In Arizona law, motorists, bicyclists, as well as riders of animals (as well as animal-draw carts) are all “drivers of vehicles”, with co-equal rights to use the roadways.
The relevant statute in ARS is
§28-625 Persons riding animals or driving animal drawn vehicles
A person riding an animal or driving an animal drawn vehicle on a roadway has 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 the provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their very nature can have no application.
Like bicycles, animals used in transportation, of course, preceded motor vehicles on the roads.
Like bicyclists, animalists (is that a word? That is, the rider of an animal, or the driver of an animal-drawn cart) are not motorists, and are not subject to laws which apply specifically to motorists. See bicycles-are-not-motor-vehicles-and-why-it-matters, for more.
Meanwhile, motorist have extra duties, and are required to exercise extra care when operating in the vicinity of an animal:
§28-858 Approaching horses and livestock
A person operating a motor vehicle on a public highway and approaching a horse-drawn vehicle, a horse on which a person is riding or livestock being driven on the highway shall exercise reasonable precaution to prevent frightening and to safeguard the animals and to ensure the safety of persons riding or driving the animals. If the animals appear frightened, the person in control of the vehicle shall reduce its speed and if requested by signal or otherwise shall not proceed further toward the animals unless necessary to avoid accident or injury until the animals appear to be under control.
But what about Texas?
You might have thought Texas would protect animal rider’s/driver’s rights, but apparently they have some vague local laws; in Allen, TX animal riders/drivers aren’t allowed on “heavily traveled” streets. Vauge!? Texas-man-ticketed-for-riding-horse-to-Taco-Bell
In Arizona, as far as I can tell, localities have no authority to regulate the operation of animal riders/drivers. The are simply the drivers of vehicles throughout the state.
Why is AZ so deadly; and why does no one seem to notice or care?
Does, or could this explain the huge disparity between, for example, Arizona’s high traffic fatality rate and Massachusett’s extraordinarily low fatality rate? Check out the NHTSHA numbers here. Arizona’s rates are between TWO AND THREE TIMES as deadly as MA. Why?
These are composite traffic fatality rates, not bicyclist or ped or motorcyclist.
In an update to this July 2010 story, as the City of Tempe prepares to turn off its photo-enforcement effective July 19, 2011, police mention that those very photos were instrumental in capturing the suspect, Cody Davis, who fled the scene. See Police: Photo enforcement’s impact goes well beyond traffic infractions from the EVtrib.
The IIHS does this every so often, e.g. see here for their report from a couple of years ago.
So, the latest is Dying in a Crash, Vol 46, No. 5, June 2011. It covers 2005-08 model year passenger vehicles during calendar years 2006-09. It also specifically only covers driver fatality rates.
The big news is that SUVs, which long have had higher death rates than passenger cars — due to the much higher rollover deaths — have become safer, due presumably to the prevalance of ESC (electronic stability control) in newer model SUVs.
There is no accounting for attempt to account for danger imposed on others.
What the WSJ Thinks
The WSJ has been running the same editorial and op-eds for as long as there’s been a CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Econonmy, probably 30 years old now) Continue reading “IIHS Driver Fatality Rate Stats”
…the season apparently just started in April 2011. Pollution — nobody wants to pay… Our state politicians want to block more stringent new-car standards. And meanwhile complain that the excessive number of alerts/advisories is caused by tightening air-quality standards.
State officials posted the Valley’s eighth ozone pollution advisory of the season Tuesday, a fact clean-air activists noted repeatedly as they argued against a plan to repeal Arizona’s vehicle-emissions rules barely six months after they took effect. Arizona’s plan to cut clean-car program criticized by activists
It’s maintained by MAG’s (Maricopa Assoc of Gov’ts) Active Transportation Committee (formerly the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) and note that the MAG region includes not only Maricopa, but also portions of Pinal and Gila counties. There is a pretty neet online version that overlays google maps, or an old-school .pdf download (it’s pretty big)., and another version that has something to do with mobile/gps.
Alternately, Maricopa County DOT (“McDOT”) has an active transportation plan along with an interactive map that is built from the same database as above, but in this version, users can leave comments about specific areas of concern for bicycling / walking.
There is also a printed City of Tempe published map I’ve seen floating around; not sure if it’s online.
On the MAG interactive map, designated bike lanes are clearly labeled (they’re ‘blue’); and are distinct from other sorts of not-bike lanes, e.g. bike routes.
This map suffers from far too much ‘red’ which the key says:
Bike Route with Striped Shoulder, Bus/Bike Lanes
On major street, with white-edge line, approx. 4 ft. to 10 ft.
wide paved shoulder, with speed limits of 25 mph or more.
Includes Bus/Bike Lanes on major streets, 10-12 ft. bus and right-turn lane, shared use with bicycles.
Virtually every major road throughout the region is ‘red’. Are these designated bike lanes, or not? (a bike lane is part of the roadway, a shoulder is not). What is frustrating is the answer seems to depend on when (it seems to evolve over time) and who asks the question, and who is answering.
There is a second map, covering the same territory, at pagregion.org. and current link to .pdf. Here we see virtually all major streets (the same streets, by the way) are ‘blue’ which the key says are “Bike Lane”. Really? Are these really all designated bike lanes? Are they wide enough to be bike lanes? E.g. The Dodge Bridge is in ‘blue’.
Flagstaff
City of Flagstaff bike map page.Major streets are all marked in ‘purple’ , which the key says is
Bike Lane or Shoulder: An outside lane of four to five feet in width for the exclusive use of bicycles, separated from vehicular lanes by a white stripe. This definition include bike lanes designated by signing and pavement markings, as well as paved shoulders delineated by a stripe, but not pavement markings or signing.
So there’s no way to tell from the map what is a Bike Lane and what is a shoulder. Nice. And by the way, Flagstaff, shoulders are not lanes.
As far as i can tell, there’s not really a Coconino county bikeways map.
Summary
MAG (Maricopa) Bikeways map is honest. The maps for Tuscon, Pima, PAGregion, and Flagstaff are at best non-informative and at worst dishonest.
Each statute referenced is a link and its full text will open in a pop up window. Here is a version better for printing.
Here is a very large .pdf (27MBytes) of the entire ARS snapped from the azleg.gov website in March 2013 — good for searching (the search tool on azleg.gov leaves a lot to be desired), and for general off-line use. The curious can find the unix script that was used to generate it. There is also a .pdf of just ARS-Title28, from around the 2013 time period that’s only about 1MByte.
07/20/2009 TR-2009006000 1) SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC 28-704A
03/26/2010 Trial: found responsible
04/21/2010 Motion to reconsider, CV-201000162: upheld (i.e. he “lost” the appeal)
Comments: this trial is FULLY documented here.
This is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute.
The judge and deputy said some/many bad things.
Since this ticket was issued by a Coco Sheriff’s deputy, neither the Flag PD nor the City Attorney’s office was involved in any way. The only link, other than that it occurred in Flag, is the Flag Municipal court.
12/19/2009 NAIPTA bus/bike incident
02/11/2010 Story airs on Phoenix news. Story published in azdailysun
03/17/2010 City Attorney’s officer directs police and two citations are issued against the bus driver: speeding and 28-735
05/11/2010 City Attorney motions to dismiss both citations, and they are. No trial is ever held
Comments: this story is FULLY documented here.
There was much bad and disappointing behavior in this story — NONE of it attributable to the cyclist.
06/10/2010 TR-2010004702 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E
07/15/2010 Trial held: all charges dismissed
Comments: Note the “Speed less than resonable”, 28-701E is inapplicable to bicyclists.
Full details here including the absurd police report here.
09/30/2010 (same date as next one?) TR-2010007979 BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
10/28/2010 Trial held: dismissed.
Comments: don’t know the details.
9/30/2010 CR-2010003369 1) CRIMINAL DAMAGEDEFACE 13-1602; 2) NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY 28-724B; 3)BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
Trial was held.
Comments: i only know sketchy details — the cyclist “had words” (and horns, i expect) with a motorist. Sometime later a crash (minor, as i understand) occured between the motorist and cyclist. The police arrive and arrest the cyclist for criminal damage, along with the other two citations. No word on whether or not the motorist was arrested also. “Criminal Damage” is a relatively serious crime. The charges seem to have been filed by police simply on the say-so of the motorist.
At trial, the cyclist was found guilty of Criminal Damage, and responsible for the 28-815A, not responsible for 28-724.
Appeal CV2012-00145 Superior Court Judge Mark Moran’s Order: The finding of responsible for 28-815A is left standing, the criminal charge is vacated “The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence presented in the record to sustain the Defendant’s criminal conviction for a violation of A.R.S. §13-1602(A)(1), criminal damage. Court finds as a matter of law that the State failed to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the Defendant possessed the necessary mens rea for the crime of criminal damage… The Court vacates the finding of guilt on the charge of criminal damage” (emphasis in original).
Comment: Criminal Obstruction AND Littering? Really? I have no further info on this.
02/03/2011 Minutes of the Flagstaff BAC Meeting
Comments: You have to read them to believe them; I can only find the current meeting minutes online, so i have pasted them as a comment to this blog article.
02/07/2011 TR-2011000991 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A
03/10/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible
Comments: I don’t know anything about this one.
i’m thinking this MAY be the one involving a “drop lane” next to a bike lane, that transitioned to a right-turn-only lane. If so I think the ticket is technically justified; but the officer showed bad judgement in issuing it in the first place — i.e. cyclist’s speed was high (big downhill), the alleged impeding was 100 feet; there was no other, other than the police vehicle, traffic. see picture.
02/07/2011 TR-2011000921 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E; 3) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/03/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible, 2) acquitted, 3) acquitted
Comments: cyclist will probably appeal the 815A. I mention, again, that 701E cannot apply to bicyclists. And most importantly, the cyclist was aquitted of the criminal obstructing charge. The prosecutor espouses a clear motorist-superiority point of view., see comment below. Note that this incident was immediately after the incident, above.
The police report is available. The criminal obstruction charge should never have been brought. According to the report, traffic in the lane that the cyclist was supposedly impeding was traveling approx 20mph (the posted limit being 30), while “it should be noted that (the cyclist) appeared to be riding casually and not actively peddling”. Maybe. 20mph. In any event the judge tossed out that bogus charge. The criminal obstruction statute is for those with “no legal privilege”; cyclists in transport clearly have a legal privilege to use the roads. The police officer certainly should have known that. The prosecutor obviously should know that. Yet there was a full-blown criminal trial. What a huge waste of city resources.
The only potentially legitimate charge here was the 815A. There was no question that the cyclist entered the number 1 (i.e. “left”) lane legally, as traffic was stopped in the number 2 (i.e. the right, or curb lane) lane. The only issue remaining was whether or not the cyclist could have returned to lane number 1 sooner.
More critically the lane width was “10 to 11 feet” per the officer’s testimony; And the cyclist of course stated the lane was too narrow to share side-by-side and therefore there could be no 28-815A violation due to exception 4. The judge, who was otherwise quite complete and precise, found the bicyclist responsible for 28-815A, without any explanation.
Comments: don’t know any detail. cyclist is beginning appeal.
1/12(?)/2012 Warning; something to the effect of “you can’t ride in the street”
This is getting too tiring to try and document. Here’s a picture of old snow/ice/crud obstruction on Butler Ave. I am unsure as to whether or not this is a designated bike lane; it doesn’t really matter (except perhaps for the bad local ordinances rescinded 12/2011, but still(?) in effect. These are some seriously bad and ridiculous laws:
SECTION 9-05-001-0016 LEAVING LANE:
Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same…
1/20/2012 TR-2012000553 1) (local charge) USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED 2) 28-730 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
Comments: Charge #1 has apparently a section of the local ordinance that has been repealed (city council vote Dec 20, 2011), and appears to have taken effect no later than 1/19/2012 (30 days after the council approved it). This is an egregiously discrimatory rule against bicyclists.
The second charge, 28-730, is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute. Sigh.
APPENDIX – Reference to statutes that cyclists have been accused of
SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
statute: §28-701E
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists
SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC
statute: §28-704A
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists
BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT OF ROADWAY
statute: §28-815A
Comment: Except the 2/7/2011 incident, all charges of this have involved cyclist in a clearly narrow lane; in other words, exeception 4 should have been applied.
NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY
statute: (probably) §28-724B
Comment: n/a
FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
statute: §28-730
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists
OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE
statute: §13-2906
Comment: Criminal code. Can only apply to someone who has “no legal privilege” to be on the roadway.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE DEFACE
statute: §13-1602
Comment: I am speechless.
USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED
ordinance: Section 9-05-001-0005. paragraph D “Wherever one or more lanes of a roadway have been designated and marked as bicycle lanes, bicycle riders shall use those lanes and shall not use the roadway”. Another section 9-05-001-0016 states that “Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same…”. Is this a joke? I’m afraid not. According to the city of Flagstaff, if there’s an obstruction in a bike lane, you must, stop, dismount, and walk around it. Really.
On Dec 20, 2011, Flagstaff city council gave final approval (but effective date is unclear) to a major revision of the bicycle ordinance that removes most or all of the truely objectionable/discriminatory junk that lurked in their local ordinances for decades, since 1973!
[Final result, seemingly inexplicably, the driver was never charged with any crime, and never issued and citation in connection with the incident]
Randy and Doris Bjerken, of Palmer, Alaska were in town visiting Randy’s dad… out for a stroll at 10AM on Mother’s Day when. BAM! An SUV jumps the curb and wipes them out.
Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of 25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist; while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist from behind.
Comments or questions may be left here, or contact me.
There were some somewhat out-of-context statements about my report on the npr.org health blog. They probably should have mentioned that the report covers only FATAL bike-MV collisions (a tiny fraction of all bike-MV collisions), and that the manner of collision in fatals varies significantly from non-fatals.
Superhuman-sized objects moving at superhuman speeds are dangerous. Inherently. But who bears this danger? Motorist liability insurance is one supposed motivator; in theory motorists are supposed to bear the cost of the risks they are inflicting on others, but has many limitations (see e.g. The Disneyland Model). In reality this risk-spreading ends up socializing the costs of driving — paid for by others, subsidized, also called an externality. Thus we get more driving, because it is artificially cheap, and more traffic death and destruction.
It is worth pointing out to nervous cyclists that the large majority of traffic death and destruction is done by drivers of automobiles to other motorists (see, e.g. the chart here). This is to be expected, of course, since the large majority of traffic is motoring.
—
Here are a couple of recent, local incidents… out of control “accidents” all —
Girl critically injured, was standing on the sidewalk, May 6, 2011: Deette Lynn Perry, 54, was arrested Friday after she was discharged from the hospital, where she had been admitted following the May 6 incident, Sgt. Steve Martos of the Phoenix Police Department said. Perry was in a 2004 Nissan Altima near Thomas Road and 23rd Avenue when she drove onto the sidewalk and struck a 17-year-old girl, Martos said. Police suspect Perry was impaired by drugs, Martos said. The girl suffered a fractured pelvis and severe head injuries, Martos said.
An Australian tourist crossing a Phoenix street was killed late Tuesday when a sport-utility vehicle slammed into him, authorities said Wednesday…The SUV was moving so fast the victim was dismembered by the impact. Witnesses told police the vehicle apparently ran a red light…Ramzy Khalil, 29, of New South Wales, Continue reading “Are Cars Dangerous?”
[ UPDATE The article below was first written in 2011. Be sure and see public-safety-fee-going-into-effect beginning late 2018. This is the first significant change in vehicle use taxes in Arizona in nearly three decades ]
[UPDATE: Yet another externality of fuel is the uncompensated release of toxic, carcinogenic compounds into the air we breath gas-stations-venting-ten-times-more-gas-vapor-than-once-believed , primarily benzene. Another positive for zero tailpipe emissions vehicles like BEVs (battery electric vehicle); which receive significant tax breaks by not paying any road tax as well as reduced VLT ]
From time to time, we will see a recurring theme to the effect of “bicyclists don’t pay gas tax so they don’t deserve to use the road”. (for a good roundup of this and other similar issues see bicycledriving.org) There are certain elements of truth to this — bicyclists don’t purchase gas, it’s true. And there’s also an implication that motorist are “paying their way”, but that’s just not true. Gas taxes (and other direct taxes on automobiles) nowhere near cover the costs of building, maintaining, and operating roads. And that’s not to mention the (much larger) costs associated with death/mayhem and pollution impacts on human health and the environment. And none of that is to mention other more intangible costs like defending sea lanes worldwide; and propping up unsavory regimes so that oil can continue to flow freely. Continue reading “Road taxes”
Maricopa County’s ozone season starts today with a fresh burst of heat and sunlight, two key ingredients needed for unhealthful levels of the smog to form.
Temperatures could rise to nearly 100 degrees today as a strong high-pressure system creates the ideal conditions for ground-level ozone. The other elements – vehicle exhaust, power-plant emissions, gasoline, paint and industrial solvents – are always in abundant supply. Read more…
My gripe? While I agree that vehicle exhaust is always in abundant supply, I don’t imagine power plants contribute any significant amount of pollution to the Phoenix area. The closest big power plant is Palo Verde nuke which is by definition smog-free. There are a bunch of small-scale power plants within the valley but they tend to be natural gas fired, which is very very clean smog-wise. The nearest big coal plant, which are among other pollutants very smoggy are hundreds (?) of miles away.
I wonder how much of smog is contributed other than from vehicle exhaust (and fueling)?? I doubt very much.
