Author: ArizonaBikeLaw

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”

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.”

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.

“Motorist Failure to Yield — signed intersection” One of several dozen crash types defined by PBCAT

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”

Bad Drivers and friendsofcalholman.com

Looking North
Looking North

(motorist) Cal Holman was killed in a horrific traffic collision in 2007 involving very high speeds and alleged street racing. Going on 5 years later a lot has and continues to happen, the two other drivers, Van Brakel and Aronica, have eventually plead guilty to certain crimes, Van Brakel going to prison for manslaughter. Aronica received probation, and subsequently  requested it be reduced, but that apparently was denied.

The site friendsofcalholman.com is doing, and has done an excellent job of making court documents available; such as the plea agreements. Van Brakel’s 5 year sentence was reduced to below 3 years actual  both by the 1 day for every 7 served (that’s normal; it where the “85%” figure comes from); but also apparently because of  “over 2 years credit because he was out on bail while the criminal hearings were going on“. How does that work? Being out on bail somehow counts as the same as being incarcerated? [see suggestion in comment below that this may have been erroneously calculated] This is criminal case CR2008-031157  (minutes) (which i could only find by searching Maricopa County Superior directly) — and here is Van Brakel’s (who is Party 001) 9/16/2011 sentencing minute “5 year(s) from 09/16/2011; Presentence Incarceration Credit: 487 day(s); Presumptive”. Note that this is “non-dangerous” manslaughter — sick joke. p.s. the way sentencing math works apparently is: 85% (assuming he got the most time off) of 5 years is 1551 days minus the 487 leaves 1064 (just under 3 years).

Van Brakel’s pre-sentence credit of 487 days was due to him being incarcerated immediately (i guess) after his initial sentencing in 2010.

Here is Aronica’s 5/18/2010 sentencing minute of probation; pleading guilty to two counts of endangerment which is, like Van Brakel’s manslaughter, designated as a “non-dangerous” crime.

On a larger scope, they have exposed these two men’s driving history; again something we rarely get to see. According to friendsofcalholman the two,

Van Brakel was driving an AMG Mercedes, after hitting Cal Holman his car continued 75 feet past the intersection. Van Brakel hit first on the passenger side. He did not sustain any injuries in the crash…  Since 2004 there have been 7 tickets for various moving violations. Driving 55 in a 35 zone, 67 in a 40 zone, and failing to yield in a cross walk are a sample of his driving record… Van Brakel has several previous driving violations. One ticket in 2004, was for doing 120 miles per hour in a 75 miles per hour zone. [link]

and the other:

Aronica’s Mustang flipped on impact and landed in the ditch on the side of Scottsdale … Aronica was injured with a broken arm and his passenger had minor cuts…. Since 2002 Aronica has had 13 citations. On December 3rd, less than four weeks prior to the accident where he hit and killed Cal Holman, he was cited for doing 88 miles per hour in a 60 miles per hour zone. This was in Texas while he was traveling to Arizona… Other citations include speeding. In Virginia speeding 84 in a 65 zone, in Florida traveling 20-29 miles per hour over the posted speed, again in Virginia speeding 79 in a 65 zone, in Maryland he had four speeding violations, and in Michigan he has 3 violations for speeding including a careless driving and a 78 in a 55 zone. [link]

This really makes me wonder how such repeated dangerous driving behavior can be tolerated — why weren’t their licenses suspended or revoked before they killed somebody? Traffic collisions, even after a marked decline, continue to be a leading cause of death for Americans. Who’s minding the store?

Do drivers stop at stop signs?

I thought this was completely non-controversial. We all know that a full stop is required (for bicyclists, too, by the way) by law, always,  and that there is no wiggle room. Do drivers slow down? Yes, often. Do they make a full stop? Rarely.

Or rather, it completely depends on traffic — if there is conflicting traffic they do (usually) stop; otherwise RARELY. Here is a brief clip where 1 driver stopped (well, almost, but I’ll give it to him) to yield to cross-traffic, and then the next SIX rolled through without stopping:

If that’s too short for you, here is a longer clip that I didn’t even bother to count — the story is exactly the same; DRIVERS RARELY STOP AT STOP SIGNS. Continue reading “Do drivers stop at stop signs?”