Arizona Bike Law

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.

2013: Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers

[Update as of 2/23/2013, The McComish novice cell ban, SB1241, is moving forward. The Farley full text ban SB1218 is dead. See below ]
[Update as of 4/4/2013 McComish bill appears stalled, it is being prevented from coming to a vote in full senate. In other news, Farley tried again, via amendment, to get a texting ban; see notes below on SB2378]

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)

A cell phone ban has been introduced, SB1241. The same (or similar?) bill was introduced last year, bill-would-ban-cell-phone-use-by-teen-drivers-with-learners-permits. The bill applies only to “novice” drivers, that is those who are 16-18 years old, and the ban only lasts for 6 months. On the brighter side, it is a total ban, which I prefer to, say, a handsfree exception. For background, see NTSB has called for a total ban. Continue reading “2013: Bill would ban cell phone use by novice teen drivers”

2 peds killed, 1 hurt after pickup truck slams into bus stop

Two dead peds, plus one seriously injured while in the process of boarding a city bus. Seriously, how often does this happen?

Police suspect the driver, Raymond J. Barela, , who was going the wrong way, of being impaired. 2 killed, 1 hurt after pickup truck slams into bus stop. 3/26/2013.

“Of the fatalities, only one has been identified (at the time of the news story). That victim is 47-year-old Jesus Antonio Martinez Chavez.”

…

https://litigation-update.com/two-dead-in-west-valley-bus-stop-crash Phoenix police said that two people were boarding a city bus at 67th Avenue and Indian School Road when the driver of a yellow Nissan truck traveling west on Indian School lost control, crossed the center lane, and crashed between the bus stop bench and the bus. Jesus Antonio Martinez Chavez, 47, was pronounced dead at the scene. An unidentified 43-year-old man was taken to a local hospital and later died during surgery. A 36-year-old man escaped with minor injuries.

Police said the driver of the truck has been identified as Raymond J. Barela, 43. He was taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, and is suspected of being under the influence of drugs at the time of the crash.

Driver gets 6 years in sidewalk killing

The driver involved with a sidewalk-killing-hit-and-run that spurred the victim’s father to get “Joey’s Law” enacted has been sentenced to 6 years prison plus some probation. “Police say (Laura) Flanders drove onto the sidewalk and hit 18-year-old Joey Romero while he was walking home from work in October 2010″ [abc15]. Seriously, how often does this happen? Continue reading “Driver gets 6 years in sidewalk killing”

NAU student cyclist killed in hit-and-run

9/9/2012 Hit and run incident. Witnesses say driver was excessive speed in a residential neighborhood, near the intersection of Walapai and Mohawk Drives, in Flagstaff. “22-year-old Kelsey Lou Cody of Flagstaff was arrested on charges of manslaughter and fleeing the scene of a fatal accident”… police say alcohol was a factor. victim: Jordan A. Murphy-Mahoney, 21 years old. azdailysun.com story Continue reading “NAU student cyclist killed in hit-and-run”

It’s like a war zone out there…

Walk in the crosswalk; get hit with flying debris from a red-light-runner? Seriously, how often does this happen? (note to self — check ASDM for 2013, whenever that becomes available, and see if the peds show up in the collision — my guess is no but i really don’t know what the story is)

azcentral.com: …At about 9a.m. Sunday (3/10/2013), Kaylynn Ruth Kayanie, 25, was driving west on Broadway “at a high rate of speed” when she ran a red light and struck another vehicle that was traveling south on Priest Drive… The driver of the southbound vehicle, a 45-year-old woman, was ejected and taken to the hospital with life-threatening injuries… Two pedestrians who were in the crosswalk heading south on Priest at the time of the collision were hit by flying debris and taken to the hospital, where they were treated for cuts and bruises and released the same day, she said. Impairment does appear to be a factor in that case and investigators are awaiting drug-test results

The same story notes that the suspected impaired driver Veronica Muckerman made a bad left, killing a motorcyclist Elsa Tovar last week; was apparently driving without a license, due to being revoked in 2011 for another dui.

Phoenix double hit and run

[update 4/11/2013 “Phoenix police announced Thursday that 30-year-old Christopher Forrest has been booked into jail on suspicion of leaving the scene of a fatal traffic collision” azcentral.com ]

Bicyclist 47-year-old Angel Hernandez-Sotelo was struck 3/8/2013 9pm, apparently while attempting to cross mid-block near 7th St/Roeser Phx by TWO vehicles; and BOTH hit-and-ran. One of the vehicle is said to be a “rental car” (should be easy to find who rented it??) and is seen on video surveillance cameras with a smashed windshield nearby where the driver left the vehicle and fled on foot.

The article didn’t say on which street the collision ocurred; 7th Street is the more-major of the two, it has two lanes in each direction (plus turn lane); while Roeser is only one lane. Speeds on 7th are generally higher.

Continue reading “Phoenix double hit and run”

Bill would ban city’s use of photo enforcement

In what is an annual ritual, HB2579 (51st regular session) a group of Republican Arizona legislators would ban city’s and town’s use of photo enforcement. See here for last session’s go-rounds…. photo enforcement seems to be a pre-occupation with some handful of legislators.

Arizona’s legislators have often voiced frustration over being “told what to do” by, say, the Feds. Proponents of such bills, however, don’t appear to have any qualms about telling cities what they can and can’t do. Certainly, not all Republican lawmakers are on board, and cooler heads ultimately (this time, anyway) prevailed, as the bill failed to pass committee; azcentral.com

“I am not in favor of these things, but as a City Council member I will listen to my chief of police,” said Rep. Sonny Borrelli, a Republican from Lake Havasu City and a former City Council member there. “I can’t buy this that nobody knows about them and are being targeted — it’s no surprise.

As I’ve mentioned before… Completely aside from safety issues, cameras can, and do, provide evidence that has been used to solve crimes; including (that I know of) catching a hit-and-run driver who seriously injured a cyclist in Tucson, a hit-and-run-driver who killed a cyclist in Tempe, and a assault-robbery-murderer in Tempe.

And Another One

HB2477 (51st regular session) is yet another attempt to get rid of photo enforcement. This one harkens back to something i mentioned over a year ago; the legislature is aghast to find the the ARIZONA department of transportation is allowing photo enforcement to be placed along state roads, at the request of local juridictions. Azcentral.com noted in a story about the bill passing the house: “Rep. Carl Seel, R-Phoenix, said he really wants photo enforcement eliminated, because in his view it is unconstitutional. But with measures outlawing it failing again this year, he said the bills that are advancing at least make it harder for cities and towns to set them up.”

[update 4/3/2013: hb2477 passed full senate along party lines, i presume, and moves back to house for what is assured final approval]

Is Photo enforcement Unconstitutional?

I would like to hear Rep. Seel’s reasoning. I’ve never really seen, other than vague claims, that photo enforcement is itself “unconstitutional”. For example, one Arizona legislator told me that was so because of a “constitutional right to face one’s accusers. With PE, the camera machine cannot be cross examined; it is therefore unconstitutional”. Really. He said that. Apparently according to his theory surveillance video, say in a bank robbery, is unconstitutional as well.

Googling around; I see a county court ruling in Florida, that has been set aside; awaiting review. In any event, there is apparently zero case law in Arizona holding PE to be unconstitutional. And after over 7 years (the loop 101 demonstration project began in the fall of 2005), and untold thousands of cases; I think it’s safe to say that photo enforcement is constitutional in Arizona.

Process Servers and Arizona’s Rules of Civil Procedure

handy link with all Arizona’s Rules for Civil Procedure [which lawyers cite as Ariz.R.Civ.P.] that are of interest to process servers. (e.g. rule 4.1 and 4.2)….

The *statutory* rules about how a ticket gets served is in 28-1593. Service of uniform traffic ticket and complaint,see also 28-1592. Commencement of action. Continue reading “Process Servers and Arizona’s Rules of Civil Procedure”

Standin’ on the corner

Woman standing on the sidewalk at an intersection gets hit by a red light runner. Seriously, how often does this happen?

By Chris Cole
The Arizona Republic-12 News Breaking News Team
Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:50 PM
A woman holding a child while standing on a street corner was hit by a car in Glendale Tuesday following a vehicle collision, authorities said. The driver of a car heading west on Camelback Road ran a red light and struck another car going north on 75th Avenue. The first car then hit a woman, who was standing on a corner holding a child, before driving into a canal, said Sgt. Brent Coombs, a spokesman for the Glendale Police Department. …more

Driver convicted in Colorado horn-honking incident

If you haven’t yet seen the actual video of the incident, it’s really remarkable.

Kudos to the Colorado Highway Patrol (and the prosecutors) for actually investigating; and bringing the driver to justice.

According to the Daily Camera, driver “James Ernst pleaded guilty to two counts of harassment — a Class 3 misdemeanor — and two counts of improper use of a horn — a traffic offense”, and received 12 months probation, including a court-ordered anger management class. Continue reading “Driver convicted in Colorado horn-honking incident”

Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws on Children’s Injuries

Those seeking to improve the situation of bicyclists, PARTICULARLY through laws or regulations, should first consider the possibility of unintended consequences…

Helmets protect rider’s heads. Bicycle riders sometimes suffer head injuries. So it would go without saying that mandatory helmet laws would improve cyclist safety, right? Well,maybe not when substitution effects (or other human nature effects) are factored in. Mandatory helmet laws have the unintended consequence of suppressing cycling. Effects of Bicycle Helmet Laws on Children’s Injuries — by Pinka Chatterji, Sara Markowitz found children cyclist’s head injuries are down, and so are other injuries, and so is the amount of cycling; from the abstract:

we find helmet laws are associated with reductions in bicycle-related head injuries among children. However, laws also are associated with decreases in non-head cycling injuries, as well as increases in head injuries from other wheeled sports. Thus, the observed reduction in bicycle-related head injuries may be due to reductions in bicycle riding induced by the laws

More broadly, people behave differently when they are helmeted; people (drivers) around cyclists behave differently depending on whether or not the cyclist is helmeted. These are human nature effects and very hard to quantify, but exist nonetheless. Risk homeostasis affects both riders and drivers.

72-year-old bicyclist dies after collision

The azcentral.com news story was very detailed as to location, E McDowell Rd & N Granite Reef Rd (which is a.k.a. N 84th St), and direction of the bicyclist, “eastbound on the north side of McDowell Road” , and motorist, “turning right from southbound Granite Reef Road onto westbound McDowell”.

I was under the mistaken impression that : So the bicyclist was riding on the sidewalk counter-flow (not recommended, but not illegal). Unmentioned in the news story was this is a signal-controlled intersection. SOMEONE VIOLATED (or attempted to violate) THE SIGNAL. So, oddly, that relevant fact is omitted. Also the conclusion “No citations were issued to the driver” is sort of unusual; generally speaking the answer always is something to the effect of the incident remains under investigation. I realized I just made that, the part about being on the sidewalk, up. I read something into the story that was not there.

Scottdale PD clarified to me that “the bicyclist was at fault as she was riding eastbound against westbound traffic in the roadway.” This doesn’t really sit well with me; it seems much more likely she would be riding counter-flow on the sidewalk, and then entered the crosswalk… but there you have it.

ACR and ASDM

I do not have the ACR. I forget what the story is with how to get crash reports from Scottsdale. The database ASDM 2712556 more or less corroborates the newspaper account and the clarification I got from Scottsdale PIO, the only irregularities are why were there so many “OTHER” codings:

NonMotoristLocation: OTHER_97   why other?
 
(cyclist) UnitAction: OTHER_97        why other?

(cyclist) Lane: LANE_3    (this does indicate cyclist was in the road, as opposed to crosswalk)

JunctionRelation: INTERSECTION (this also indicates crash was not in crosswalk area, a crosswalk location should be coded as intersection_related)

(cyclist) Violation1: DROVE_RODE_IN_OPPOSING_TRAFFIC_LANE (this is inconclusive in the sense that police often use this violation for sidewalk cyclists even when not illegal)

There’s not really anywhere in the database where it’s possible to ascertain that the driver was turning right on red; though it can be inferred from the lack of a signal violation assigned to the cyclist; i.e. that’s consistent with the motorist having a red light, and having made a right-on-red.

Right on Red?

Just to brush up on the rules about making right turns on red (and, as i mentioned above, the news story only indicates that the driver was turning right, and not whether his signal was red or green); a driver must, first and foremost, stop completely; then may proceed turning right but only after yielding to “pedestrians and other traffic”. A driver who does not stop in the first place would be in violation of 28-645A(3)(a); a driver violating the right of way would be responsible for 28-645A(3)(b):

(b) The driver of a vehicle that is stopped in obedience to a red signal and as close as practicable at the entrance to the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if there is no crosswalk, then at the entrance to the intersection, may make a right turn but shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and other traffic proceeding as directed by the signal. A right turn may be prohibited against a red signal at any intersection if a sign prohibiting the turn is erected at the intersection.

Bike Lanes?

It has sometimes been suggested that the presence of bike lanes increases riding against traffic. Without drawing any conclusions: I note from the google maps that N Granite Reef Rd is a dividing line along McDowell between no bike lanes to the west (the direction the bicyclist was coming from), and bike lanes to the east (presumably where the bicyclist was going).

—-

azcentral.com

A 72-year-old Scottsdale woman has died from injuries suffered when the bicycle she was riding was struck by a car early last week, police said.

Ginette McKeehan died about 4 p.m. Saturday, police said. Continue reading “72-year-old bicyclist dies after collision”

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”

Related topic: License points for bicyclists?