Arizona has the highest cycling fatality rate?

[updated October 2010: Final data for 2009 has AZ as 4th highest bicycling fatality rate (per capita, i.e. per population). See e.g. this media story referring to the BSAP]

Tied to April being bike month in Arizona is of course a crop of media stories.

Imagine how surprised I was to read that “Arizona has the highest cycling fatality rate, based on population in the United States”. Continue reading “Arizona has the highest cycling fatality rate?”

Motorcyclist killed by driver making a bad left

Off duty Tempe police officer Scott Saffell died in a motorcycle-car wreck at an Ahwatukee intersection. The motorcyclist was proceeding straight through southbound 48th Street, when the unnamed driver made a bad left just north of Elliot Road. The “enhanced” criminal traffic charge would be 28-672. Continue reading “Motorcyclist killed by driver making a bad left”

Another Ray Road Wreck in Ahwatukee

Westbound, single-vehicle, presumably one or more fatalities occurred Sept 24, 2011 early morning hours. The vehicle was apparently going way too fast, lost control and smashed into some trees in the median. I didn’t see any skids. The palm tree got decapitated, and a smaller tree was snapped off (you can see the original trees in the google maps streetview, below). The picture barely shows the twisted wreckage. The cops were keeping people way way way away. To the extent one wonders what was trying to be hidden? I was told I “can’t” take a picture. Weird. Continue reading “Another Ray Road Wreck in Ahwatukee”

Driver who killed Tucson bicyclist given 33 years

Historical incident. Backdated.

9/4/2011  ~ 900am. victim: Albert Eugene Brack was killed riding his bicycle east on Escalante Road near the intersection of S Calexico Avenue, Tucson.

Some other info on bicycletucson.com Continue reading “Driver who killed Tucson bicyclist given 33 years”

ADOT’s Bicycle Safety Action Plan Study

ADOT’s Bicycle Safety Action Plan Study ( the study’s home-page link is now dead ) is a multi-phase plan to assess and improve bicycle traffic safety, with emphasis on Arizona state highways. In urban areas that often means the interchanges. Here are direct download links to final reports:

During the five-year study period “There were a total of 9,867 bicycle crashes statewide in Arizona…  crashes that occurred on state highways were extracted from the statewide data set. There were 1,089 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes reported on state highways between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2008” from this a focus area was determined, within the focus area there were 746 bicycle crashes.  PBCat was used to crash-type all 746 of these collisions.

Thus this data set accounts for a small minority of bike-MV crashes, around 11%. But Working Paper 1,  table 15 offers a useful comparison between the studied data and all statewide data. For example, we see the same suspiciously-high percentage (24 to 25%) of “other” fault ascribed to bicyclists as with other studies. As I’ve written before, the “other” fault is generally the result of a poor/improper crash investigations that tends to wrongly faults cyclists who are doing nothing illegal (see Understanding Collision Summaries) — this is statistical proof of poor-quality investigations are a statewide problem for bicyclists. This is a shortcoming of the crash reports, and not the BSAP;  in Working Paper 1, figure 20, something they call “primary contributing factor” by crash group is assigned overwhelmingly to motorists (67%), and only 24% to bicyclists.

Press coverage

There was a lengthy, front page A1,  Arizona Republic article by Sean Holstege on Sept 17, 2011 which perhaps was intended to be about the plan but did wander, understandably, to general topics. For example they make great hay out of the per capital fatality stats, without any discussion of how to interpret them — e.g. how weather probably affects them, with Arizona being more of a year-round cycling state; or a higher per capita usage, e.g. Arizona has significantly higher (than US) percentage of commuters (according to census figures, see Working Paper 1, Table 1 — Arizona is 0.9% versus 0.5% nationwide).

The story, as many “bicycle safety” stories do, lacks context of traffic in general. So, for example, there was a chart of the number of bike-MV collisions (about 2,000/year total). There is no mention of the fact that that represents only a tiny fraction of all MV collisions ( which ran well over 100,000/year over the study period). And though it mentions the number of fatalites, say 25 in 2008 — it never mentioned the total number of traffic fatalities (it runs around, and lately something under, 1,000 per year).

So here are some hard numbers, over the five year period 2004 – 2008 there were 681,466 MV crashes, of which 9,730 were bike-MV — a little less than 1.5% (taken from the historical overview in the 2009 Bicyclist Fatality study, which were gleaned from AZ Crash Facts — note that the numbers a slightly different in the BSAP, but I don’t know why). The number of fatalities is 4,943 total, 132 bicyclist; or 2.67% — so bicyclist fatalities were somewhat over-represented but not dramatically so.

Note that the ADOT plan by design is aimed at the small percentage of bike-MV crashes that occur on the state highway system. “The majority of bicycle crashes in Arizona (approximately 90 percent) occur on local, city, and county roadways outside of ADOT jurisdiction”

Also, by the way, the article inaccurately stated that the BSAP recommends a mandatory taillight law. That was in an earlier draft but was since removed — I don’t believe there is adequate evidence to support the additional burden on cyclists. The article does correctly mention that the BSAP recommends state-level sidewalk law clarifications, which seem like a worthy endeavor, given the huge proportion of sidewalk-related collisions, along with the current legal murky morass that currently exists when cyclists who cycle on the sidewalk subsequently collide with vehicles in crosswalks and driveways.

Statistics

The raw data from the 746 crashes studied can be viewed and mapped at this google fusion table.  I also read the data into a mysql database, bsap, password access available upon request using a scheme analogous to asdm and presently only available on mysql.azbikelaw.org, and not on the godaddy server.

The crashes studied were full-blown pbcat 2.0 with crash types, groups, cyclist’s direction; that’s the good news. The bad news is it’s not clear how that relates to bicyclist crashes in general.

Fatal vs. non-fatal: The dataset mentioned above, the 746 crashes includes only 4 fatalities and is data only from the focus area. The BSAP report has several charts and graphs that refer to 24 fatalities. The distinction is that the total 24 is over the entire SHS (state highway system); whereas the 4 is only the focus area. I don’t have the raw pbcat data for the 24 (or rather , the other 20).

BSAP-esqe Data

Here is a bunch of data extracted via query from ASDM data  — currently covering years 2009-2014. In other words, it is an attempt to automate the types of data presented in the BSAP but applied to all Arizona bike-MV crashes, not just state highway system.

 

 

Summary of PBCAT results

Many of the motorist drive out’s (from stop signs, or performing a right-turn on red) involve counter-flow sidewalk cyclists. Out of the 746 crashes studied here are the top 5:

Table 5 – Top 5 Crash Types 
Percentage of SHS Focus Area Crashes Crash Type Description 
103 13.8% Bicyclist Ride Through ‐ Signalized Intersection
 83 11.1% Motorist Drive Out ‐ Sign‐Controlled Intersection
 76 10.1% Motorist Drive Out ‐ Right‐Turn‐on‐Red
 71 9.51% Motorist Drive Out ‐ Commercial Driveway / Alley
 61 8.17% Motorist Drive Out ‐ Signalized Intersection
746       Total SHS Motor Vehicle‐Bicycle Crashes

Also interesting title of this PBIC presentation How to Create a Bicycle Safety Action Plan: Planning for Safety. It’s from the toole design people so, as expected, is filled with nacto and facilities stuff.

Hit and Run in Arizona

Hit and Run (H&R), also called leaving the scene, failure to stop, fleeing the scene, occurs anytime a driver is involved in a collision, and fails to fulfill their duties. These duties include, first and foremost, stopping, and remaining on the scene in order to complete both paperwork-type things like exchange identification, and also include a duty to “render reasonable assistance…” to anyone injured.

>> AN ASIDE: imposing a duty to render aid under pain of imprisonment is a fairly unusual thing under the law. perhaps there’s some latin phrase? to put it another way, most criminal laws specify what things people must not do, not what they must do <<

It will come as no surprise that bicyclists and pedestrians are over-represented as victims of H&R drivers. For example, 24% (6 of 25) of the cyclists killed in Arizona in 2009 were H&R victims (Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009). Likewise, pedestrian-victim H&R rates are high, 18% nationwide using 1998-2001 FARS data ( DOT HS 809-456 2003). By contrast, only about 2% of  motorists killed are victims of a H&R drivers ( AAA factsheet: “Nearly 1,500 people die annually (1994-2003) in hit and run crashes… Approximately 6 in 10 fatally injured victims are pedestrians” ). Three year averages from Arizona are consistent with these number.

H&R is highly correlated with other illicit behavior, such as DWI/DUI and driving on a suspended or no license.  And alarmingly, things are trending worse: “Between 1998 and 2007, while the total number of annual pedestrian deaths decreased, the proportion of hit-and-run pedestrian deaths has in fact increase” ( Factors associated with hit-and-run pedestrian fatalities and driver identification MacLeod, 2009).

Recognizing that H&R is a particularly odious and cowardly crime, the penalties can be significant. For example, in the case of a serious injury or death, the crime is a class 2/3 felony (2 if the fleeing driver caused the wreck, 3 if not). To put that in perspective, manslaughter is a class 2 (see roundup of homicide types) and only 1st and 2nd degree murder carry the most-serious category of class 1 felony. Below are excerpts involving H&R involving serious injury and death (note the parts in ALL CAPS are from “Joey’s Law” enacted in 2012, discussed below in section on Legislative History).

§28-661. Accidents involving death or personal injuries; failure to stop; classification; driver license revocation

A. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of a person shall:
1. Immediately stop the vehicle at the scene…
2. Remain at the scene of the accident until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of section 28-663.

B. A driver who is involved in an accident resulting in death or serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 and who fails to stop or to comply with the requirements of section 28-663 is guilty of a class 3 felony, except that if a driver caused the accident the driver is guilty of a class 2 felony.

C.  A driver who is involved in an accident resulting in (any other)  injury  …  is guilty of a class 5 felony.

D. The sentence imposed on a person for a conviction under this section shall run consecutively to any sentence imposed on the person for other convictions on any other charge related to the accident.

E. The department shall revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a person convicted pursuant to subsection B of this section AS FOLLOWS:
1. FOR AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, five years, NOT INCLUDING ANY TIME THAT THE PERSON IS INCARCERATED.
2. FOR AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN DEATH, TEN YEARS, NOT INCLUDING ANY TIME THAT THE PERSON IS INCARCERATED.

F. FIVE OR MORE YEARS AFTER THE REVOCATION PERIOD HAS BEGUN PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION E, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THIS SECTION, NOT INCLUDING ANY TIME THAT THE PERSON IS INCARCERATED, A PERSON MAY APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR A RESTRICTED PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 28‑3473, SUBSECTION B. THE DEPARTMENT MAY ISSUE A RESTRICTED PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 28‑3473, SUBSECTION B IF THE DEPARTMENT FINDS BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THE PERSON IS NOT CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE INVOLVING THE OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE THE PERSON’S DRIVING PRIVILEGE IS REVOKED.
2. THE PERSON HAS PAID FULL RESTITUTION AS ORDERED BY THE COURT.

G. The department shall revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of a person convicted pursuant to subsection C of this section for three years.

§28-663. Duty to give information and assistance; … A3. Render reasonable assistance to a person injured in the accident

§13-702. First time felony offenders; sentencing; definition

A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence…

D. The term of imprisonment for a presumptive, minimum, maximum, mitigated or aggravated sentence shall be within the range prescribed under this subsection. The terms are as follows [for mitigating/aggravating factors, see 13-701 E/D] :

Felony   Mitigated  Minimum    Presumptive Maximum   Aggra
Class 2  3 years    4 years    5 years     10 years  12.5 years
Class 3  2 years    2.5 years  3.5 years   7 years   8.75 years
Class 4  1 year     1.5 years  2.5 years   3 years   3.75 years
Class 5  .5 years   .75 years  1.5 years   2 years   2.5 years
Class 6  .33 years  .5 years   1 year      1.5 years 2 years

So, in summary, it sounds pretty harsh: somewhere around 3.5 or 5 years in prison, which must run consecutively to any other sentence imposed, and a mandatory 5 year driver’s licence revocation. The prison sentence can vary widely depending on if there are any prior felonies, or mitigating, or aggravating factors. There are even long penalties for the same class of felony as specified in §13-704, if the offense is deemed “dangerous” (it’s not clear to me how that distinction is made) — e.g. the presumptive, first time offender for a dangerous class 2 is 10.5 years.

Reality Intrudes

I don’t have any way to extract statistics on sentencing, but it seems like i’ve been noticing case after case with very light sentencing for H&R so here goes the anecdotes.

Cody Ryan Davis Case

Case CR-2010137585 in Maricopa County Superior Court. On July 10, 2010 Moto-cyclist Bradley Scott was killed while proceeding straight through a green signal, “Police (said) video shows Scott was legally riding a bicycle with the flow of traffic”. Hit-and-run driver Cody Ryan Davis was arrested about a week later and subsequently plead guilty in a plea agreement. The main element was a guilty plea to leaving the scene, a class 3 felony. As I read the sentence, he received 1 year (to be served in county jail, not prison; oh, and it includes work release), 3 years of probation, and a handful of seemingly small fines. I don’t know how the 5 year license revocation works, but i am hoping it is automatic, the agreement doesn’t say anything about it. I am told by a source familiar with these matters that this is a pretty standard deal (suspending the sentence).

So I have a bunch of questions: Why a class 3 and not a class 2? It certainly appears Davis was at fault in the collision. But setting that aside, how in the world do they get 1 year for a class 3 felony? 13-702 seems to clearly indicate that no less that 2 years is legal — and that would be including mitigating factors, of which I don’t think there are any; none are mentioned in the agreement.

Was Davis DUI at the time? There is this mention of alcohol in the agreement, during probation Davis may “Not consume or possess any substances containing alcohol”. So since Davis fled and hid out for days, nobody knows legally whether he was or wasn’t. As mentioned previously, H&R drivers are highly correlated with DUI  (MacLeod, 2009). In the event that Davis was DUI, he clearly made the right decision to flee — the DUI would have led to a manslaughter charge (5 years presumptive. And that’s in prison, not county,  and no work release AFAIK).

But that was the whole point in stiffening the penalties for H&R, to remove the incentive to flee.

Nathan Tom Bartley Case

The lead in the yumasun.com story says it all:

The driver in a hit-and-run accident that killed a 15-year-old Yuma boy earlier this year (1/13/2011) will receive probation instead of prison under the terms of a plea agreement.

Nathan Tom Bartley, 18, an Arizona Western College student and football player at the time, pleaded guilty Friday in Yuma County Superior Court to one count of attempted obstruction of criminal justice and one count of tampering with physical evidence. The plea agreement stipulates that he be sentenced to a term of probation.

In return for his guilty plea, a charge of failure to stop at the scene of an accident involving a fatality was dismissed.

This deal was cooked up by the LaPaz County Prosecutor because of a conflict within the Yuma County’s office — the deal, of course had to have been blessed  the (Yuma County Superior) Court. Case number CR-201100131, the case minutes with the actual plead deal aren’t up yet. Since the leaving-the-scene charge was dismissed, that means no license suspension. Nice.

Abigail Allin

Sam Abate was seriously injured while riding his bicycle in Tucson, the driver fled the scene. Police arrested Abigail A. Allin several days later. After a protracted legal goings on (including a legally-interesting case of her withdrawn plea deal going all the way to Court of Appeals); she got incarceration limited to time served (15 months in county jail apparently with releases) and 5 years parole. No prison. Full Story. Her MVD abstract has a blank box under “other” which I believe means the court is suppressing her (what should be automatic, and mandatory) license suspension.

Gary Foshee

Convicted of manslaughter plux 2x endangerment; sentenced to 10.5 years in the death of Russell Jenkins, the hit-and-run and/or additional aggravating circumstances were nowhere to be found in sentencing. I don’t know why.

Benito Gil-Mendoza

Defendant agreed to plea to aggravated assault and hit-and-run. 10 years prison for the assault, and sentence suspended for hit-and-run.  Sentencing document linked here.

Roger Stevenson

Defendant plead guilty to extreme DUI and hit-and-run; sentenced to some probation and an additional 30 days in county (in addition to 150 days served while awaiting). Details, see scottsdale-cyclist-dies-after-hit-and-run-crash.

Laura Flanders

Laura Flanders drove onto the sidewalk and killed Joey Romero; then fled the scene. She was sentenced to 6 year incarceration for negligent homicide, followed by 3 years probation for the hit-and-running. Details. See also, “Joey’s law”, below.

Nicholas Linsk

Nicholas Linsk killed Barrow’s neurologist Dr. Marwan Maalouf  after striking him from behind with his pickup truck while Dr. Marwan was riding in a bike lane; he stopped, but then drove off. Sentencing is scheduled for early September 2013. Details.

Thomas Cole Wuertz

Thomas Cole Wuertz, 22,  ultimately plead guilty to endangerment for the very serious injuries he caused to bicyclist Edward Brennan, 57 on April 3, 2013, In a plea deal that called for no jail time; the hit and run charges were dropped.  No one ever said (publicly, or in the news that i can find) why the more serious charges were dropped. Details at casa-grande-pd-nabs-hit-and-run-suspect. The Casa Grande PD needs to be complimented on their police work in catching the driver.

Other Cases

Others can be found by following the  hit-and-run tag.

The Dirty Secret of Hit-and-run Sentencing

The pattern seems to be hit-and-runners get some prison (either a little or a lot, typically depending solely on whether or not they were caught impaired), and the hit-and-run charge’s sentence gets “suspended” somehow, and never results in any consecutive prison time. This seems to be in direct conflict with the statutory intentions of the hit-and-run law’s penalties. (it’s not even clear if the mandatory 3/5/10 year license revocations are occurring, see the Allin case for more discussion).

The bottom line is these seemingly harsh penalties are nothing more than an illusion, and there remains a strong incentive for impaired drivers to hit-and-run.

Legislative History

Over the years, the H&R statutes hadn’t changed much.  Then relatively recently, legislators recognized the problem that weak penalties for H&R, especially compared to DUI penalties, were encouraging motorists involved in collisions to flee the scene. As a result, penalties were increased twice in the recent past. In 2002, Forty-fifth Legislature Second Regular Session, Chapter 228, added the part about making the prison sentence consecutive (in addition to, as opposed to concurrent which is really like getting no penalty at all) and other penalty. It also added specific, lengthy license revocation period (5/3 years, death or serious / any other injury). “Representative Foster, sponsor of the bill, stated that the law right now requires you to stay and render aid if there is injury or potential death. However, those laws are not being enforced.”

Penalties were increased again in 2007, 48th Legislature, 1st Regular session, Chapter 154 the criminal category of the crime was increased by one across the board. This, for example, elevated a hit and run resulting in a fatal or serious injury to a class 2 (same as manslaughter!), which is where we are today. There was little discussion and the bill passed unanimously according to the minutes of both house and senate transportation committees.

Penalties were increased yet again in 2012 (eff. 8/2/2012), “Joey’s Law”, 50th Legislature, 2nd Regular session, Chapter 191Senate Bill 1163. For background on the case that inspired Joey Romero’s father to get this law enacted, see driver-gets-6-years-in-sidewalk-killing. The gist of it is putting teeth into 28-661 to require significant (at least 5 years for fatality or serious injury) license revocation; and time spent incarcerated does not count. It’s too soon to know how this will pan out but I feel it is a step in the right direction, as opposed to, say, simply adding more prison time, which as we’ve seen above, never actually gets sentenced anyways. The license revocations should be automatic through already-required court reporting of all (transportation-related) violations to MVD.  This general procedure is explained in some detail so-youve-killed-somebody-with-your-car-now-what and scroll down to “The MVD Abstract”

In 2014, once again, Peoria resident Jesse Romero worked with Rep. Rick Gray, R-Sun City to get the law passed. (effective 7/24/2014) HB2505 51st Legislature, 2nd Regular session (or see chaptered version) modified the H&R laws so that a court must order drug/alcohol screening if the fleeing driver was proven to be impaired based on a “preponderance of the evidence” ; or “reasonable suspicion” depending on which statute. Additionally there was an upgrade in 28-663 to the criminal classifications: “(the new law) makes it a felony for a driver involved in a collision to leave the scene without assisting someone who is injured”; from a M3 to a F6 if drugs/alcohol is shown to be a factor.

OLDER (getting in the wayback machine!)

These are accessible via HeinOnline (which can, among other ways, be accessed with and asu login):

1913

1927 8th Legislature, 4th Special Session, HB2 …Code for the systematic and orderly administation of all matters and affairs directly affecting or concerning the highways of the state… the title goes on for several pages. “It may be cited as The Highway Code.” Ch. 2 p5-???.  Chapter V, Operation of Motor Vehicles — Rules of the road: Section 27 is hit and run, on p.108-109; and is quoted in State v. Lee.

1935 12th Legislature, Regular Session, HB41 Proof of Financial Responsibility… , Ch 45, pages 165-182. [this is a reference only; it just involves revoking driver license for various reasons including hit and run. I didn’t save a copy of session laws]

1950 19th Leg 1st Special Session (This was apparently co-published with 1951/20th legislature in one document), HB5 Regulating Traffic on Highways, Chapter 3, pages 522-598 (So it’s obviously a big bill. Hit and run is on pages 535-536). The modern numbering of 28-661/2/3 correspond (approximately?) to as Sec. 39, 40 and 41. This is confusing because these section numbers seem to only apply to within the bill itself?

1976 32rd Leg 2nd Regular session, Chapter 142 [reference to 28-661 only] Something to do with setting aside judgement, and exceptions.  I didn’t save a copy of the session laws for this.

1977 33rd Leg 1st Regular session, Chapter 142 [reference to 28-661 only] Something to do with exceptions for fines.  I didn’t save a copy of the session laws for this.

1978 33rd Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, HB2025 Crimes and Offenses, Ch. 201 page 677-??? (this bill is a huge rewrite of the entire criminal code, the pages of interest are 833-834). Amended 28-661 to get rid of a mandatory 30 day county jail sentence for hit-run w/death or injury to a class 1 misdemeanor. Amended 28-662 from an unspecified misdemeanor to a class 3.

1980 34th Leg 2nd regular session, SB1046 Crimes – Ordinance Violations – Fines and Imprisonments, Ch. 229  pages 718-741. Bump 28-661 criminal classification from a M1 to F6

1985 37th Leg 1st Regular session, Chapter 364 [reference to 28-661 only] added 28-661 to a list of exceptions for criminal judgement to be set aside in 13-907.  I didn’t save a copy of the session laws, since it’s just a reference.

1986 37th Leg 2nd Regular session, Chapter 248 [reference to 28-661 only] SB1232. Law involving restitution.  I didn’t save a copy of the session laws, since it’s just a reference.

1992  40th Leg 2nd Regular Session, HB2132 vol 2 Session Laws Ch. 330 pages 2012-2026; This was a dui law, did some tinkering with 28-661 that didn’t directly involve dui.

1995 42nd Legislature, 1st Regular Session SB1027, Session Laws Ch. 63 pages 242-243.  This was a bill that up’ed the criminal classifications in 28-661 from an F5 to and F4/3 (4 if caused, 3 if not caused by the hit-and-run driver) for serious injury/death. The classification of non-serious stayed at F6. Some other minor grammatical /clarification type changes.

1996 42nd Legislature, 2nd Regular Session SB1076. Session Laws Ch. 76 p.173-198 (it actually goes on way past that). The name of the bill Title 28 Rewrite — Conforming Legislation; is indeed a major re-shuffling of the enter transportation code; as such 661/2/3 appear in this bill as if all new but that’s not really the case.

 

The site deadlyroads.com is a pretty good resource, unfortunately, the site doesn’t seem to be updated but still has some well written essays and background info.

The MUTCD and A.R.S.

What is the MUTCD?

From wiki:

The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to specify the standards by which traffic signs, road surface markings, and signals are designed, installed, and used…

Here is the MUTCD home page, where full versions of the document are published.

Most of what is of particular interest to bicyclists is in Chapter 9. Walkinginfo.org has a webinar presentation that outlines the changes in the 2009 version of MUTCD.

H. Gene Hawkins, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. has an extensive history of the MUTCD.

 

Continue reading “The MUTCD and A.R.S.”

Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws in Arizona

The state of Arizona has no mandatory helmet use law for bicyclists; there are a few municipalities that have their own rules.
Specifically,  I believe this is a correct list at  bhsi.org, current as of mid-2011 (and I see nothing in the pipeline):

  Municipality applies only to Year Enacted
Tempe Under 18 2019 Sec. 19-215
Flagstaff Under 18 2010?
Pima County Under 18 1995
Sierra Vista Under 18 1995
Tucson Under 18 1993
Yuma Under 18 1997
Oro Valley Under 18 may be 2017, see below. Note as of Sept 2020: not currently on the bhsi list)

Noteworthy: as I scan the whole list of all states, I don’t see any state that mandates adult helmet use, only various ages of minors.

Motorized Bicycles

The city of Tucson (and possibly Pima county?) has helmet rules applying to motorized bicycles requiring helmet use; but if i recall correctly they completely

Although as of this writing (Nov 2016) this proposal hasn’t been adopted, the City of Tempe has floated rules which would make riders below 18 years to wear a helmet when operating various forms of motorized bicycles; and operators must be at least 16 years old.

In case you were wondering, Motorcyclists…

According to iihs.org there is a state law for under-18 year-old motorcyclists — including “motor driven cycles” (< 5hp). The statute is 28-964; and a quick read says that “motor driver cycles” do not include either mopeds or “motorized bicycles” but I’m not really sure. Here is some material from www.usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/arizonahl.html (I removed the link, if you want to visit the site, copy and paste it… as of Feb 28, 2013 this link is listed as “may harm your compter” by google), and anti-motorcycle mandatory helmet law site.

Hold the horn

Horn honkers take note, hold off on blowing that horn, it’s generally illegal.

§28-954Horns and warning devices

B. If reasonably necessary to ensure the safe operation of a motor vehicle, the driver shall give an audible warning with the driver’s horn but shall not otherwise use the horn when on a highway.

From ADOT Share the Road Pamphlet:

more materials at azbikeped.org

Audible Signal

There is ONE place where it is permissible for a driver to give an audible signal, i.e. beep (and not blast!) a horn, that is:

§28-723(2)  2. Except when overtaking and passing on the right is permitted, the driver of an overtaken vehicle shall give way to the right in favor of the overtaking vehicle on audible signal or blinking of head lamps at nighttime and shall not increase the speed of the overtaken vehicle until completely passed by the overtaking vehicle.

And note this law does not apply on any road where passing to the right, e.g. a road with two or more lanes in a particular direction, is permitted. In other words, it’s not permitted give an audible signal on a multi-lane arterial road; the only permitted use of horn is as allowed under 28-954.

In the scenario depicted in the graphic, above (a two-lane highway; passing on the right is not permitted), an audible signal is permitted but not recommended; as the cyclist cannot “give way” in any event; since there is no safe place to move to.

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arizona Department of Transportation
Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
Mail Drop 310B
206 S. 17th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 712-8141
www.azbikeped.org
© 2008 Arizona Department of Transportation.
Created by the Pima County Bicycle and Pedestrian Program,
Matthew Zoll, Program Manager.
Design and illustration by David Burnham, Pima County Graphic Services

ADOT 2010 Crash Facts

ADOT’s 2010 Motor Vehicle Crash Facts has just been released.

Highlights are the total number of fatalities continued to fall; there were a total of 762 persons killed in 2010, a 5% decrease from the year before.

There were 19 bicyclists killed on Arizona’s road in collisions with motor vehicles in 2010, which compares favorably with the 25 killed in 2009. That means there are two (possibly three) missing from this tally for 2010.

The MOST COMMON DRIVER VIOLATION is (remains) Speed too fast for condition

There were 106,177 crashes in total, of which 1,914 were bike-MV crashes.

Dangerous by Design

[updated regularly; the one release in May 2014 can be found at smartgrowthamerica.org I don’t think anything much has changed Phoenix and Arizona still rank “high” (bad) ][direct download of 2016 edition]

While we’re on the subject, t4america.org released the latest version of their recurring report Dangerous By Design 2011; where metro-Phoenix has a recurring, starring role as a particularly dangerous place for pedestrians — the 8th worst rate in the US. The only places significantly higher are basically several (!) metro areas in Florida.

Bad for pedestrians tends to translate into bad for motorists and bicyclists, as well — in other words, we’re all in this together.  Arizona’s motorist fatality “VMT rate  is over twice as deadly as Massachusett’s. The disparity in per capita rate, since Arizonans drive more miles, is even worse…. more

But you are not likely to hear anything about how or if or why Arizona isn’t closing the gap; or even that a gap exists! — rather that deaths overall have merely fallen. Here is a typical new-release-style story: azfamily.com story

Back to the DbyD report, they have this concept called PDI, the Pedestrian Danger Index; Phoenix-metro at 132 is many times worse than, for example, Boston-metro at 21.6.

And just to throw out a factoid, for the year 2009 (the most recent year for which detailed stats are available) there were more bicyclists killed within the City of Phoenix (9) than were killed in the entire state of Massachusetts(6).

The population of Phoenix is 1.5M versus State of Massachusetts having 6.5M…. The C.O.P., accused rightly as being an enormous-sprawling place covers 516 square miles, the state of Massachusetts 7,840 square miles of land area.

John Allen’s blog reflecting upon the fact that in the DbyD report, the Boston-metro area came in dead last (SAFEST!) of all large metro areas in US — “Strange, isn’t it — the Boston area has repeatedly been derogated as supposedly having the nation’s craziest drivers”.

Arizona’s Rural Highway Traffic Safety Problem

A couple of days after the data was released, and somewhat to my chagrin, the arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/09/02/20110902arizona-deadly-rural-roads.html did a fairly long and detailed piece on what ADOT is doing to identify and address rural highway problems… though, interestingly, the latest Crash Facts shows a steeper decline in rural as opposed to urban fatalities.

So far, no one that I know of, has said or suggested that Arizona’s high rate of rural fatalities is what accounts for Arizona’s overall high traffic fatality rate. Perhaps that is so?

As mentioned in the article, rural fatal crashes tend to be single-vehicle — though that is a little misleading because a bike-MV, or ped-MV crash is defined as a single-vehicle.

Here are the number of fatal crashes split by urban/rural for 2009 and 2010:

Peds fatal crashes, total/urban/rural: 156 / 102 / 54 ( 2009: 121 / 77 / 44)

cyclists killed, total/urban/rural:         19 / 17/ 2 ( 2009: 25 / 17 / 8 )

(all inclusive) Number of fatal crashes, total / urban / rural: 698 / 354 / 344 (2009: 709 / 299/ 410)

Here is some discussion of the 2010 National results: early-estimate-of-motor-vehicle-traffic-fatalities%C2%A0in%C2%A02010/

Horrific Crash kills 4 Motorcyclists

It was reported on 8/27/2011 that Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery will retry Michael Jakscht. The first trial ended with a hung-jury mistrial.
There’s a new trial date set for June 6, 2012

The driver of a heavy commercial dump truck piled into a group of motorcyclists who were stopped at a red light; reportedly he was distracted.

Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris described the scene “I have never seen such a horrific accident involving so many motorcycles,”

The crash 3/25/2010 at Carefree Highway and 27th way, Phoenix, initially killed 3, a fourth died a few days later. Several were seriously injured, including a Phoenix Fire Captain in critical condition.

Today the Arizona Republic is reporting in a 3/27/2010 story that the driver has a string of infractions, many of which sound like technical/equipment-related, and several of them were dismissed. However, the driver has an outstanding citation for failure to control about two weeks ago in Scottsdale, related to an (apparently minor) collision. These cases pop up on a search of the Arizona Supreme Court case lookup. But strangely, the reporter seems to be unaware of additional actions in Maricopa Justice Court, including one just dated just a couple of days before the huge crash. (search on Michael Jakscht)

The investigation is still ongoing, but with no hints of impairment the likely outcome, barring a surprise, will be a traffic ticket and no criminal charges.

The Surprise

Driver in fatal Phoenix motorcycle crash booked on 4 manslaughter counts, 4/06/2010 & Bond for driver in fatal motorcycle crash set at $1 million, 4/07/2010, AZ Republic.

Phoenix police arrested Jakscht on suspicion of driving under the influence of methamphetamine. Continue reading “Horrific Crash kills 4 Motorcyclists”

Woman dies after being hit by car on Ahwatukee sidewalk

file this under Are Cars Dangerous? and Seriously, how often does this happen? .

A jogger, later identified as 56 year-old Rene Karlin, was killed while jogging on the sidewalk near my home in Ahwatukee (city of Phoenix). Continue reading “Woman dies after being hit by car on Ahwatukee sidewalk”

Where to ride on the road

Assembled below for quick reference is a compendium of the consensus view of all traffic safety subject-matter experts about where to ride — this generally applies when riding straight ahead, and between intersections or other conflict zones. For why this is not only safest, but legal, see take-the-lane.

What the Experts Say…

Arizona Dept of Transportation

Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts is a short book based on bicycling traffic expert John Allen’s Bicycling Street Smarts; augmented with references to specific Arizona statutes, and published by the State of Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). The full title is Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts: Riding Confidently, Legally and Safely, and is available online in its entirety. Continue reading “Where to ride on the road”

Update on Van Brakel’s manslaughter sentence

There is an update to the who-is-at-fault-in-a-left-turn-collision story from 2007 where former state representative Cal Holman was killed while making a left turn at an intersection and was struck by two motorists who were criminally-speeding, and appeared to be racing.

One motorist, Travis Aronica, plead to endangerment and got probabtion.

The other motorist, Robert Van Brakel, was found guilty of manslaughter and received a five year sentence (which seems light to me, i thought the presumptive for manslaughter is 10.5 years?). Van Brakel (who i presume, is currently imprisoned?) won a review of his sentence by a different judge, claiming improprieties by the sentencing judge. He is scheduled to be re-sentenced “from scratch” by a different judge; because of re-sentencing rules it is extremely unlikely he would draw more than the original 5 years. This is currently scheduled for 8/12/2011.

As Laurie Roberts put it in her July 27, 2011 column “One of the racers gets probation. The other gets five years in prison. Really, that’s what they got… Both men had lousy driving records and both were charged with manslaughter.”

You can also read about the case at friendsofcalholman.com , but be careful because reading that is what got Judge Ryan “in trouble”.

There a newer update at bad-drivers-and-friendsofcalholman-com — Van Brakel was released somehow in 2014.