Arizona Legislature considers defining motorized quadricycles

The tourdetavern.com has been operating in Scottsdale since 2012.

[UPDATE — this bill was passed, i believe in exactly the same form as was vetoed last year, we have a new governor. HB2211 in 52 1st regular session, 2015. The bill also included autocycles ]

[VETO — gov. Brewer vetoed this bill… “Brewer in her veto said the bill could pose a public-safety risk, primarily if passengers are drinking alcohol.” ]

Somewhere out of the blue; House trans committee chairperson Rep Karen Fann introduced an amendment that makes definitions and regulations for commercial multiple-person, pedaled, motor-assisted quadricycles. Often offered as a “party bus” where the riders drink and pedal around (presumably the driver remains sober). This is an amendment to SB1201 a striker bill that defined Autocycle as essentially an enclosed 3-wheeled motorcycle. Continue reading “Arizona Legislature considers defining motorized quadricycles”

The UVC

UVC — Uniform Vehicle Code. A placeholder article for all things UVC. I don’t really understand the process, but it’s what I refer to as a quasi-official group/document, it has no weight-of-law, unlike e.g. the MUTCD, which is maintained by the federal gov’t, and incorporated by reference into Arizona (among many others) law.

The wiki article is very sparse; it links to the NCUTLO page, which still has a website but from what I understand is “on hiatus”; and the NCUTCD “inherited” maintenance for the UVC — see “evolution” below. See also azbikelaw.org/contrib/UVC/ for many old/historical references to UVC, especially pre-2000 versions. Continue reading “The UVC”

More about shoulders; this time golf carts.

cartTracksSunCity — Sample “excessively wide” road in Sun City, AZ. This is Boswell Blvd, somewhere south of Bell Rd. You can clearly see the golf cart “tracks” in the shoulder.

There is an interesting bill floating around in the state legislature, HB2027 (see
bill-tracker to follow this and other bills of interest)

Direct link to HB2027 — golf carts allowed to use shoulder. For much more about shoulder usage, see shoulder-use.

The first odd thing is the bill is written so it only applies to age restricted communities in unincorporated areas of counties more than 3 million population.(phew! Translation: Sun City, Sun City West, etc. It also, come to think of it, applies to Sun Lakes.). Continue reading “More about shoulders; this time golf carts.”

Street Highway Sidewalk Roadway Shoulder Definitions

180577_1431298233827_2121435_n — Dan Gutierrez’s graphic illustration (CVC are references to the CA vehicle code).

It seems as though I’ve had to look this up over and over. Finally, here are all the definitions, for the first time ever, together:

Continue reading “Street Highway Sidewalk Roadway Shoulder Definitions”

51st Leg, 2nd regular session bill tracker (spring 2014)

Bills affecting cyclists

This legislative session is now over; each bill’s disposition is noted below…

SB1170 bicycle equipment (helmet requirement for < 18 y.o.)

Bill Status: Assigned to Trans and PS (Public Safety) but not on agenda to be heard. [Final status: never heard]

azbikelaw says: mandatory helmet use laws tend to have the unintended consequence of reducing cycling. The safety benefits of bicyclist helmet use tend to overstated.

HB2677 theft; bicycle; increased penalty

Bill Status: Assigned to Judiciary but not on agenda. [Final status: never heard]

HB2545 bicyclists; public ways
Bill Status: on agenda 2/13 house trans committee; at the hearing, without any notice, the bill was not heard w/o explanation (last few seconds of the hearing). [Final status: Held/never heard] Continue reading “51st Leg, 2nd regular session bill tracker (spring 2014)”

Parking in Bike Lanes

Is parking allowed in bike lanes? sometimes yes, sometimes no…

Is parking permitted in bike lanes? State law at first glance seems to indicate flatly no:

§28-815D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane…

No parking, right? Well, as usual there’s more to the story. The moral to the story, if there is one, is that things are often more complicated than they seem, and 2) the “local authority” provision of A.R.S. can be particularly problematical to bicyclists.

Continue reading “Parking in Bike Lanes”

Hit and Run and good-old-fashioned-policework

[Final (?) Update 1/9/2015; defendant pleaded guilty to one count of 28-1201 endangerment, a Class 6 (the most minor) felony. Notably, the charge that was dropped, hit-and-run, is a much more serious class, class 3, and also would have triggered a mandatory 5-year license . The sentence is 3 years probation. One wonders how endangerment can possibly be “non-dangerous” but it’s right there in the deal. Sweet deal for the defendant, though it was a very long and drawn out — the collision he ran from occurred almost a year and a half ago — and presumably very expensive process ] Continue reading “Hit and Run and good-old-fashioned-policework”

Police: Mesa couple arrested after biking in street, assaulting officer

odd news story:

A man and woman were arrested Monday on suspicion of assaulting a (Mesa, i assume) police officer after the officer tried to stop them from riding their bikes in the street, according to a court document. Kerry Castleman, 49, is accused of standing in a fighting stance and pushed an officer after police stopped him while he was biking in the right lane of East Broadway Road near South Country Club Road, according to the document. When the officer tried to put handcuffs on Castleman, 43-year-old Cary McCoy…

A Tale of Five Phoenix Bike-MV collisions.

Fault was assigned to the bicyclist in four of the five reports. In two of those, the bicyclist was doing something obviously illegal/wrong (riding the wrong way in the roadway, and running into a stopped vehicle). However, the other two do not support that finding — in one a motorist violated a bicyclist’s ROW by turning into it, and in the other a bicyclist was struck by a motorist who was attempting to turn right-on-red.

Perhaps the reason Phoenix has a persistently high bicyclist MaF (Most at Fault) rate is the officers are often not investigating bike-MV crashes correctly?

Continue reading “A Tale of Five Phoenix Bike-MV collisions.”

Ruling: cyclists are required to satisfy nighttime lighting requirements even on the sidewalk

There’s a recent (7/11/2013) Arizona Court of Appeals District 1 (“Phoenix”) ruling Arizona v. Baggett (full text via findlaw, or direct link from CoA, or google scholar) that affirms that bicyclists must use a headlight during nighttime, 28-817, not just when riding in the roadway, but also on the sidewalk. Cite case as:

State v. Baggett, 306 P.3d 81, 82 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013)

By extension, other bicycle-specific rules (generally 28-813 through 28-817; so for example one-seat per person; the one-hand rule; stuff like that) would also apply to cyclists using the sidewalk; while those that specifically mention the roadway, e.g. 815A and B do only apply on the roadway. Look up the bicycle statutes at bicycle-laws.

This ruling adds to a very slender body of case law involving bicycle laws in Arizona; see also Maxwell v. Gossett, and Rosenthal v. County of Pima for the only other published (it’s not clear to me that Baggett is “published”?) cases I am aware of in the history of Arizona!

Is it illegal to cycle on the sidewalk in Phoenix?

There some mis-information floating around in the media, see e.g. yumasun.com and azstarnet.com sourced from something called “Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services”. It claims sidewalk cycling in Phoenix is illegal under city code; that is explicitly not part of the decision — so, i’m not sure where or why that was said. Here is the passage from the news article (my emphasis added): Continue reading “Ruling: cyclists are required to satisfy nighttime lighting requirements even on the sidewalk”

Bicycling Prohibitions on Highways/Freeways

From time to time, the question about bicycling on freeways (a.k.a. highways, or more officially “controlled access highways”) comes up. Just what are the rules? This ADOT page has a good summary:

…Of course, not all roads are open to pedestrians and bicyclists – pedestrians are prohibited from walking along all controlled-access highways. Bicyclists are permitted by ADOT policy to ride on the shoulders of controlled-access highways, except where prohibited…

Let’s dig a little deeper… By statute, the state (ADOT) or local authorities may prohibit bicyclists’ use of any part of a controlled-access highway: Continue reading “Bicycling Prohibitions on Highways/Freeways”

[Driver Sentenced] Arrest made in hit-and-run of Tucson cyclist

Hit and runs are always awful. This one from Tucson May 20, 2011 seems especially so. Police arrested a young woman four days after the crash, Abigail A. Allin, 21. There is a lot more info supplied by Sam Abate’s father over on tucsonvelo.com. Continue reading “[Driver Sentenced] Arrest made in hit-and-run of Tucson cyclist”

Bicyclist Diversion Programs Around Arizona

In several jurisdictions around Arizona, bicyclists who are cited for an infraction can have their tickets dismissed by attending a bicyclist safety class. This is a win-win: the fines are either much lower (or none at all?!), and the bicyclist gets exposed to a training course. Various limitations apply, generally you can have no more than one ticket per year dismissed in this way.

Unlike the Defensive Driver Program [information on TSS Traffic Safety School and DDP/DDS Defensive Driving Program/School was moved to driving-school], which is enabled by statute, these bicyclist-specific programs are completely ad-hoc, and the rules and red-tape are very flexible and minimal. Here are the programs currently available in Arizona:

City of Tempe: www.tempe.gov

which seem to be run out of the courts exclusively, and in fact the city attorney’s office tells me they have nothing whatsoever to do with civil traffic.
It appears the newer program (active as of Aug 2023) is run by TPD, and costs $50. It is a series of four or five ~5 minute TPD-produced videos where a narrator reads a slide, interspersed with a question between videos. At the conclusion you can enter your citation info to get credit; at some point you pay $50. Anyone can complete the training (for free); i have some issues with it which I’ll try to get answers to. I am very happy to see the emphasis on wrong-way riding, because it is indeed dangerous and illegal, but I do have a problem with their explanation, as detailed below.

There are a handful of tidbits of mis-information, which are contrary to law and in some cases contrary to best/safe practice:

The bike module; gave the usual short shrift to 28-815A, the bicyclist “as far right as practicable” rule:
Bikes – Intro “If you (cyclists) are in the roadway, you MUST use a bike lane when provided”; and “You must ALWAYS ride as nearly to the right hand edge as practical”, with the only exception noted is preparing for left turn, and no explanation of what “practicable” (or practical, as the word on the slide says) might mean.

Firstly, Arizona has no mandatory bike lane use law; and second, 28-815A has numerous exceptions and a pre-condition, which are all for bicyclists’ safety; which mean it is both safest and legal to move LEFT and away from the right edge under typical conditions.
City of Tempe also has the misinformation about mandatory bike lane use posted on their city website which they refuse to fix or address.

And also in Bikes – Intro, the wrong-way cyclist depicted is violating 28-729 “right half of the roadway rule”, and NOT 28-815A as noted on the slide. I mention this because wrongly applying 28-815A is at the root of misunderstanding how bicycle traffic laws function. It’s a very bad sign when the police make this fundamental error.

This is a bit of a nit-pick but I’ll mention it:
Bike – equip: the explanation and “No” picture of the hand on handlebar rule, §28-816. seems to be mis-explained. (the picture shows a guy riding no hands and holding a water bottle with his mouth — this is not illegal because nothing would “prevent” him from placing a hand on the handlebars).

This isn’t bikes, but I’ll mention it anyway: Regarding Pedestrian module: I don’t believe the statement “(to be an unmarked crosswalk it) must be compliant with the ADA” is true. There are unmarked crosswalks at every intersection pursuant to 28-601 def’n, there is no mention of ADA or ramps.

Before TPD took over the bike diversion program, it was handled thru ASU Police — not surprisingly there was no obvious mis-information in it as ASU Police have (several!) “PCIs” (IPMBA certified Police Cycling Instructors)(the older class ppt is linked below). I have no idea why it switched from ASUPD to TPD. As far as I can tell, TPD does not have, nor has it ever had any LCIs or PCIs. This, among other things, should be a red-flag when assessing the city’s “bike friendliness” LAB rating (gold!) but doesn’t seem to be even considered.

The older (up until 2020 or so?) program costs $40 + $15, The class is ~~given by~~ administered by the ASU police department ~~at ASU~~ and is now online only (formerly was a classroom based program at ASU, perhaps through the mid 2010’s?); it applies to tickets issued anywhere in city of Tempe.[rates as of mid 2018: $50 + $18]
See comment below for the .ppt used in the older online class.

Pima County now says, retrieved Sept 2015, (these links die a lot!) “Bicycle diversion classes are reserved for persons who’ve received a traffic citation while riding their bike. The City Prosecutor’s Office will dismiss a cyclist’s civil traffic citation if he or she submits proof of completion of the Bicycle Diversion Program safety class which is now being offered by EZAZ Traffic School. Call 520-207-3200 to register. Please note that there is a fee of $39 for the class. If you were cited into the Green Valley Justice Court…”.

Note this is a change, and as of sometime in 2015, instructors are no longer LCIs. And the class now lumps ped violators with bicyclist violators — which seems quite stupid and reflects a mentality that bicyclists are rolling peds.

Town of Oro Valley
According to this USDot “Mayor’s Challenge” flyer (the town was named a “small city winner” by USDot) as of spring 2016 … Oro Valley Court apparently has a bicyclist diversion program: “As part of the bicycle safety effort, the Oro Valley Court created a new educational diversion program for bicyclists who received bicycle traffic citations”.

City of Tucson www.tucsonaz.gov/prosecutor/Diversion/diversion.html and scroll down to BIKE SAFETY DIVERSION PROGRAM “the City Prosecutor’s Office will dismiss a cyclist’s civil traffic citation…” This is apparently FREE(!? no court fees, no class fee) [link dead as of Sept 2015; leaving here for posterity]

UofA and Pima County: jp.co.pima.az.us/BikeDiversionProgram.htm “you may be eligible to attend the County Attorney’s Bicycle Diversion Program” This is apparently FREE(!? no court fees, no class fee). By the way, I don’t know the ins-and-outs but apparently the UofA campus falls under county jurisdiction for some reason. [link dead as of Sept 2015; leaving here for posterity]

Flagstaff: No details, but a program was announced in an 8/2/2015 news story. Here’s a page on FBO’s site (the link to the form is dead)

Both of the Tucson and Pima ones seem to run completely out of the respective prosecutor’s office, as opposed to, say, Tempe where it is run via the municipal court. Here is a flyer with some general info from the Pima Co. Bike Ped program.

Bills modify the 3 foot passing law

[Update as of 2/23/2013, neither bill mentioned below has been assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]

It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag)

There are two bills that would modify §28-735, Arizona’s 3-foot passing rule. The first is only a technical correction, however the second seeks to modify the onerous “section C”. By far the best and most simple correction would be to simply eliminate section C altogether. In any event, the present proposal seeks add specific reasons (excuses?) why a bicyclist might not be in an otherwise passable bike lane; e.g. preparing to turn, passing another cyclist…

HB2452 technical correction; overtaking bicycles
SB1300 passing bicycles; civil penalty

Section C was added by Senator Bee as a “floor amendment” (ie. last minute) and is widely viewed as anti-cyclist. More background on the law here, called HB2625 from the year 2000. Although I don’t know of any time section C has ever actually kicked in; it has caused confusion causing some to either mendaciously or ignorantly claim that 3-foot passing minimum does not apply to overtaking bicyclists traveling in a bike lane (including more than one Flagstaff police officer).

Some background on 3-foot laws:

Deep background on AZ’s law: azbikelaw.org/articles/ThreeFoot.html

Compendium of US states with similar laws: azbikelaw.org/three-foot-passing-laws

about the “confusion” regarding applicability of AZ law to roads with bike lanes: azbikelaw.org/the-city-of-flagstaff-hates-bicyclists/

Motorized Bicycle bill seeks to clarify engine power

[Update as of 2/23/2013, HB2177 has not been assigned to any committee which I imagine means it is dead]

It’s the start of a new legislative season in Arizona, the 51st Regular session, for those keeping track. (find other bills of interest with the legislation tag) Continue reading “Motorized Bicycle bill seeks to clarify engine power”

Category: bikelaw