Category: bikelaw

The Flagstaff Chronicles

Chronological by date of incident

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).

 

10/05/2010 CR-2010003432 1) CRIM LITTER/POLLUTING-DROP 13-1603; 2) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
07/28/2011(?) Trial held: guilty both counts

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.

02/25/2011 CR-2011000581 OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/31/2011 Trial held: guilty

Comments: Cyclist is beginning appeal. See comments below for excerpts from trial transcript.

03/31/2011 CR-2011000936 OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
06/30/2011 trial(?): guilty

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.

photo: Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun http://azdailysun.com/news/local/sharing-the-road-fpd-launches-bike-safety-campaign/article_e925b5ee-2439-55c8-a275-fc127578ed53.html
photo: Jake Bacon/Arizona Daily Sun

8/2/2015 News article: Sharing the road: FPD launches bike safety campaign. Yes, the photo accompanying the article depicts a bicyclist riding literally IN the gutter.

Oh, and the same photo (not that i blame them for being lazy) ran again Dec 2015 article Despite safety campaign, Flagstaff bike collision stats unchanged

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.

CRIM LITTER/POLLUTING-DROP
statute: §13-1603
Comment: Littering? really?

DISORDERLY CONDUCT
statute: §13-2904
Comment: This came up only once, with the bike-bus incident. Very disturbing police behavior. watch the video, and judge for yourself.

 

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!

 

Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009

Most at Fault driver / bicyclists collisions Arizona 2009Abstract

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.

Full Report

The full report is available in pdf format:
Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009
Supporting data: 2009CyclistFatals.xls

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.

Continue reading “Manner and Fault in Bicyclist Traffic Fatalities: Arizona 2009”

Floor notes, legislative intent, and bicycle law

Join me, if you will, in the way-back machine to look at how we’ve got the laws we now all take for granted.

Trained, informed, safety-conscious cyclists have known, at least for decades, that separated sidepaths have significant safety drawbacks, e.g.: Continue reading “Floor notes, legislative intent, and bicycle law”

Odd Phoenix Hit-and-run story

Are police even looking? Having a mirror is enough to narrow the field dramatically as it tells you not only the make (said to be a Kia), a specific color (silver) and typically even the particular model and specific model-year.

But are police even looking? Why is the mirror — obviously a key piece of evidence — in the possesion of the victim, and not of the police?

Did the police really say that? It sounds as if the PIO wasn’t available for comment so whoever answered the phone down at hq threw in his two cents. Continue reading “Odd Phoenix Hit-and-run story”

Bicycle Stop Sign changes proposed

Dead again

Arizona Road Cycling news Mar 2,2011 is reporting that the bill is dead for this session.

2011; 50th 1st regular session Update

The same bill is back HB2130 (2011, 50th 1st regular session), except that the exception for bicyclists would only apply when they are aged 16 or older. This was to address (appease?) some concerns that arose at the committee hearing in 2009.

Original article written for 2009; 49th 1st regular session

a la Idaho. The “Bikes Safe at Stop Sign” bill has been introduced in the Arizona Legislature; you can follow it here: HB2479 (2009, 49th 1st regular session). The bill will make its debut on March 4 before the Military Affairs and Public Safety (MAPS) committee. Continue reading “Bicycle Stop Sign changes proposed”

Is it illegal to ride a motorized bicycle on the sidewalk in Phoenix?

Story from the Arizona Republic; I copied the whole thing because it was only a few sentences long (my emphasis added):

Woman dies when motorized bike collides with car in Phoenix
by Jack Highberger – Jan. 20, 2011 12:26 PM The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team
A 53-year-old woman died Tuesday night (1/18/2011) when her motorized bicycle collided with a car on Dunlap and 25th avenues.
The woman was driving the motorized bicycle on a sidewalk when she entered the crosswalk and collided with the car, said Sgt. Tommy Thompson of the Phoenix Police Department.
She was not wearing a helmet at the time of the collision.
She was taken to the hospital where she later died. The driver of the car, who is also a 53-year-old woman, was not charged by Phoenix police. Authorities said it’s illegal to operate a motorized vehicle on a sidewalk.

First off, let me say that this type of collision is pretty common, and it is exactly why sidewalk cycling, motorized or not, is not recommended. But is it illegal? Continue reading “Is it illegal to ride a motorized bicycle on the sidewalk in Phoenix?”

CPSC and Tucson’s Motorized Bicycle Ordinance

[2018 UPDATE: city codes now define electric bikes as separate and distinct from “gas-powered” bicycles]

There is a one-page .pdf published by the city of Tucson that explains the ordinance — to find it, go to www.dot.tucsonaz.gov/bicycle and click on “motorized bikes” Continue reading “CPSC and Tucson’s Motorized Bicycle Ordinance”

Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona

Cycling on the sidewalk is generally far more dangerous than doing so properly in the roadway. All stats and studies that I am aware of reinforce this fact. For example, in the city of Phoenix’s 2007 Bicycle Collision Summary in the majority of the bike-motor vehicle collisions the cyclist was riding on the sidewalk just before the collision. (308 of 440 total collisions = 70%); and these numbers are pretty consistent, in the previous 2005 summary, it was 72%.

What about legality, though? (roundup of laws across 50 states here) Continue reading “Sidewalk Cycling in Arizona”

Founder of Yuma Bike Club killed in head-on collision

[Update: on 9/1/2010 the driver was cited Case Number: M-1442-TR-201001097, Somerton Municipal Court]

Cyclist Doug Flynn was killed, and at least one more rider injured, in a head-on collision last year (Sept 24, 2009) by a driver trying to pass a large farm tractor on a two lane roadway.
[for a line-item on each fatality since 2009; follow this link]

A tribute to Doug posted on the YBC’s website reads “Yuma Bike Club is Continue reading “Founder of Yuma Bike Club killed in head-on collision”

Cash for Clunker killer sentenced

52 year old cyclist Charles Waldrop was killed by a hit and run driver who witnesses say was driving at a high rate of speed and swerving. Police say an anonymous tip lead to the apprehension and arrest of  23 y.o. Timothy Kissida after he traded (via the “Cash for Clunkers” program) a light blue 1992 BMW 325i w/damage consistent with hit-and-run.

Kissida plead guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced today, drawing 10.5 years in prison (which is the presumptive sentence for a class 2 felony, see 13-704). The leaving the scene charge resulted in some sort of suspened sentence w/probation.

Case number CR2009-007394, the sentence is in this minute entry.

[azfamily] [original story on azbikelaw]

Some cyclists just won’t stay in the gutter

[Breaking news: there is an even newer victory over the city of Flagstaff’s harassment of cyclists legally using the roads: on Oct 29, the cyclist prevailed AGAIN in court… I will be writing up another article covering that in more detail soon. So at trial, the court dismissed 1 count 815A, TR-2010007979; and the 2 further 815A counts were dismissed on a motion from the prosecutor, TR-2010007976. Though i may have the case number mixed up because 2010004702, an 815A and 701E is also dismissed]

Flagstaff cyclist Justin Pryzby is at it again — not riding in the gutter. Continue reading “Some cyclists just won’t stay in the gutter”

11-year-old killed in crosswalk collision

An 82-year old motorist turning left onto Union Hills from 15th Avenue struck and killed an 11-year old girl riding in the crosswalk on August 5, 2010. The girl was heading southbound on the west side (i.e. going with the flow of adjacent traffic).

Names have not been released, Phoenix Police officer “Martos said the woman was not impaired and likely will not be charged. Police are still investigating.”

I’m not familiar with this area or intersection [google maps], though Union Hills Dr appears to be a typical Phoenix “car sewer”; 5 lanes of rush rush.

The mechanics of the collision are very similar to Maxwell v. Gossett, where the Arizona Supreme court found for the cyclist, and against the motorist who was turning through the crosswalk. If anything, this is a stronger case for the bicyclist, given the direction.

The so-called “left cross” is a common mode of collision; Bradley Jason Scott [tbagblog] was killed on Tempe a few weeks ago in a left cross (but not involving a crosswalk).

[azfamily][arizonarepublic][kpho] The kpho piece says in part that “police are trying to determine if she was riding the crosswalk or in the street, because, police say, it is illegal to ride in a crosswalk…”

Where does such patently false, mis-information come from?

Is it legal to ride in a crosswalk?

Setting aside the issue on the relative merits of sidewalk cycling…

By way of some more background on the legality of cycling in crosswalks; an analysis prepared by the Tuscon City Attorney’s office in 1998 found that (my emphasis) “…it is apparent that under the present state of law in Arizona a bicyclist is not prohibited from riding on or across a crosswalk…”.

It’s worth pointing out that this conclusion was reached in Tucson where it is patently illegal to cycle on the sidewalk. I am not aware of any Phoenix ordinance that affects crosswalks, thus we would fall back to the same cases and Arizona statutes analyzed in the above memo.

That being said, saying something is not prohibited is not the same as saying that the car driver must be automatically at fault, e.g. “the court held that bicyclists must still exercise due care and concern for their safety while about to enter or in the crosswalk”.

Please see Sidwalk Cycling in Arizona for more details and references, especially Maxwell v. Gossett.

The Police Report

This is adot incident 2414621 and Phoenix Incident number 10001096939 [I had gotten the number off by a digit from phoenix traffic records, I may have written it down wrong, in any event that caused a large delay in analysis. Victim Madeleine Pila Driver: Marguerite Savarese.

The ACR is available from the city of Phoenix online, there is presumably a DR as well available from Records but I do not have that.

The narrative in its entirety is succinct and very descriptive:

Traffic unit 1 (pedalcyclist) was riding her bicycle southbound in the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection of North 15th Avenue and West Union Hills Drive. Traffic unit 2 (vehicle) was making a left hand turn from northbound 15th Avenue to westbound Union Hills Drive. Unit 2 collided with unit 1 in the marked crosswalk. As a result of the collision, the operartor of unit 1 was pronouced dead at the collision scene by responding paramedics

THE TRAFFIC UNITS ARE LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY LAST NAME

Note that in Arizona, “Unit #1 is the vehicle, pedestrian, pedalcycle or animal rider that caused the collision or was most at fault” (refer to ADOT AZ Crash Manual; links here), there is no provision for assigning units in any other way. To do so destroys the usefulness of statistics in the ADOT crash database (ALISS). If police are going to do this, it should be corrected before submitted for final inclusion in the database — was this done? It’s not clear; but given that the driver was never cited for any infraction (according to case lookup), it appears the investigation results stand as initially entered.

Though there would seem to be no confusion in assigning fault, the cyclist was for no apparent reason listed in Block 20, Violations/Behaviors  “13. Failed to keep in proper lane”. This is nonsensical. From the narrative the cyclists should have been assigned “1. No Improper Action”. See Maxwell v. Gossett for further verification that the cyclist was doing nothing whatsoever wrong in riding through a crosswalk.

Though there seems to be no confusion about what the driver did, the driver was listed in Block 20, Violations/Behaviors  “16. Inattention/Distraction”. That may well be true, however, it is apparent from the narrative that the driver committed a “7. Made Improper Turn”

In short, the driver was most-at-fault, and should have been assigned unit number 1 along with the violation/behavior noted above, and should have been cited (according to court records, the driver was not cited).

There is also an apparent error on the ACR but doesn’t affect the outcome, Block 14 Type of intersection is marked as “12 (Controlled Access Area) Intersection Related”. The intersection is not in a controlled access area (a.k.a. a freeway interchange) and should presumable be “2 Intersection Related”.

The ADOT Database Record

This is IncidentID = 2414621  In addtion to what was described above as errors done by the investigating officer on the ACR (and signed off on by a supervisor), the following errors and inconsistencies were noted in the ADOT crash database record:

  • AlcoholUseFlag: 1 (but that is not supported by the report?)

 

Why does Phoenix Get it Wrong, and why does Scottdale get it right?

I have no idea. I have informed Phx PD VCU at least twice (once while the investigation was still supposed to be open, and again in May 2012 when I reviewed Phoenix fatalities). They have steadfastly refused do the right thing; claiming their mis-handling of crosswalk cases is ” based on a sound and experienced understanding of the law along with the guidance of Department, City, and County Attorneys”. Their conclusions appear to directly contradict Maxwell., and indeed those I’ve contacted seem to have never even heard of it.

Consider the case of a 12-year-old boy in Scottsdale struck while proceeding straight in a crosswalk who was struck and seriously injured by a left-turning driver. This is exactly the same configuration as the Pila fatality. However Scottsdale PD not only cited the driver for a bad turn, but also charged him with 28-672, a misdemeanor. Phoenix rewards dangerous, inept drivers with NO_IMPROPER_ACTION while Scottsdale punishes them with criminal charges.

So, apparently Phoenix’s city attorney or Police Department knows something that Scottsdale’s doesn’t, or vice-versa. And of course the County Attorney is one-in-the-same (I mean: Scottsdale and Phoenix are both in the same county); and of course the same state laws exist in both cities — there was no mention of any city codes in the Pila report. I don’t believe any of it, I’m willing to guess no attorney ever reviewed it (I mean for citations; i imagine the case received perfunctory review for negligent homicide charges)

Botched LAPD investigation

This has many of the similar elements of botching as PPD above, the belief, not based on any law, that it’s somehow illegal to ride in a crosswalk, soapboxla explains:

On Monday, June 1, 2009 at approximately noon, a woman rode her bicycle on the sidewalk of Louise Avenue in the valley. As she approached the intersection of Valerio she rode into the intersection on an unmarked crosswalk. At the same time a large truck approached the intersection on Valerio and proceeded to turn right onto Louise. The cyclist and the truck collided, she fell to the ground and the truck crushed her head as she lay on the street.

…But especially disturbing is the resulting confusion during the investigation of the incident and the confusion over “the rules of the road.”

Councilman Smith’s office responded to the incident the next day and explained, via email, that “the bicyclist was reportedly riding on the wrong side of the roadway and traveling against the traffic flow; making her the initial “primary cause” of this tragedy.” The email went on to detail the law enforcement experience of Councilman Smith, Chief of Staff Mitch Englander and Public Safety Deputy Jim Dellinger.

The LAPD’s Public Information Officer confirmed the report that the LAPD considered the cyclist the “primary cause” of the incident because she was riding a bike in a crosswalk which is a violation of CVC 21200 which requires a cyclist to obey the rules of the road. The PIO explained that a cyclist must either dismount at crosswalks or ride on the right side of the road with traffic.

The legal statues, codes, and ordinances are detailed at bicyclelaw.com’s blog — they happen to be analogous to Arizona’s state statutes and Phoenix’s ordinances.

 

Some cops REALLY don’t like critical mass

This is one of those sorts of stories you hear but just can’t quite believe until you see the youtube video.
The cop gets indicted. And later on fired/resigned. Pogan fired (or resigned or whatever. the good news is he is no longer in law enforcement). Continue reading “Some cops REALLY don’t like critical mass”