In conjunction with the “Bikes Safe at Stop Sign” bill recently introduced in the Arizona legislature, I began to wonder more generally about stop signs in general (all traffic, not just bicycles). Continue reading “Stop Sign Compliance”
Author: ArizonaBikeLaw
State V. Patrick
State v. Patrick, 153 Ohio Misc.2d 20, 2008-Ohio-7142
Link to .pdf decision on Ohio Supreme Court website, or can google for it, to quick view it.
It is unusual for a lower court decision to be published (so why was this one?).
The short summary is; since there was no probable cause for the deputy to do the stop in the first place (because the defendant was doing nothing illegal), everything that came later (the alleged disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and whatever else) was supressed. All charges were dismissed.
Mionske covered this case on his blog at bicycling.com.
Also, a roundup of this, and many other, “Right to the Road” cases.
Steve Magas described it as follows:
In State v. Patrick, 153 Ohio Misc.2d 20, Tony Patrick and another rider were riding two abreast when a police officer ordered them to get off the road. They refused and Tony was ultimately stopped, TASERed, beaten and arrested by police and charged with felonies and misdemeanors. However, the trial judge dismissed all charges holding, in part, that cyclists have the right to ride two abreast and the officer had no right to stop Tony. The judge in that case, a cyclist himself, stated that while cyclists SHOULD display courtesy to motorists, there is no legal requirement that they give way.
.
Phoenix marks first year of light rail
The Arizona Republic is running all manner of “year in review” stories, so of course Phoenix marks first year of light rail, Dec 26, 2009 hit the news.
The light-rail cars are cyclist-friendly, greatly aiding multi-modal trips to many valley locations. The lines themselves have caused some difficulties, though that was due to engineering missteps.
The first year of operation has exceeded ridership estimates “On Dec. 27 last year, Metro opened on time and on budget. Over the next 12 months, the $1.4 billion system carried an average of nearly 35,000 passengers a day, 34 percent over estimates” and fares are covering 24% of operating expenses, despite losses on the corporate cards caused by other confusions.
The light rail, of course, garnered all sorts of opposition from anti-rail (and anti-public-transit, or perhaps I should say pro-car) folks. On any and all grounds including that it is claimed to be phenomenally dangerous. “( light rail) averaged almost a collision a week, causing lingering doubts about light rail’s safety”. But is that really a problem, or unexpected, or out of line? Nobody seems to know. What is clear is that negligent motorists are at fault: “…No one has died, and no pedestrians or bicyclists have been hit. Police have attributed every accident to motorists ignoring traffic signal” (emphasis added).
Notwithstanding fault, is ~ 50 collisions significant? Nobody says. Keep in mind that Phoenix PD investigates ~ twenty thousand motor vehicle collisions per year.
Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death
This story about who can and can’t be sued in the case of wrongful death is interesting to those who follow such matters; Nevada High Court Says Pharmacies Can’t Be Sued for Death, WSJ 12/26/2009.
I was more interested in a habitual prescription drug abuser who killed this guy and served a whopping 9-months. 9-months! She killed one guy and seriously injured another according to the article.
“…Ms. Copening was driving a Dodge Durango when she hit two delivery men who were standing on the shoulder of a highway, killing one and severely injuring the other. In Ms. Copening’s car, police found prescription bottles and loose pills. Police reports said she appeared confused, and a blood test detected the painkiller hydrocodone. Ms. Copening pleaded guilty to two counts of reckless driving and served nine months in jail”
Photo Red Enforcement found ‘illegal’?
Well, not exactly. After an article in “theNewspaper.com” (“a journal of the politics of driving”… an anti-photo enforcement website), the local anti-photo enforcement blogosphere Camera Fraud has declared that a FHWA letter will be “will be sending shock waves through the insidious network of red light cameras across the country”.
Despite the camera-foes’ protestations to the contrary, the FHWA has no legal standing, can not make laws, and is not a legislative body (For Arizona, the Arizona state legislature is); the only tie to the law is through the MUTCD; and “violations” of the MUTCD are common. In any event the FHWA interpretation letter refers to the extra ground markings in use being dis-allowed, and not cameras.
An image of the FHWA letter is linked at that article, above (here is the letter). I don’t know who this guy, Paul Pisano, Continue reading “Photo Red Enforcement found ‘illegal’?”
Driver cited in death of baby in stroller
There was a particularly horrifying crash in September where a 7-month old baby was killed instantly while being pushed in a stroller ON THE SIDEWALK passing in front of a private driveway. The infant’s mother and brother escaped serious harm by leaping out of the way. Phoenix police announced almost immediately (My, that was a fast investigation! the crash occurred 9/14/2009, the media reported that outcome 9/16/2009) that there would be no criminal charges recommended. “Police said, Macias (the driver) did not see Clayda Lozoya, 27, walking down the sidewalk with her 4-year-old and 7-month-old children in a stroller. The SUV ran over the stroller and killed the baby instantly” [kpho]. “The investigation reveals Ms. Macias may have looked left before entering Northern Avenue to go east and not see the family approaching from the east,” Holmes’ news release indicated. ” [abc15]
In any event, the Arizona Republic reports (I guess the final police report?) in a Valley and State brief (not online? see below), that the driver was cited for two traffic infractions: failure to yield, and too-dark window tints. In the report, police (strangely) fault the mother of the victim for walking in front of the vehicle without making “eye contact” with the driver — now, remember police have also said the driver’s windows were illegally dark. hmmm. And remember, the victim was on a sidewalk, passing in front of a private driveway. It sounds to me like the Phoenix Police have invented a new duty — now it is the victim’s duty to ensure eye contact has been made, before making any sort of movement, regardless of right-of-way (the pedestrian has complete right-of-way at a driveway)? This is nonsense. This report is sounding like a tort lawyer. And, with all due respect to tort lawyers, is this really the sort of thing that should be in a police report? In my opinion, police reports should stick to application of THE LAW. Such “creative” interpretations in police reports frequently cause problems for cyclists.
On the other hand, the Police’s press release (reproduced below) was quite strong, admonishing drivers to look both ways — but of course, talk is cheap.
In case there is any confusion about what a driver is supposed to do at a driveway: §28-856 “The driver shall… Yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian as necessary to avoid collision”. (nothing about “eye contact” here).
For the curious, the window tinting statute is §28-959.01. I get the impression that this is one of those laws that generally only ever gets invoked after-the-fact.
The driver is, understandably, devastated over the incident. But from a punishment perspective, if the driver pleads or if found responsible for these infractions, she is facing a few hundred dollars in fines, and a couple of points on her license.
As noted above, police almost immediately dismissed any notion of criminal charges (e.g. Negligent Homicide). There is another far less serious law which makes it a crime (albeit a very minor crime) to kill a pedestrian, but it only applies when in a crosswalk. This seems to be yet another shortcoming of 28-672 see Crime and Punishment.
This sad sad sad story, and some of the Phoenix Police’s response reminds me of a quote from Mr. Burn of The Simpsons: “Beep Beep out of my way I’m a motorist” Wiggum “that some nice reckless driving Mr. B”
—
By the way, the outcome on public access shows up as something I don’t understand — normally the outcome would be either guilty/responsibile, or not responsible, or dismissed, or somesuch… what this about bail forfeited?
Case Number: M-0741-4090176
YIELD TO PED REQ FROM ALLEY/DRIVEWAY 11/24/2009 BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED
IMPROPER TINTING OF WINDOWS 11/24/2009 BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED
By the way, this crash shows the dramatic shortcoming of 28-672 “causing death or serious injury by moving violation”. The driver was plainly at fault, and plainly committed a moving violation, but because that particular violation isn’t on the list of infractions that triggers 28-672, nothing more serious than the ticket for failing to yield could be brought.
Driver in fatal crash was cited
The Arizona Republic, Dec 11, 2009, p. B2
PHOENIX — A woman whose SUV rolled over and crushed a 7-month-old boy outside a school in September was cited for two misdemeanor [ed’s note: this is incorrect — these infractions are strictly civil] traffic citations, records show.
Leticia Macias, 41, received the citations for failure to yield and for having improperly tinted windows on her 2007 GMC Yukon the day she struck and killed the baby at a busy parking lot at Westwind Middle School Academy near 20th and Northern Avenues.
The baby’s mother “never made eye contact with the driver prior to walking in front of the the vehicle” of the baby as she prepared to pull onto Northern Avenue on Sept. 16 after dropping her own child at school, according to a police report release this week. (ed’s note: there’s something wrong with the wording, e.g. “of the baby” makes no sense, and “as she prepared” obviously must mean the driver, who isn’t “the baby’s mother”).
A Phoenix police spokesman said Macias was never criminally charged. The baby’s mother, Clayda Lozoya, 26, was pushing the stroller and walking with her 3-year-old son at the time of the accident. The baby, Roman Mata, was pronounced dead at the scene as parents and children arrived at the campus around 8 a.m.
Phoenix Police Press Release at time of crash:
Infant in stroller killed by SUV leaving school parking lot
Information Provided by the Police Department
officers at scene in front of a school Tragedy struck at a private school near 19th Avenue and Northern this morning when a 7-month-old infant was struck and killed by an SUV. The infant, a boy, was being pushed in a stroller by his mother who was also walking with her 4-year-old son.
An SUV being driven by a 41-year-old woman who had just dropped off her child was pulling out of the Westwind Preparatory Academy parking lot and struck the stroller. The infant’s mother and brother were able to get out of the way, but were taken to a nearby hospital to be checked. The driver of the SUV remained at the scene; police were investigating and it was not known if she would face charges. “This is one of the calls you never get used to,” said Phoenix Fire Captain Hugh Chase. “We all have kids.”
PIO James Holmes at scenePhoenix police Public Information Officer James Holmes stated from the scene, “It is imperative that motor vehicle operators remember they are required to yield to not only vehicular traffic when exiting a private drive, but pedestrian traffic as well. Way too often a driver who intends to make a right turn will look left to ensure the way is clear, but not right. This endangers all pedestrian traffic which may be approaching from the right. We have to be careful.”
Ped Seriously injured by Driver at driveway
In echos of the stroller death, years later May of 2018 Pedestrian seriously injured following crash in Phoenix it seems that someone was walking on the sidewalk near 15th ave and fillmore in what appears to be a residential neighborhood when a driver ran over him while turning into a driveway. (a driveway is part of the sidewalk)
…a man who was driving down a dark street overnight didn’t see the victim on the sidewalk.
That’s when the driver hit the pedestrian as he pulled into his driveway… Impairment is suspected with respect to the pedestrian’s actions, according to Phoenix police.
By “pedestrian’s actions” i don’t know if they mean the pedestrian lept in front of the moving car, regardless… If it’s too dark for a driver to see, then the driver must slow down; stopping if necessary, and has complete responsibility for ensuring the sidewalk is clear before crossing it. Even if it’s “his” driveway.
Criminal Speeding and Photo Radar
In Arizona, speeding, like most traffic infractions, is generally a civil matter — but “excessive” speeding, defined as above 20mph (and actually above 85mph on the highway[update: this was later changed to 20 over posted limit, AZ has some 75mph posted]) over the posted limit, is a class 3 (minor) criminal misdemeanor; it carries a theoretical maximum punishment of $500 fine and 30 days in jail. See §28-701.02.
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has quietly recanted all or most of the loony things that he said back in February. I say quietly because Continue reading “Criminal Speeding and Photo Radar”
New Crash Forms / ALISS database
ALISS — stands for Accident Location Identification Surveillance System… it apparently feeds the ADOT Safety Data Mart.
As of Jan 1, 2009(?); Arizona has new forms. The old “Arizona Traffic Accident Report” will now be an “Arizona Crash Report” (as an aside, if you don’t know why that is significant, please see here). You can see what’s on the new form here, in a presentation by Rick Turner; includes the tantalizing bullet point “Customers Will Be Able to Query, Analyze and Retrieve Their Own Crash Data”. Continue reading “New Crash Forms / ALISS database”
Incidence of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles
This ponderously-name technical report from the NHTSA, Incidence of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crashes by Hybrid Electric Passenger Vehicles [DOT HS 811 204 pdf here]
Has a bunch of interesting tidbits. It’s obviously leading or suggesting that quieter motorvehicles, particularly at low speeds where tire noise would be less significant, have a tendency to not be heard by cyclists or peds thus leading to more crashes. Sounds plausible. The difference may explain some human behavioral factors of operators of bicycles; such as why cyclists rarely make a complete stop, yet rarely get seriously injured in those situations. (Motorist, too, rarely stop but that’s another story)
What mainly caught my eye was a juicy dataset as describe in the METHODS section “State crash files from NHTSA’s State Data System (SDS)… The SDS includes all police-reported crashes, regardless of the injury or crash outcomes”. Though the SDS actually only contains records for 32 states, arizona not being one of them.
Motorist Doctor Convicted on all counts
[This article about the 2009 Doctor-criminal in LA, has become a repository of these flagrant, intentional acts, with the advent of omnipresent video recording, these incidents which at one time would have just been he-said-she-said types to things and brushed off, are becoming more frequently heard about; jump down]
In a highly unusual incident, Physician Christopher Thomas Thompson was convicted on all charges in a Los Angeles court, including multiple felonies of intentionally causing a crash that seriously injured two bicyclist. Continue reading “Motorist Doctor Convicted on all counts”
Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the future of a continent
a book by Andrew Nikiforuk.
This was mainly a polemic against the tar sands (though the industry prefers the term oil sands) industry as practiced in Alberta, Canada, and how it connects to provicial politics there. The problems with the industry are legion: they use enormous amounts of natural gas to extract and upgrade the tar; loads of water is used; this load of water is then collected in highly toxic tailings ponds. Open pit/strip mining uses less natural gas than in situ extraction, but leaves obvious scars. And in any event, only 20% of the bitumen is available through mining — the other 80% requires in situ (referred to as SAGD, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage). Continue reading “Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the future of a continent”
Settlement in Phx Police crash
Fairly unusal story, stemming from an incident in September 2007.
A Phoenix police officer driving an unmarked car collided with an elderly cyclist, Edward Allen Leigh, who was crossing Third Street in a crosswalk (what I refer to as a “rolling pedestrian”). It was dark and the cyclist was unlit. Cyclists in crosswalks generally get treated like pedestrians under civil lawsuits.
The city settled a lawsuit brought by Leigh for $750,000, who had significant medical bills as a result of the crash. [azcentral]
Ahwatukee gets a new road
[UPDATE; this is the original material, circa 2009] Since Ahwatukee, part of the city of Phoenix, has been built-out now for years, I don’t get to say this much. Ahwatukee is getting a new road. It connects 40th and Pecos to the Wild Horse Pass (new) Hotel-Casino / Resort / Rawhide on the Gila River Indian Reservation. The road opened to traffic to coincide with the grand opening of the new hotel/casino, Oct 30, 2009.
For cyclists going “around the mountain”, this means it will no longer be necessary to cross over I-10 to get to Maricopa Road, usually via S 56th Street, and then cross back over to pick up Maricopa Road. Here is a map of the general vicinity (the new road is not shown yet). Continue reading “Ahwatukee gets a new road”
Distraction receives attention
The US DOT put on a major two-day Distracted Driving Summit. Here is a news story about the conference from the WSJ.
There was a media blitz including e.g. major press push from AAA, and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.
The federal government announced via executive order an immediate ban on texting for employees while driving government vehicles or while driving on official business in any other vehicle.
Legislation will be pushed which will ban texting while driving for federally regulated drivers, such as bus, truck, drivers. In addition, legislation to “encourage” states to likewise ban texting will be likely be introduced. The feds have no direct control over what legislation states enact — but (a big but), they can tie such things to withholding of federal monies, a la seatbelt and age-of-drinking, and 0.08BAC laws.
While all of this sounds good on the surface, my take is that is designed to make it appear to be getting tough on DD (distracted driving) while more-or-less ignoring the bulk of the problem. Why not a ban on talking on cell phones? (the “handsfree” business is just subterfuge). Or why not just enact real penalties for distracted drivers who harm others? This driver received a $254 fine for KILLING somebody. Here’s another driver — the police, because of an oversight, didn’t even write the citation. Just two examples of a huge class of inattentive drivers; drivers distracted by who-knows-what. They are apparently either sleeping, or daydreaming or actively distracted — though they rarely admit to the latter.
What does this all mean?
While I’m glad that distracted driving is receiving attention — it looks to me in looking at the press that the powers-that-be are setting up texting as the scapegoat. Texting will eventually be made illegal everywhere; but we will still have all sorts of other inattention being ignored, like talking on cell phones.
…
here is a blurb that ran in many media stories, but I have to find the source, note that it refers to cell phone use in general, not texting in particular:
A study performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows that 955 deaths and 240,000 accidents in 2002 could be attributed to cell phone use. The study was conducted in 2003, but the results weren’t made available until last week…
morganlee.org has some good cell links, Motherjones article on the study, and reference to a lawsuit here.
Crime and punishment
[for more current information on 28-672, see this article]
Most traffic infractions in Arizona are strictly civil matters, if a driver is found responsible he or she is generally subject to a fine of not more than $250 (§28-1598), and no jail time is possible. Some infractions specify their own penalties, for example the “Three foot rule” (§28-735) includes enhanced penalties of up to $500 or $1000 if a motorist seriously injures or kills a cyclist when overtaking unsafely (the enhance penalty does not apply if a bike lane is “present and passable”).
A handful of infractions specify criminal penalties, for example DUI, excessive speed, reckless driving. These are in and of themselves relatively minor criminal offenses, for example excessive speed is a class 3 misdemeanor (the least serious criminal classification).
If the conduct results in a serious injury or death, AND the police/prosecutor believe that the conduct was “criminally” reckless/negligent, then we leave the realm of traffic law and enter the generic assault or homicide laws; i.e. Arizona has no “Homicide by Vehicle” statute (perhaps we need one?). According to wikipedia, Arizona is one of only 3 states that lacks such a law. Vehicular homicide laws, though, are both a blessing and a curse — they make it easy for prosecutors to charge, but at the same time they are generally very low-level crimes (unless aggravated by, e.g., DUI).
That being said, there is one more statute of interest, §28-672, that “criminalizes” simple negligence when death or serious injury results, but only for a prescribed set of infractions:
- §28-645(A)3(a): Running a red light
- §28-729: failure to drive in one lane
- §28-771: failure to yield to vehicle on the right (generally applies to uncontrolled intersections)
- §28-772: Bad left
- §28-773: drive out at stop sign (see also, 855B, below).
- §28-792: Running down a pedestrian in a marked OR UNMARKED crosswalk
- §28-794: Not exercising due care around a pedestrian
- §28-797 subsection F, G, H, or I: Disobeying various school zone rules
- §28-855(B): Running a stop sign
- §28-857(A): Disobeying school bus stop signs
…
There are a couple of related statutes, §28-675 and §28-676 , that have more serious penalties for exactly the same list of infractions as with 28-672, but apply if the driver’s license has been yanked (and only when yanked for cause relating to previous illegal bad driving).
…
Although the penalties are relatively minor, it would seem this is a good start. But. It appears to me that this law if rarely charged. Why not?
Ok, so here’s the thing. Despite what would have to be a very common crime, there appear to be no more than a handful of these cases (I’ve outlined a couple of them here). Consider that just in the city of Phoenix, every year there are ~ 160 fatalies, and ~ 1,600 serious injuries (there are ~ 16,000 injuries, and ~ 10,000 injury collisions. The city’s stats don’t break down serious vs. non-serious. A 10% rate is to be expected). [These are the 2007 figures from the City of Phoenix]
So how many of these 1,700 or so cases result in 28-672 charges? The most serious recklessness cases become homicide/aggravated assault. In some cases, the driver is injuring/killing himself, so no charges would be possible. And the biggest exclusion is many of these don’t stem from a moving violation that is included in the definition.