclist) were killed in 2010 in traffic collisions — and as noted at the link above, only collisions with motor vehicles in-transport are tracked by FARS. So for example, a bicyclist who lost control and died as a result of crashing into a tree would not be tracked here, nor would a bicyclist who strikes a parked motor vehicle. Continue reading “FARS and PBcat”
48th Street; Piedmont to Guadalupe gets SLMs (sharrows)
I have a lot of thoughts about this stretch of roadway in Phoenix: 48th Street (turns into Guadalupe Rd), north of Piedmont. [google maps]
It involves the odd geographic position of the Ahwatukee area of Phoenix; and the the almost complete lack of connectivity for Ahwatukee residents to anywhere else, (Tempe, Chandler, and indeed the main portion of Phoenix) except by car-choked umteen lane roads.
Ahwatukee is called — sometimes derisively, sometimes happily — the world’s largest cul-de-sac. Setting aside 48th street for a moment; Ahwatukee’s ONLY ingress/egress is Pecos Rd (which is loop 202, a limited-access highway), Chandler Blvd (10 lanes?), Ray Road (10 lanes), Warner Road (only 6 lanes?), Elliot Road (10 lanes?). So these are all either a limited-access freeway, or humongous monstrosities that have interchanges with I-10.
In short, these are all car-choked, car-sewers. They are not particularly bad for cyclists; two (Ray, and Chandler) have wide-curb lanes; Warner has nice narrow lanes; I find Elliot road to be most annoying as it is “critical width“; that is to say not wide yet not narrow enough to be perceived as too narrow to share by many motorists. Yet many cyclists, understandably, don’t want to do it. It is a thoroughly obnoxious experience for pedestrians, too. Continue reading “48th Street; Piedmont to Guadalupe gets SLMs (sharrows)”
Bicyclist stop sign law changes re-introduced
50th 2nd regular session (2012) HB2221. This is (i think) an exact copy of the bill from last year; which was a tweak to the original try in 2009.
HEARING SCHEDULED 1/26/2012 at 9AM by the House Transportation committee. All video is archived, in case you miss it live, you can also view the 3/4/2009 hearing at the archive — it’s kind of interesting.
BILL PASSES out of the Transportation Committee 1/26/2012, on an 8-2 vote. It was passed “DP” (do pass. i.e. passed without any amendment). If you didn’t see it live, you can catch it on archived, but it looks like there is a day or two delay… (bill ultimately dies). Continue reading “Bicyclist stop sign law changes re-introduced”