The WSJ (news side) did a story on photo enforcement. Since there’s so much activity on this issue in Arizona, we figured prominently in the story.
Overall, it strikes me that it was fairly typical of such stories. The point of view of photo enforcement opponents, “it’s all about the money” is well represented, and I think that’s fair. But what troubles me, though, is the lightweight treatment of the safety aspects and the science involved. Consider:
Studies are mixed on whether traffic cameras improve safety. Some research indicates they may increase rear-end collisions as drivers slam on their brakes when they see posted camera notices…
A study of crash causes released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration last July found about 5% of crashes were due to traveling too fast and 2% were from running red lights. Driving off the side of the road, falling asleep at the wheel and crossing the center lines were the biggest causes identified.
The truth, or rather, the problem with that analysis is it ignores the relative severity of rear-end vs. an intersection collision. The 5% figure is interesting and misleading at the same time. It refers to the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey.
The article also talks about use of automated license plate reading technology being used for other (not traffic enforcement) uses, such as catching those with outstanding fines or whatnot.
Meanwhile, just wandering around the internet, I noticed the author of Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), a wonderful book by the way, Tom Vanderbuilt, blogged on the same article as well, with similar criticisms “to compare them so casually is typical of myopic mainstream-media reporting when it comes to traffic safety”. He also puts traffic dangerousness into terms of it being an externality of driving, just one of many, of course.
By the way, that site, www.policedriving.com, as its name implies puts a spotlight on police and driving. The Officer Down Memorial Page keeps detailed stats on the cause of death of all law enformcemnt officers killed in the line of duty — e.g. in 2008 the of the 134 officers killed in the US; about 70 were in traffic collisions (3 of those were as the result of pursuit, about 5 were intentionally “rammed”); by comparison, 40 were killed by gunfire (two of those accidentally), and only 1 by stabbing.
…
In yesterdays ed, Tax My Products, Please the WSJ argues that Ford CEO Mually’s call for higher fuel taxes is like “a Google executive demanding a tax on software”.
That analogy being as it may; what they are really renewing is their intentional obliviousness to externalities. And the tacit cost-shifting that inevitably results. Combusting fuel is damaging on its face (even if you don’t “believe in” global warming — as the WSJ editorial board clearly does not). Both in environmental damage and the toll it takes on human health.
So, who pays for all the negative externalities arising from automobility? Drivers don’t; the costs are all shifted to “society”.
They firmly support the status-quo; dead-set against cap-and-trade, and dead set against any increase in fuel taxes. Fuel taxes, which are supposed to fund road construction and maintenance have been dwindling in real dollars for years. The gas tax, which is levied per gallon, hasn’t budged in years; and does not adjust for little things like inflation. It has been at the current federal rate of 18.4 cents per gallon as long ago as 1993 (going on 16years! The arizona state gas tax hasn’t changed in even longer). This leaving a gap which is filled from other funds, like income, sales, and property taxes. (sources that have nothing to with driving).
This underpricing inexorably (remember WSJ eds, the laws of economics?) causes a greater demand for driving, and more roads, and more driving…
To cap off this topic, I’ve pasted below the one letter-to-the-editor that ran in print edition today, March 20, 2009. At first I thought the writer was being ironic, but apparently not. On closer inspection, it seems that he is of the something-for-nothing school. He believes, for example, that a 5,000lb. truck can or should get “more than 30mpg” (though he doesn’t say gallons of what; perhaps it is rocket fuel or something). To support his belief, he cites an acquaintance that has done so; but for unstated reasons, no one sells what would certainly be a highly desirable vehicle — perhaps a conspiracy? In the real world, expect to get about 15mpg in a 5,000 pound vehicle. If automakers (and that includes not just the big-three, but all of them worldwide) could make their engines twice as efficient; THEY WOULD DO SO.
In response to Ford CEO Alan Mulally’s call for higher gas taxes (which you report in “Tax My Products, Please,” Review & Outlook, March 17), I would like to say that Americans don’t want smaller vehicles. We have great distances to travel, mountains and plains to cross in all seasons of the year. We tow our boats and other contrivances. We haul our children around and travel with them over the continent. Our businessmen drive long distances since they can no longer own corporate jets. What we want is a more efficient internal combustion engine, not a smaller car.
And do not tell us it cannot be done. It can be done, because efficient engines can be created today with off-the-shelf parts bought from General Motors, Ford or Chrysler.
A friend of mine has converted a GMC Vortec V8 gasoline engine for his 2.5 ton pickup truck and the engine delivers more than 30 mpg. Why can’t we buy this type of vehicle at the dealer? Why does individual ingenuity have to point the way to corporations that have the money, skill and engineering brainpower to deliver a more efficient engine? Why do we have to pay more at the pump?
The suggestion that consumers should pay more in gasoline taxes is a cop-out on the part of the auto makers, politicians and everyone else who supports it. This is not Europe. This is the United States of America, a vast country with amazing distances and varieties of geography and climate.
We do not want higher gas prices. We want more efficient engines to power our vehicles. We want the Big Three to use their brains to create something new, not deliver a rehash of junk from a bunch of whiners.
There are a couple of serious objections to allowing bicyclists to legally roll through stop signs that should be considered:
1) Same Roads – Same Rights – Same Rules (SRSRSR). I find this argument specious at best and disastrous at worst. SRSRSR may be useful as a teaching aid, slogan, or PR position but simply does not, and can not, work as a legal position. In Bicycles are not motor vehicles and why it matters I explain why as a practical matter cyclists would be banned outright from most roads were we to actually be subjected to the same rules. There are a myriad of other, lesser, examples; pacelineing would be illegal, bikes would be required to have lights (24×7, not just at night), horns, and so forth, cyclists would have to be licensed, and thus children wouldn’t be allowed to ride bicycles (16″ or more wheelsize), bikes would require insurance and registration stickers (BLT, bicycle license tax, anyone?), there would be no riding on sidewalks statewide, nor would parking be allowed on sidewalks (I guess I would definitely have to get a kickstand). §28-735, the “3-foot passing law” would have to be repealed.
Beyond the issue at hand, as a matter of consistency, advocacy of any sort of bicycle lane would have to be disavowed — “Same Roads”, remember?
2) Safety; my own feeling is simply that the cyclist’s self-preservation instinct is stronger than any law, and as such changing the law won’t cause any (additional) problems.
Beyond just feeling, my review of traffic engineering literature indicates that the problem at stop signs isn’t one of strict compliance, but rather one of driver-error, see Stop sign compliance for references.
Also, we have an actual example in the state of Idaho. In reply to queries about the law’s impact on safety Mark McNeese said “No impact; nothing changed; current behavior was just legalized”. His full comments are below. Boise and its metro area have populations of around 200,000 and 600,000 respectively. By comparison, Tucson is about 500,000 / 1,000,000, and Phoenix is even larger. Still, it’s hard to claim that Idaho’s almost 3 decades of real-world experience is irrelevant. Continue reading “Why I support “Bikes safe at stop signs””
Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee hearing scheduled for Wed March 4th.
Failed (3 for, 5 against — which was omniously strictly party-line. Patterson, a Democrat, backed it. Every Republican voted against.) to pass committee. The bill was amended to apply to only ages 16 and older. The hearing was pretty interesting; discussion of HB2479 went on for over an hour(!). I watched it on the internet, that worked really well –from what i can tell, you can only see it in real time, i.e. there is no archive. There was open skepticism that police in Tucson are issuing tickets to cyclists just because they “did not put both feet down”, there was further skepticism that such a citation would hold up in court “even in Pima county” (that got some chuckles), Patterson replied that judges tend to defer to police officers. When asked to support the claim that “hundreds” of these citations were being issued by TPD, Rep Patterson explained that he asked but that TPD does not keep records by bike vs. motorist. But the bottom line is that not one of these non-foot-putter-downers materialized to corroborate these claims. Another committeman (Seel?) quoted state ofIdaho Bike coordinator McNesse (out of context, in my opinion) to make it sound as though McNeese is against the stop-as-yield law — he is not. Rep Barnes (i think) said something encouraging in effect: “I sense anti-cyclists sentiments and I don’t share them… we need to work to make cycling safer (in other areas)”
Hearing on Oregon’s stop-as-yield bill soon. They have been through this before, twice even, and I expect one of these times it will stick.
2) HB2546 “motor vehicles; bicycles; operation requirements”. Contains a bunch of things. It contains several of the same elements of HB2503 (46th 1st regular session, you MUST “change sessions” FIRST before clicking the link) that died in 2003.
As of mid-March, the bill looks dead. It never made it to hearing. It is “stuck” in the transportation committee. The bill’s main sponsor, Nancy Young-Wright, is not optimistic for this session.
3) HB2394 and SB1082 (identical) “technical correction; overtaking bicycles” is some wording changes to the existing §28-735(C). Seeing as how HB2546, above, seeks to completely replace 28-735(C), might this be a problem?
Prosecutors routinely decline to prosecute negligent drivers who kill/injure. Nearly without exception, they will only seek homicide (i.e. negligent homicide, or manslaughter) / aggravated assault charges if the driver is impaired. Short of that, the hurdle, in the minds of prosecutors, is very very high.
Arizona has no vehicular homicide law, it does however since 1998 have a law, §28-672, ” Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation” (and some companion laws 28-675 and 6 which work in an analogous fashion). The catch is that in order to be charged with 28-672, the driver must have been engaging in one or more of a specific list of infractions. For example, running a red light. Continue reading “28-672 in the news”
Actually, we should have said: riders of bicycles are not bound by rules that apply only to drivers of motor vehicles…
It’s helpful to note that the “rules of the road” apply not to vehicles, or bikes, but rather to the people operating these things. A typical example is the rule for what to do at a stop sign, §28-855(B). “A driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop…”. [1]
In Arizona, bicycles are, by definition, not vehicles; nor are they motor vehicles. Here are those definitions §28-101:
§28-101. Definitions
...
58. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power or used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks.
33. "Motor vehicle":
(a) Means either:
(i) A self-propelled vehicle.
(ii) For the purposes of the laws relating to the imposition of a tax on motor vehicle fuel, a vehicle that is operated on the highways of this state and that is propelled by the use of motor vehicle fuel.
(b) Does not include a motorized wheelchair, an electric personal assistive mobility device or a motorized skateboard...
So, if a bicycle is not a vehicle, why does a cyclist have to stop at stop signs? Simple, because of a law helpfully titled Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders, §28-812,
§28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders
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.
This is a cyclist’s fundamental right to the road; the equal of driver’s.
Note well that it refers specifically to the rights and duties of the driver of vehicle — and NOT the driver of MOTOR vehicle, in fact the word motor does not appear at all in 28-812.
It might surprise you to note that the phrase “motor vehicle” occurs only a handful of places in ARS Title 28, Transportation, with respect to how a driver must operate a vehicle. By far, most driver’s duties refer, as in the stop sign example above, simply to vehicle.
Some references are incidental; lane and speed restrictions on motor vehicles weighing over 26,000 pounds (§28-736, §28-709). Another was intended to set minimum passing clearance when a motor vehicle overtakes a bicycle (§28-735). Two germane examples for cyclists are following distance, and impeding traffic.
§28-730, “The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent…”, without the word motor in this statute, pacelining would likely be illegal. Since reasonable people would probably agree that a couple of inches is an inappropriately small following distance.
§28-704(A), “A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic…”. This is what I refer to as the cyclist’s second most fundamental right to the road, because if this statute were to apply to cyclists, then they would in effect be not allowed to use any road where traffic even might be impeded; regardless of number of lanes, width, presence or absence of a bike lane, or anything else. There is some detailed minutia [2] revolving around what is meant by the “normal and reasonable movement” but that is immaterial to cyclists, since this section is inapplicable to them.
Likewise, §28-701(E) “A person shall not drive a MOTOR vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions”, never applies to bicyclists.
The point is that the phrase motor vehicle is used sparingly and deliberately to apply only to drivers of that type of vehicle, reflecting clear legislative intent. In the case of 28-704(A) to allow cyclists to use all roads even though motorists might sometimes be impeded (with some caveats: There is a specific allowance for prohibiting bicycles on controlled access highways, and other roads on a case-by-case basis).
[1] There are actually several variations besides “driver of a vehicle” see the-driver-of-a-vehicle for a fuller taxonomy.
[2] A small number of states, but not AZ, (see chart below) have an impeding statute that omits the word “motor” making it necessary to show that a cyclist’s use of a roadway is a “normal and reasonable” movement of traffic in order to not be liable for impeding. This was done successfully, e.g in the Trotwood v. Selz case, in a published ruling.
Note that persons riding animals or driving animal drawn vehicles are also drivers of vehicles. See 28-625
Elliot Road, eastbound east of Priest Drive, City of Tempe. Sign placed by the city reminds users to “Share the Road”. Posted speed limit 45mph. Even the fastest bicyclists will be traveling well below the posted speed limit. This arterial, like most, has lanes which are “too narrow to share safely side by side”, and as such, cyclists going straight ahead are advised to ride near the center of the right-most through lane. Motorists wishing to overtake must change lanes (at least partially) to pass legally and safely.
—
.That motor vehicle statutes don’t apply to bicyclists needed to be litigated for a number of cases where Flagstaff PD cited a cyclist for 28-701E. The City of Flagstaff’s assistant city prosecutor, Mr. Brown as detailed in this trial transcript; the prosecutor at closing said “MR. BROWN: For Count B, 28-701E, (indiscernible) read the statute, State would have to agree that that statute seems to apply strictly to motor vehicles, since it’s not a moped or anything like that, it’s strictly a bicycle, the statue would not be applicable…”
Civil Cases
Here’s an interesting reference/mention written by Ann Groninger of bikelaw.com about a wrongful death lawsuit involving a distracted driver in North Carolina which resulted in the driver pleading guilty to misdemeanor death by motor vehicle, and ultimately a $4.5 Million jury verdict for wrongful death including punitive damages:
The defense asked also asked the judge to give the jury the instruction on impeding traffic:
The motor vehicle law provides that no person shall operate a motor vehicle on a highway at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.
This is typical for every bicycle case I have tried and, as in every other case, the judge declined the instruction once I pointed out that it applies to “motor vehicles,” not bicycles.
In 42 US states the law against “impeding traffic” only applies to motor vehicle drivers who impede (not merely delay) other drivers by driving too slowly, typically on freeways. Sadly, 6 US states do NOT exclude bicyclists from the provisions of this law and police sometimes use it as a way to harass cyclists who operate as drivers.
The caselaw from Ohio (where, as noted above in the iamtraffic graphic), where bicyclists are not exempted from the general impeding law, is illuminating. In the published opinion of State v. Selz [2000], 139 Ohio App.3d 947 the appeals court found an operator, in this case a bicyclist, cannot be in violation of the impeding statute as long as the operator’s speed is reasonable for the type of device in use. “We conclude that a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can”. The reasoning is based on a Georgia Appeals court opinion Lott v. Smith (1980), 156 Ga. App. 826 275 S.E.2d 720. that a corn combine (a motor vehicle, by the way) cannot be held in violation of the impeding rule for traveling 17mph on a road with a much higher speed limit and despite the fact that other traffic was clearly being impeded because the combine was traveling as fast as is reasonable for a corn combine. Below is the synopsis of the Selz opinion, with
In either [meaning, the Selz/bicycle case, or the Georgia corn combine] case, holding the operator to have violated the slow speed statute would be tantamount to excluding operators of these vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do.
All this means that Arizona law, even if mis-applied to bicyclists (who are not the driver of a motorized vehicle. Or for that matter, say, a slow-moving truck driver, who clearly is) could not be in violation of the impeding statute because the legislature has not banned bicyclists (or slow moving trucks) from public roads. Due to the persuasive precedents set by Selz and Lott.
Also note that in a reinforcing nod to Selz, Ohio subsequently augmented their impeding law adding subsection 4511.22 (C), emphasis added: “In a case involving a violation of this section, the trier of fact, in determining whether the vehicle was being operated at an unreasonably slow speed, shall consider the capabilities of the vehicle and its operator”
The Court of Appeals of Oregon upheld a finding of responsible against a cyclist who was one of a group that had intentionally stopped traffic as part of a “critical mass” protest. State v. Potter 57 P.3d 944, 185 Or.App. 81 (2002). The court was not asked to consider whether or not the speed was reasonable; in any event the court found vehicle codes apply to bicyclists unless explicitly exempted; for example the statue that requires vehicle title and registration.
The same court in another case curiously found that “after the (drivers being impeded) decided to follow defendant, he did not impede or block them; their progress was slowed by their choice (of) … following him, not by defendant’s driving”, State v. Tiffin 202 Or. App. 199, 121 P.3d 9 (2005)
The Potter case was unfortunate on many levels, not the least of which is the impeding vehicle statute was inappropriate for the circumstances, given the actions were intentional and done to stop (other) traffic, and not as a consequence of routine transportation where a slower vehicle might delay other traffic; In Arizona, the appropriate charge for such circumstances would be 13-2906. Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare. [see a similar question answered at corvallisrightofway.com; ORS 166.025(1)(d) Disorderly conduct in the second degree]
§11-1202—Traffic laws apply to persons on bicycles and other human powered vehiclesEvery person propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all of the rights and all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under chapters 10 and 11, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application.
§28-812. Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle ridersA 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.
§11-805 – Minimum speed regulation(a) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.
28-704. Minimum speed limits; A. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when either of the following applies…
? can’t find, perhaps the UVC has no slower than R&P?
28-701. Reasonable and prudent speed;E. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at a speed that is less than the speed that is reasonable and prudent under existing conditions unless the speed that is reasonable and prudent exceeds the maximum safe operating speed of the lawfully operated implement of husbandry.
Principles of statutory construction and interpretation
Arizona lacks the exception to the ride-on-the-right rule that allows cyclists to ride on the left side of one-way streets.
According to BicycleDriving.com’s Guide to Improving Laws , only 4 states (AZ, SD, TN, UT) lack this exception.
Arizona’s ride-on-the-right rule is §28-815. Arizona has the other usual exceptions: normal speed of traffic; overtaking; left turn; hazardous road conditions; and lane too narrow.
Arizona DPS in a press release Dec 29, 2008 cited photo radar as a major factor in a 59% decrease in fatal crashes for the 80 days of “enhanced” photo-radar enforcement, compared to the same period in prior years on Phoenix metro highways.
On the other hand, critics claim that the cameras have no effect on safety; the most strident claim that cameras cause an overall increase in crashes — but so far at least that is all they are, claims.
the enabling legislation for the so-called enhanced photo (DPS / state-run) is 48th 2nd regular session HB 2210 “budget reconciliation; criminal justice” (which is very long and has lots of stuff in it; it was also apparently a striker because the original name was “regents; scholarships;”), see §41-1722, [some updates 3/1/2013 — much has changed, in particular it looks like that statue is now missing due to repeal, see all of chapter 41; also see process-servers-and-personal-jurisdiction] which among other things gets rid of points, and changes (see changes to process service requirement.
General rules for commencing a civil traffic violation “by filing” (photo tickets are filed as opposed to issued) are specified in 28-1592 and 28-1593; say that complaints must be filed within 60 days and served within 90 days from filing. There are exceptions if the incident involves a traffic collision and investigation. Do these rules apply to photo tickets? dunno, as far as i can see there are no alternatives. And how this jives with Rule 4(d), i dunno either, see below.
Here are a bunch of “emergency changes” to the Arizona rules of civil procedure, effective Sept 2008. These are mostly regarding the complaint and service provisions of phot0-radar violations.
…
There was an article in June 2009 issue of Perfectify magazine written by Arizona Attorney Monica LindstromSmile for the Camera (p.44). It gives some general background regarding service requirements
Under Arizona rules of civil procedure, Rule 4(d), a complaint must be served within 120 days. for purposes of a photo radar ticket, the “complaint” is the ticket and it is typically considered filed on the day of the violation (the day you were speeding or ran the red light). In other words, the government has 120 days to serve you with the ticket. If it fails to do so, then the ticket is dismissed — unless the government asks for more time. Beware some cities are using “alternative service” which can be by publication in a newspaper or posting it on your door. I recommend keeping up with the news in your area and doing periodic internet searchs to see if your city/town/county is employing this sneaky method.
I am not aware of any such “alternative service”.??
Strangely/inexplicably, she seems to not understand that there are no points associated with photo radar (speed cameras).
Thomas says no to criminal speeding
In a surprise move (a surprise to DPS, that is. Is this more politics than law?), Maricopa county attorney Andrew Thomas announced (Feb 24,2009) that his office will not charge motorists flashed at 20+ over with “criminal” speeding. Cities within Maricopa county, as well as everywhere outside of Maricopa are not affected by Thomas’ decision.It wasn’t clear to me if the DPS photo citations go to the city, or to the county by default (I’m guessing they go to the county?).
His whole explanation is silly; e.g. his claim that it is unconstitutional since “you can’t cross-examine a camera”. This is absurd, how does he support any other machine-based evidence? breathalyzers (or blood analysis machines), photographs, surveillance videos, wiretaps and so forth. they can’t be cross examined either.
In Arizona, criminal speeding is defined by §28-701.02 “Excessive Speeds, Classification”. The reference to 20 over isn’t completely accurate on the highway, it refers to over 85mph — i.e. 20 over if the posted limit is 65mph, but 30 over if it is 55. The general reasoning, which is said to be an “informal” opinion is that criminal requires a higher burden of proof than photo-radar alone can provide and as such they will decline any such cases. The DPS has indicated it will request a formal opinion on the matter from the Attorney General.
Attorney General says yes to criminal speeding
That didn’t take long. In a Feb 27th memorandum, Attorney General Terry Goddard knocked Thomas’ claims; “Mr. Thomas’ anecdotal explanations of potential abuses of the criminal process based on the use of photo radar do not provide a reasoned basis for an assertion that photo radar cannot be used to establish a criminal violation.”
“Arizona courts have similarly authorized evidence derived from other types of devices, such as video-tape recorders or cameras… there is no reason to believe the same rule would not be followed by Arizona appellate courts were the issue to be raised here.”
“Mr. Thomas states that prosecutions based on photo radar evidence would violate the Confrontation Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions because a defendant would have ‘no opportunity to question or cross-examine a camera.’ Mr. Thomas ignores, however, the fact that non-testimonial evidence such as a surveillance tape or an Intoxilyzer test result is routinely admitted in criminal cases without implicating the Confrontation Clause. Under Mr. Thomas’ interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, the evidentiary use of surveillance tapes or Intoxilyzer test results, as well as any other mechanical measuring device, would be improper because there is no opportunity to question or cross-examine the tape or the measuring device. Furthermore, the United States and Arizona Confrontation Clauses, by their express terms, only afford a criminal defendant the opportunity to confront the witnesses against him… A defendant’s right to confrontation does not extend to physical evidence”
Thomas Responds
(do we have a dyfunctional system going here in AZ or what?) From KTAR story dated Feb 27th:
“[Goddard’s] main goal seems to be avoiding being pinned down on controversial issues,” Thomas said. “Quite frankly, that’s one of the reasons why this amazes me. You never hear him weighing in on the controversial, tough issues that I take on”
Then he switches to… drum roll please… immigration enforcement!
“Since the first year I took office, he and DPS have refused to fully enforce the immigration laws of this state,”… “DPS has released one van load after another of illegal immigrants stopped on our highways.”
Phoenix city council quietly (well hey, I never heard about it, but it was in the paper) passed a rather sweeping pedicab ordinance in July 2008. The regulations went into effect August 1, 2008. Continue reading “Phoenix Pedicab Ordinance”
“The only real solution is Al Gore’s proposal to offset a carbon tax dollar-for-dollar with either an income or payroll tax reduction. If a carbon tax increase were offset dollar-for-dollar with an income tax rate cut, I for one would strongly support the policy. The economy would benefit because the progressive income tax does far more damage than a carbon tax would, and we’d use less oil. It’s a win-win situation. Yet this perspective appears to be totally outside the Obama team’s ken.”
First high gas prices, then the economic slowdown has meant a sharp decrease in miles driven in Arizona. “Arizona drivers put 295 million fewer miles on their cars in October compared with October last year, a 6 percent decline and the 11th consecutive month traffic has dropped”
