Bicyclists are required under certain conditions to be “as far right as practicable”. Why would a cyclist be, or even want to be, to the left? It turns out there are many and various reasons why, and which are not only legal, but safer for the cyclist. Staying to the left can even be more convenient for other motorists, and improve traffic flow; with one such common situation described in detail here.
It’s often been said, and it’s true, that so-called bicyclist-far-to-the-right, laws (FTR) are discriminatory and unnecessary; there is already a “slow driver law” which applies to all drivers, including bicyclists. They are discriminatory because, despite plain language to protect bicyclists, these protections are frequently ignored by drivers, some police officers, and as you will see even some jurists.
In the illustration above, the first frame (on the left) shows a bicyclist (yours truly) lining up to the left side of a combination lane in preparation to go straight when the signal turns green; note a vehicle driver had already lined up to the left, also in preparation to go straight. While waiting — sometimes as much as one minute or more — a number of vehicle drivers appeared and were able to make safe, legal , right on red without delay. Had I (the bicyclist) stopped on the right, all of those would-be right-turners would be otherwise unnecessarily delayed.
To be sure, a bicyclist (or any driver of any vehicle) lining up to go straight on the right side would be a legal position; and that may cause delay to motorists who arrive after wanting to turn right. For a bicyclist, though, staying left has the safety advantage of virtually eliminating the conflict with overtaking/right turning drivers, the so-called “right hook“. Put another way, staying left is a win-win.
The short legal answer to why this cannot be an FTR (28-815A) violation is that the normal speed of traffic stopped at a red signal is zero; and a bicyclist stopped is not going slower than that. Not that that would stop an ill-informed Phoenix police officer from writing a citation, or a municipal court from finding a bicyclist responsible for a violation (spoiler alert — reversed on appeal).
This is by the way, a common configuration here in Phoenix at signalized intersections where collector roads meet arterial roads; and the signal-cycle times can be quite long. As a practical matter, a bicyclist must be several feet away from the curb to be over the center of the loop in order to cause the sensor to detect a bicycle (which they do, and quite well, so long as the bicycle has metal wheel rims); here are three examples, you can readily see the loops as tar-cuts in the asphalt…
-
- Chandler Blvd and 44th Street
- Ray Road and Ranch Circle S
- Cactus Road and 36th St (the subject of the video, and citation, below)
Before moving on, I’ll mention a whole different misapplication of the FTR law by police and compliant jurists — police have been known to ticket bicyclists who are riding counter-flow for FTR; this isn’t a valid statute for that situation as explained here.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand — That’s all very interesting, you say? Well here is where things take a weird turn with a real-life fully documented, both front and rear video and audio, road rage which ended in the bicyclist being ticketed for failure to keep right while stopped at a red light.
It stands as a testament to the bias, whether it be explicit or implicit, that some drivers, some police and some jurists hold, against bicyclists who exercise their legal rights to ride on public roads.
Trial Documentation
The cyclist (not an attorney, in case you were wondering) represented himself both at trial, and on the successful appeal; and did a masterful job. It can be done, and the legal-odds were against him. He has generously provided complete documentation in the hopes that it can of assistance to other wrongly-accused bicyclists. Justice, regarding his phony violation at least, was served; but at significant cost; many, many hours of preparation, and as a final insult it costs more money (in filing fees alone) to win on appeal than simply pleading responsible and paying the fine(!).
If you have been wrongly ticketed, as the cyclist here was, and are thinking of defending yourself, there are some resources here, as well as three other successful FTR appeals documented here. If you have been rightly ticketed, do check out what diversion programs are available, some, e.g. Tempe, are significantly cheaper than paying the fine.
-
- Audio of trial (m4a); or (mp3); trial begins at about 8 to 9 minutes in.
- Transcript of trial
- Appellant’s Memo
- Appeal Opinion
- Video, brief w/ annotations
- Video, longer to show events preceding the incident
The driver’s written affidavit, was both a total surprise, coming as it did a year after the incident, and is particularly troubling from a legal perspective — where did it come from? How do you cross-examine an affidavit? Did the officer solicit it? Did the officer solicit false statements because he thought it would bolster his case? (there was no horn honking anywhere in the video evidence, which included the entire event prior to the rage incident).
Here is the cyclist’s description of what happened:
I was sideswiped by a truck (on January 3, 2020) while sitting on my bicycle at a red light waiting to cross an intersection. I promised to keep folks updated on the court process, here’s the final chapter.
I was cited for violating ARS 28-815, the “Far to the Right Rule”(see the video for my approach and position at the intersection when the incident occurred). (emphasis added)
ARS-28-815 A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at LESS than the NORMAL speed of traffic at the TIME and PLACE and UNDER THE CONDITIONS then existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway, except under any of the following situations.
1. If overtaking and passing another bicycle or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
2. If preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
3. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.
4. If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side within the lane.”
My court appearance to contest the citation was scheduled for late February 2020, but because covid kept the courts closed, my hearing was continued several times until it was finally scheduled for September 10, 2020. The court experience was a farce on so many levels – too much detail to go into here. I opened my cross examination of the officer with these questions…
Me: At the time and place of this incident, was I stopped at the red light when a truck pulled up behind me?
Officer: I believe you were.
Me: At the time and place of this incident was I impeding the flow of traffic behind me?
Officer: I believe you probably were not.
Me: With all due respect, what is the normal speed of traffic that is stopped at a red light?
Officer: It would be zero
Me: Thank you. Since the light was red requiring me, and any vehicle behind to stop, was I riding less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place of this incident?
Officer: No, but your vehicle has to be placed on the far right side of the road which is what the state law says.
Those questions should have been sufficient for the whole proceeding to conclude and find me not responsible. However, before I was able to give my testimony the judge, pro tem (“pro tem” – a substitute “judge” rather than a genuine law trained judge), interrupted the proceeding to read a “witness” testimony in the form of a sworn affidavit. The “witness” was the DRIVER of the truck that sideswiped me. I was surprised and angered by that. He asked to not be present because of his fear of covid, so in lieu of his presence, the judge accepted a sworn affidavit. The driver of the truck lied under oath in his affidavit. I verbally objected and explained what he lied about, while the bailiff played the video, recorded on my helmet mounted GoPro and Fly6 (rear facing camera on seatpost) of the entire incident, on the big screen in court. Although the video of the incident clearly showed his statements to be false, they were accepted into the record.
Following my testimony in which I presented a video collage from “CycleSavvy.org” (correction: cyclingsavvy.org ) and “iBikesafe.org” (see video below) and several exhibits from safety authorities as legal standards of care (Arizona Department of Transportation, Arizona Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, and the City of Phoenix) on how to cycle through intersections, the judge asked the officer if he had anything else to say. The officer again made some ignorant and misleading statements about what the law required of a cyclist. The judge then closed with this…
“The statute is pretty clear that the default position, if you will, is that, um, the bicycle shall ride as close as practicable to the right hand curb or edge of the roadway and then there are four exceptions to that rule. One, two and four are clearly not applicable in this situation the only one that may be applicable is number three which says if reasonably necessary to avoid conditions including fixed or moving objects parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians or animals or surface hazards. In reviewing the tape none of those conditions exist, um so there is no exception to the rule that you need to be as close as practicable to the right curb. Based upon the testimony as well as the evidence, um, submitted and I have looked at all that. That is what the statute is and that is what we need to go by this is not a case where, um, Florida’s thoughts on it are relevant, um, or even the bicycle, um, federations, um, safety procedures. What I have to look at is the law and the law says that, uh, there was no right to be all the way, um taking up the lane as you did, …so I am going to make a finding of responsible and that fine is $158.00 plus, um, court costs.”
I paid the fine and court costs before leaving the court ($184.70). I filed an appeal memorandum with Maricopa County Superior Court November 17, 2020 (Btw, for the curious, it cost more to file the appeal for Superior Court than the original fine for the citation – $160 filing fee, plus $50 to have a CD sent over from the lower court. None of that gets refunded.) Superior Court overturned and reversed the lower court ruling February 25 of this year! I won my appeal and the fine for the citation was refunded. My next step will be filing a complaint with the City of Phoenix Police Professional Standards Bureau against the officer and his sergeant for “improper administration of the law” (too much detail on this point to explain here). There is one more legal step that I am considering…to be continued.
I am an attorney and so I can tell you that winning a reversal on an appeal like that is very rare. You did a great job of presenting your case.
Wow, what egregious case of road rage but the driver the white pick-up! It really borders on a being hate crime, the hate of cyclists by motorists. It is very disappointing that the police charged the cyclist and the fact that this ever went to trial is sad commentary on the city’s staff supervising the citation and prosecution of traffic cases. Unfortunately, cyclists routinely experience this kind of abuse by motorists and the police. The driver of the pick-up makes what seems to be a very lame claim of COVID for not showing up in court, but had no problem rushing the cyclist shouting and sputtering epitaphs.
Wow. Not only was the motorist aggressively reckless, he got away with at least two violations, passing too close and driving over a double lane stripe.
I suppose you cannot sue the motorist or get him charged for perjury or for his operating violations.
I have a staged photo showing a cyclist (Bill Hoffman of Lancaster, PA) left of the center of a wide right lane at an intersection and making a “be my guest” gesture for a motorist to pass on right to make a right turn on red.
This was once part of the labreform.org website that is still partially available but no-longer maintained.
Fred, the driver was cited for one violation: PPD100370351, UNSAFE DISTANCE OVERTAKING BICYCLE. (28-735). Which he apparently plead responsible “I paid my fine and forgot about the incident”
here’s another illustration; this is what happens when a cyclist is positioned at the RIGHT (the way the officer and judge pro tem insists is REQUIRED of a bicyclist) while waiting at red — the first vehicle (a Cox work truck) moves left and makes a right turn from the left (illegal, by the way). Then would-be right-turn-on-redders pile up behind the cyclist waiting; the light takes well over 1 minute to change.
https://youtu.be/o_T_HyIZejM
I had a FTR case that I lost in Tempe Municipal Court. Even though I believed the judge’s ruling (that there were no wide vehicles near me at that precise moment, so I didn’t need to take the lane in order to encourage the drivers of future large vehicles to change lanes) was incorrect, I decided not to appeal because it would cost MORE than just accepting the citation. One wonders if the system is set up that way on purpose to pad the lower courts’ win records.
The cases sometimes disappear from case lookup, so here are the citation numbers (screenshot image above, in article):
Case Number: M-0741-5520684
Court: Phoenix Municipal Filing Date: 1/30/2020
PPD100370347 1 BIKE NOT RIDDEN AT RIGHT EDGE OF ROAD
found responsible/guilty; dismissed on appeal.
Also, The motorist was cited for a 28-735 violation,
2/13/2020, BAIL/DEPOSIT GIVEN/FORFEITED
Case Number: M-0741-5520290
Phoenix Municipal Filing Date: 1/29/2020
PPD100370351 1 UNSAFE DISTANCE OVERTAKING BICYCLE
Why the motorist was aggrieved in the first place remains a mystery.
Some back-of-the-envelope estimates:
The rear view video begins at 1:00 and the cyclist arrives at the corner/stop sign at 1:26; and they are both stopped for the red signal at 1:40
https://youtu.be/tDMhTxbv85Q?t=60
As that rearview begins, the cyclist is just passing 3644 E Shaw Butte Drive; the same red pickup is parked in the driveway in both the streetview and the video. That is ~ 530 feet from the corner = 21 fps = 14.3mph
Sound about right. As that view begins, the road rager’s pickup is off in the distance along this residential street; as the 26 seconds elapse, the pickup is just behind the bicycle. 14 seconds later, they are both stopped for the red signal along 36th, Shaw Butte Dr is only about 100 feet from Cactus Road.
There was never any attempt to, or need to for that matter, pass; nor was there any honking (the driver lied about that at trial) nor any reason to honk. Everything seems fine right up until the moment (at 1:42 in the video) the driver, out of the blue, lurches to the left — crossing the double yellow, into the red light, and starts screaming. Oh yes, of course he says to get in the bike lane — of which there isn’t, and wasn’t one. Just another ignorant statement.
My guess would be he’s a self-entitled motorist who’s seen this cyclist before using the road as cyclist’s are entitled to, and doesn’t want anyone else on the road. He’s a simmering cauldron of rage as he was following at a distance, and boiled over, for not legitimate reason, at the red light. He was, and the video shows, he was not delayed. Not at all. Not one second… well not until he had his tantrum at the red light; though the signal changes there pretty slowly so possibly he wasn’t even delayed after running into the bicyclist, getting out, and yelling.
“The motorist was cited for a 28-735 violation” – I looked up Arizona’s safe pass law, which I had not read for a while.
28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties
A. When overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.
B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:
1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.
2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.
I’m troubled by Section C, and wonder how it would be interpreted. As many of us know, the bike lanes are often “impassible” and at least there is an exemption for that. I wonder what happens when a cyclist is make a left turn and leaves the designated bike lane. For example, to turn into a mid-block driveway. Is it now open season for a motorist to pass closely – or even collide with the cyclist?
re: “I’m troubled by Section C, and wonder how it would be interpreted.”
Obviously the intent is to keep us in our place, the ghetto in the gutter.
How did the police get involved? What happened after the driver went back in his truck?
He drove off. The cyclist remained at the scene, and called 911. If I recall correctly, the driver in his affidavit stated he remained, but that doesn’t seem to be true… Among other falsehoods in his affidavit.
Very concerning ticket and initial outcome. I often take the lane at a signalized intersection, especially when there is a tight curb on the opposite side of the intersection. Instead of risking a squeeze in, I stay in the lane until across the intersection and move as “far right as reasonable practicable”. In my view, that tight curb is a surface hazard. Now, I wonder if I’d be susceptible to this type of ticket abuse.
witness: I guess there’s bicycle lanes (there), I don’t know…
[there is no bike lane there]
witness: …and I don’t know what the law is about that
Phx Police Detective: The law is if there’s not a bike lane available the bicyclist is to be to the FURTHEST right as POSSIBLE
witness: okay
Where do police get this stuff? make it up? Or just bias against bicyclists using the roadway?
Congratulations to this Phx Detective for mis-explaining the law to someone else.
This state needs to become uniform regarding the fact that a bike is to operate it as if it were a automobile with but one difference, A bike is to use the bike lane when available and stay as far to the right except when making left turns. I would add one more that should be law, that a bicyclist may use a sidewalk when it becomes suicide to be on the road (only at speed of 5 miles an hour when using it.
Bryan, as a practical matter on most roads, the FTR law is “excepted”. And bicyclists are then subject to the general rules on the road, i.e. the rules applying to vehicle drivers. When going slower than the normal speed of traffic straight ahead, drivers of vehicles on LANED roads must use the furthest right LANE. https://azbikelaw.org/arizonas-ftr-law/
Regarding sidewalks, as you might know, Arizona doesnt have any statewide rules . See https://azbikelaw.org/sidewalk-cycling-in-arizona/
I believe we are witnessing the failure of the bike law system in the U.S. For decades, most states in the U.S. have treated bicycles as motor vehicles. This approach might have arguably worked back in the 1960’s and before, but has progressively become more dangerous over time.
Since the advent of the Eisenhower era Interstate development program of the 1950’s and 1960’s, our state, county and city engineers have improved road safety for automobiles, with the net result that drivers feel entitled to drive fast. At the same time, automobiles have been continously improved to provide a safe cocoon for occupants to the degree that motorists have little worry of injury or death compared to years past – again promoting fast driving and a lack of patience for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Of course, the public agencies that work with each state’s legislative body promoted the “bicycle is a motor vehicle” philosophy, because it was the cheapest solution at the time. Now we pay the price in human lives lost – and in the case of this blog post, road rage.
I think most transportation experts agree that across the U.S. and in Arizona, bicycle and pedestrian deaths have risen to unacceptable levels. Many European countries, that refused to adopt such an automobile-centric approach to their transportation system, legally treat bicycles differently under the law than automobiles. These countries experience far less death and destruction as a result. I’ve talked to European transportation experts and they are appalled at the level of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities we in the U.S. apparently accept.
I’m under no delusion that our legal approach to bicycles will change any time soon. Probably not in my life time. But in my view, it does need to change.
One thing to consider is, it’s often a mistake to lump pedestrian safety together with bicyclist safety; yet “we” do it all the time. The traffic crash mechanisms for a bicyclist riding in the road versus a pedestrian are usually completely different.
The only real crossover is when bicyclists act as a pedestrian, as in using a sidewalk, and “crossing” a road like pedestrian.
Haha, I think that’s the paradigm shift that we are faced with in order to bring ourselves into the “first” world transportation law-wise. For decades, we in the U.S. lumped bicycles with cars – and that has shown itself to be an unhappy marriage.
I think most transportation experts, even here in the U.S., now realize bicycles fit better lumped with pedestrians. That is, treat bicycles and pedestrians more similarly under the law, and both treated differently than cars.
Hence the Complete Streets movement across the U.S. – and the associated promotion of separate infrastructure for bicycles and pedestrians – that is, separate from cars and in many cases with cars taking a back seat.
“that is, treat bicyclists in pedestrians more similarly under the law”. Not sure what you mean, do you have an example?
In countries more developed transportation-wise than the U.S., as you will find in European cities such as Amsterdam and Copenhagen to name a few, pedestrians and bicycles are “elevated” legally – that is, it is the responsibility of drivers of deadly automobiles to exercise care such as to not strike peds or bikes when crossing their path. The onus is placed squarely on the operator of the deadly machine to be careful. In other words, due to their similar fragility compared to motor vehicles, bicyclists are treated more like we treat pedestrians than how we treat bicyclists (like they are motor vehicles).
document repository for the trial audio, appeal, etc.
Added complaint to PSB.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sYLNI5a024CVDO_y42xe9i7JhDWg_-6u
In the City of Phoenix, are bicyclists legally allowed to drive on sidewalk against traffic- and also not yielding to vehicle whom is at stop sign making a right turn with flow of traffic so vehicle driver is looking at oncoming traffic which is in different eye view direction of bicyclist, and bicyclist also rides bike across crosswalk?
Concerning the proper place on the road for a cyclist, here is from a review I made several years ago for the excellent book “Cyclecraft”
“Cyclecraft” is originally a British book. This North American edition was made with the help of a group of experienced American and Canadian cyclists who advised on conditions on this side of the pond. I was one of the reviewers. You can buy Cyclecraft at http://www.cyclecraft.org/
This book, along with John Forester’s Effective Cycling and John Allen’s booklet Bicycling Street Smarts (the last serving as the bicycle drivers’ manual in several states) should be on every serious cyclists’ bookshelf. They are all essential references that should be read thoroughly and often. Cyclecraft may be the easiest to read and with the best figures and importantly, the best coverage on assertive safety practices, Effective Cycling, the most complete and Street Smarts the most concise (and its free in some states).
What is unique about Cyclecraft is the part about road positioning, which Franklin calls “probably the most important of all cycling skills”. My only disagreement with that is the word “probably”. This is an absolutely essential safety concept that, unfortunately, very few people understand.
Franklin calls an assertive position the “primary riding position” — “in the center of the rightmost line of traffic …” “… here you will be well within the zone of maximum surveillance of both following drivers and those who might cross your path, and you will have the best two-way visibility of side roads and other features along the road.” He describes a lane sharing position as the “secondary riding position . This gives the proper emphasis to safety over motorist convenience.
Here are some key citations about riding position.
“…positioning is one of the most important traffic skills for a cyclist to acquire, yet is precisely here that most cyclists perform badly. Many cyclists fail to position themselves properly because of their fear of traffic, yet ironically, it is this very fear that probably puts them most at risk.” (p. 91)
“An important rule of road sharing is that no one should unnecessarily impede the passage of anyone else. However, you are quite justified in restricting the movements of other vehicles where this is important for your own safety, and you should not hesitate to do so when necessary.”
“Motorists primarily give attention to that part of the highway where is risk to themselves: they are not nearly so good at noticing anything outside their path. This zone of maximum surveillance is often very narrow, especially at higher speeds … For you to be safest as a cyclist, you must normally ride within this zone of maximum surveillance, not outside it.” (p 93).
One advantage of riding assertively in the primary position that Franklin missed is that it can actually help overtaking drivers be less likely to make mistakes that can lead to collisions. Also, if motorists see early that they need to slow down or change lanes then they have time to do it smoothly, which can actually reduce delays. This last point is explained nicely at http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/11/29/helping-motorists-with-lane-positioning/
One of my friends wittily observed that “We are flush with Johns.” because most of the guiding lights in the cycling world have the given name John. This book is by one of the Johns.
Outstanding information. Here is another source of information for our law enforcement friends, https://abea.bike/#law
Good job!
I’ve always carried a copy of Arizona Bicycling Street Smarts with me in case “pulled over,” since it has the imprimatur of ADOT on it and one used to be able to go on line to orders copie. But that seems to not be true anymore. It says right in it, under “Going Straight Through”: “If there’s a lane marked for right turns and through traffic, RIDE NEAR ITS LEFT SIDE.”
Hi since you have so much knowledge about bike laws etc maybe you can help me…do you have any information regarding laws about bike lanes ….example…I was pulled over for my right tire MAY HAVE entered the bike lane…the officer wasn’t exactly sure …bares mentioning there were no bicyclists on the roadway at the time of the incident .
28-815. Riding on roadway and bicycle path; bicycle path usage…
D. A person shall not operate, stop, park or leave standing a vehicle, including a neighborhood occupantless electric vehicle, in a path or lane designated as a bicycle path or lane by a state or local authority except in the case of emergency or for crossing the path or lane to gain access to a public or private road or driveway.