It’s maintained by MAG’s (Maricopa Assoc of Gov’ts) Active Transportation Committee (formerly the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) and note that the MAG region includes not only Maricopa, but also portions of Pinal and Gila counties. There is a pretty neet online version that overlays google maps, or an old-school .pdf download (it’s pretty big)., and another version that has something to do with mobile/gps.
Alternately, Maricopa County DOT (“McDOT”) has an active transportation plan along with an interactive map that is built from the same database as above, but in this version, users can leave comments about specific areas of concern for bicycling / walking.
There is also a printed City of Tempe published map I’ve seen floating around; not sure if it’s online.
On the MAG interactive map, designated bike lanes are clearly labeled (they’re ‘blue’); and are distinct from other sorts of not-bike lanes, e.g. bike routes.
This map suffers from far too much ‘red’ which the key says:
Bike Route with Striped Shoulder, Bus/Bike Lanes
On major street, with white-edge line, approx. 4 ft. to 10 ft.
wide paved shoulder, with speed limits of 25 mph or more.
Includes Bus/Bike Lanes on major streets, 10-12 ft. bus and right-turn lane, shared use with bicycles.
Virtually every major road throughout the region is ‘red’. Are these designated bike lanes, or not? (a bike lane is part of the roadway, a shoulder is not). What is frustrating is the answer seems to depend on when (it seems to evolve over time) and who asks the question, and who is answering.
There is a second map, covering the same territory, at pagregion.org. and current link to .pdf. Here we see virtually all major streets (the same streets, by the way) are ‘blue’ which the key says are “Bike Lane”. Really? Are these really all designated bike lanes? Are they wide enough to be bike lanes? E.g. The Dodge Bridge is in ‘blue’.
Flagstaff
City of Flagstaff bike map page.Major streets are all marked in ‘purple’ , which the key says is
Bike Lane or Shoulder: An outside lane of four to five feet in width for the exclusive use of bicycles, separated from vehicular lanes by a white stripe. This definition include bike lanes designated by signing and pavement markings, as well as paved shoulders delineated by a stripe, but not pavement markings or signing.
So there’s no way to tell from the map what is a Bike Lane and what is a shoulder. Nice. And by the way, Flagstaff, shoulders are not lanes.
As far as i can tell, there’s not really a Coconino county bikeways map.
Summary
MAG (Maricopa) Bikeways map is honest. The maps for Tuscon, Pima, PAGregion, and Flagstaff are at best non-informative and at worst dishonest.
Each statute referenced is a link and its full text will open in a pop up window. Here is a version better for printing.
Here is a very large .pdf (27MBytes) of the entire ARS snapped from the azleg.gov website in March 2013 — good for searching (the search tool on azleg.gov leaves a lot to be desired), and for general off-line use. The curious can find the unix script that was used to generate it. There is also a .pdf of just ARS-Title28, from around the 2013 time period that’s only about 1MByte.
07/20/2009 TR-2009006000 1) SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC 28-704A
03/26/2010 Trial: found responsible
04/21/2010 Motion to reconsider, CV-201000162: upheld (i.e. he “lost” the appeal)
Comments: this trial is FULLY documented here.
This is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute.
The judge and deputy said some/many bad things.
Since this ticket was issued by a Coco Sheriff’s deputy, neither the Flag PD nor the City Attorney’s office was involved in any way. The only link, other than that it occurred in Flag, is the Flag Municipal court.
12/19/2009 NAIPTA bus/bike incident
02/11/2010 Story airs on Phoenix news. Story published in azdailysun
03/17/2010 City Attorney’s officer directs police and two citations are issued against the bus driver: speeding and 28-735
05/11/2010 City Attorney motions to dismiss both citations, and they are. No trial is ever held
Comments: this story is FULLY documented here.
There was much bad and disappointing behavior in this story — NONE of it attributable to the cyclist.
06/10/2010 TR-2010004702 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E
07/15/2010 Trial held: all charges dismissed
Comments: Note the “Speed less than resonable”, 28-701E is inapplicable to bicyclists.
Full details here including the absurd police report here.
09/30/2010 (same date as next one?) TR-2010007979 BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
10/28/2010 Trial held: dismissed.
Comments: don’t know the details.
9/30/2010 CR-2010003369 1) CRIMINAL DAMAGEDEFACE 13-1602; 2) NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY 28-724B; 3)BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROAD 28-815A;
Trial was held.
Comments: i only know sketchy details — the cyclist “had words” (and horns, i expect) with a motorist. Sometime later a crash (minor, as i understand) occured between the motorist and cyclist. The police arrive and arrest the cyclist for criminal damage, along with the other two citations. No word on whether or not the motorist was arrested also. “Criminal Damage” is a relatively serious crime. The charges seem to have been filed by police simply on the say-so of the motorist.
At trial, the cyclist was found guilty of Criminal Damage, and responsible for the 28-815A, not responsible for 28-724.
Appeal CV2012-00145 Superior Court Judge Mark Moran’s Order: The finding of responsible for 28-815A is left standing, the criminal charge is vacated “The Court finds that there is insufficient evidence presented in the record to sustain the Defendant’s criminal conviction for a violation of A.R.S. §13-1602(A)(1), criminal damage. Court finds as a matter of law that the State failed to produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the Defendant possessed the necessary mens rea for the crime of criminal damage… The Court vacates the finding of guilt on the charge of criminal damage” (emphasis in original).
Comment: Criminal Obstruction AND Littering? Really? I have no further info on this.
02/03/2011 Minutes of the Flagstaff BAC Meeting
Comments: You have to read them to believe them; I can only find the current meeting minutes online, so i have pasted them as a comment to this blog article.
02/07/2011 TR-2011000991 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A
03/10/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible
Comments: I don’t know anything about this one.
i’m thinking this MAY be the one involving a “drop lane” next to a bike lane, that transitioned to a right-turn-only lane. If so I think the ticket is technically justified; but the officer showed bad judgement in issuing it in the first place — i.e. cyclist’s speed was high (big downhill), the alleged impeding was 100 feet; there was no other, other than the police vehicle, traffic. see picture.
02/07/2011 TR-2011000921 1) BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT 28-815A; 2) SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT 28-701E; 3) OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE 13-2906
05/03/2011 Trial held: 1) responsible, 2) acquitted, 3) acquitted
Comments: cyclist will probably appeal the 815A. I mention, again, that 701E cannot apply to bicyclists. And most importantly, the cyclist was aquitted of the criminal obstructing charge. The prosecutor espouses a clear motorist-superiority point of view., see comment below. Note that this incident was immediately after the incident, above.
The police report is available. The criminal obstruction charge should never have been brought. According to the report, traffic in the lane that the cyclist was supposedly impeding was traveling approx 20mph (the posted limit being 30), while “it should be noted that (the cyclist) appeared to be riding casually and not actively peddling”. Maybe. 20mph. In any event the judge tossed out that bogus charge. The criminal obstruction statute is for those with “no legal privilege”; cyclists in transport clearly have a legal privilege to use the roads. The police officer certainly should have known that. The prosecutor obviously should know that. Yet there was a full-blown criminal trial. What a huge waste of city resources.
The only potentially legitimate charge here was the 815A. There was no question that the cyclist entered the number 1 (i.e. “left”) lane legally, as traffic was stopped in the number 2 (i.e. the right, or curb lane) lane. The only issue remaining was whether or not the cyclist could have returned to lane number 1 sooner.
More critically the lane width was “10 to 11 feet” per the officer’s testimony; And the cyclist of course stated the lane was too narrow to share side-by-side and therefore there could be no 28-815A violation due to exception 4. The judge, who was otherwise quite complete and precise, found the bicyclist responsible for 28-815A, without any explanation.
Comments: don’t know any detail. cyclist is beginning appeal.
1/12(?)/2012 Warning; something to the effect of “you can’t ride in the street”
This is getting too tiring to try and document. Here’s a picture of old snow/ice/crud obstruction on Butler Ave. I am unsure as to whether or not this is a designated bike lane; it doesn’t really matter (except perhaps for the bad local ordinances rescinded 12/2011, but still(?) in effect. These are some seriously bad and ridiculous laws:
SECTION 9-05-001-0016 LEAVING LANE:
Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same…
1/20/2012 TR-2012000553 1) (local charge) USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED 2) 28-730 FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
Comments: Charge #1 has apparently a section of the local ordinance that has been repealed (city council vote Dec 20, 2011), and appears to have taken effect no later than 1/19/2012 (30 days after the council approved it). This is an egregiously discrimatory rule against bicyclists.
The second charge, 28-730, is an inapplicable “motor” vehicle statute. Sigh.
APPENDIX – Reference to statutes that cyclists have been accused of
SPEED LESS THAN REASONABLE AND PRUDENT
statute: §28-701E
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists
SPEED NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC
statute: §28-704A
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists
BICYCLE NOT RIDDEN ON RIGHT OF ROADWAY
statute: §28-815A
Comment: Except the 2/7/2011 incident, all charges of this have involved cyclist in a clearly narrow lane; in other words, exeception 4 should have been applied.
NO PASSING ON RIGHT OFF ROADWAY
statute: (probably) §28-724B
Comment: n/a
FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
statute: §28-730
Comment: This is a “motor” vehicle statute only. It cannot apply to bicyclists
OBST HWY/PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE
statute: §13-2906
Comment: Criminal code. Can only apply to someone who has “no legal privilege” to be on the roadway.
CRIMINAL DAMAGE DEFACE
statute: §13-1602
Comment: I am speechless.
USE OF ROADWAY WHERE BICYCLE LANE PROVIDED
ordinance: Section 9-05-001-0005. paragraph D “Wherever one or more lanes of a roadway have been designated and marked as bicycle lanes, bicycle riders shall use those lanes and shall not use the roadway”. Another section 9-05-001-0016 states that “Once having entered a bicycle lane, no person riding or operating a bicycle shall leave such lane except at intersections; provided, that such person may leave a bicycle lane upon dismounting from a bicycle, walking the same…”. Is this a joke? I’m afraid not. According to the city of Flagstaff, if there’s an obstruction in a bike lane, you must, stop, dismount, and walk around it. Really.
On Dec 20, 2011, Flagstaff city council gave final approval (but effective date is unclear) to a major revision of the bicycle ordinance that removes most or all of the truely objectionable/discriminatory junk that lurked in their local ordinances for decades, since 1973!
Traffic records for all bicyclist fatalities occurring in Arizona during the year 2009 were categorized and listed according to manner of collision and assignment of fault. Primary results are that 11 of 25 fatalities (44%) were determined to be the fault of the cyclist; while 14 of 25 (56%) were the fault of a motor vehicle driver. The most common manner of collision is when a driver strikes a cyclist from behind.
Comments or questions may be left here, or contact me.
There were some somewhat out-of-context statements about my report on the npr.org health blog. They probably should have mentioned that the report covers only FATAL bike-MV collisions (a tiny fraction of all bike-MV collisions), and that the manner of collision in fatals varies significantly from non-fatals.
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?
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”
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.
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%.
As we all know, bicyclists must follow the same rules as other vehicle drivers; but from time to time one hears of a story such as this one: Continue reading “Bicycles aren’t vehicles”
[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]
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.
[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]
