Powers of local authorities

Rules of the road are already, and best, defined for bicyclists in state law; the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). Bicyclists riding in the road have the rights and duties (R&D) of the driver of any (any non-motorized) vehicle (§28-812), as well a few additional specific duties; the most remarkable probably being that they have a special duty to facilitate passing of faster traffic, but only under specific conditions, and only when safe… the so-called as-far-right-as-practicable (AFRAP, sometimes referred to as far-to-the-right, FTR, rule) law, 28-815A.Unfortunately, Arizona is one of many states (it’s about half-and-half) that allow for local regulation of bicyclists. There are at least a couple of reasons why “statewide uniformity” is better for everybody — for safety it’s important that rules be consistent for all traffic regardless of what city or town you happen to be driving or riding in. To do otherwise would be at best confusing, and at worst lead to unsafe situations.

A lot of the thinking behind allowing this to vary from town-to-town reflects a “toy” mentality towards bicycles. You’ll see later that each town can have their own required registration process for bicycles — can you imagine a system where you had to register your car in every town you drove through? Or that the rules of the road might vary when driving? Of course not.

And as a practical matter, it’s very difficult to know what, if any, additional local regulations there might be; or even to keep track of what particular jurisdiction you might be in at any given moment.

I can’t think of a useful/helpful local law for bicyclists, even theoretically; many that do exist are duplicative of state law [1], and a small number of them are ripe for violating cyclists’ rights [2].

Here are the relevant Arizona Revised Statues (ARS) relating to powers of local authorities:

§28-626. Uniform application of laws throughout state; local ordinances or regulations

A. The provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title are applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions in this state.
B. A local authority:

1. Shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or regulation in conflict with this chapter or chapter 4 or 5 of this title unless expressly authorized by this chapter or chapter 4 or 5 of this title.
2. May adopt additional traffic regulations that are not in conflict with this chapter or chapter 4 or 5 of this title…
[this is a generally good provision: cities may not make contradictory law, but they may go “above and beyond” so long as it’s consistent]

§28-627. Powers of local authorities; definition
A. This chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title do not prohibit a local authority, with respect to streets and highways under its jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power, from: …

8. Regulating the operation of bicycles and requiring the registration and licensing of bicycles, including the requirement of a registration fee…  [this is potentially bad news simply because it can lead to inconsistent laws from city-to-city] 
.

It’s not clear what new ordinances, either good or bad, could be enacted even hypothetically  without violating the “Uniform application…” clause in 28-676. There were some potential traps for bicyclists mentioned in Tempe’s 2019 massive re-write

Sidewalk Rules

One area which bears special attention is sidewalk rules; which are not mentioned in Arizona state law.  Arizona’s legislature has completely abdicated authority regarding cycling on the sidewalk, this had resulted in a 1983 AZ Supreme Court Decision, Maxwell, which construed only Arizona state law, has some surprising results, and the legislature has to date never addressed the matter (so Maxwell remains “good law”). You should read the opinion for yourself, but the synopsis is a bicyclist proceeding in a crosswalk is treated similarly to a pedestrian.

Local rules for sidewalk cycling now exist in most if not all jurisdictions, however these local rules vary widely. E.g. in some places sidewalk riding is banned outright (Cottonwood), in others it’s allowed but only when there is sign saying so (Tucson), in most places it’s allowed unless there is a sign to the contrary (many examples: Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler, etc). In two places, Tempe and Yuma, bicyclists must ride in the direction of adjacent traffic. In Tempe, bicyclists must yield before entering a crosswalk — this causes a lot of confusion and injury. Much more discussion of sidewalk laws here.

The registration clause

Since there is no statewide registration for bicycles, this part is not necessarily bad, and can make sense but it’s widely ignored and tough to administer:

“requiring the registration and licensing of bicycles, including the requirement of a registration fee”

Looking up every possible jurisdiction’s rules (cities, towns, and even counties) would be an enormous task. Phoenix actually requires a license plate on any bicycle used on any Phoenix street. This ordinance was enacted over 50 years ago and is still on the books, yet the city stopped providing such plates decades ago.

Most cities have some sort of required registration, but there are either explicitly no penalties for not complying (or are simply not enforced); the reasoning is it’s mostly a bike-theft-recovery aid for police.

Another problem when moving between jurisdictions; many are worded to apply to anyone riding a bike in the jurisdiction — so to avoid breaking the law, a bicyclist would have to register in all of them (I ride on a routine basis in Phoenix, Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa and Scottsdale; on occasionally many others) . Anyway, these anachronistic ordinances should be “consistified”, or at a minimum remove any penalties; a good model might be the City of Chandler where registration is “encouraged”.

Charter Cities

Generally speaking, local laws cannot be in conflict with state law. However, there’s this huge murky area where “Charter Cities” assert their charter grants them sovereignty (from the state), and can do anything they please, even if in conflict with state statute, so long as the matter is “purely local”. Every now and then this issue bubbles up, as in the recent Tucson ordinance that requires that seized guns be destroyed. This local ordinance appears to be in clear conflict with a recent state law that prohibits almost any form of local gun regulation. In that particular case the state Supreme court ruled against Tucson.

How might this concept apply to bicyclists? The city council of a charter city could theoretically enact an ordinance requiring bicyclists to, e.g., ride only against traffic. Although this would be in clear conflict with the state law which requires drivers of vehicles to operate only in the right-half of a roadway; the city could claim they know better and that it’s a purely local issue.

Possibilities?

It’s been suggested because it hasn’t been able to be enacted at the state level, a hypothetical example local law might be the so-called “Idaho Stop”  (and I don’t want to debate whether this would be good or bad). As far as I can tell, this would not be possible because of the Uniformity rule in 28-626. The stop sign law is §28-855, any “driver of a vehicle” (which includes bicyclists) — has to STOP No local ordinance can make it otherwise.

The most obvious threat of local control would be to ban bicycling on certain roads, as was done somewhat infamously in Blackhawk, Colorado.[3]. There are no known bicycling bans on any road in Arizona, see caveat about freeways immediately below.

Freeways

placeholder; generally speaking, bicyclists can be banned or restricted from freeways.(fully controlled-access highways) In practice, this is only supposed to (by ADOT’s policy) prevent bicyclists from using freeway shoulders only when there are alternative / feasible routes, as is the case in many/most freeways in urban areas, which seems like a reasonable restriction… though I know of one particular segment where a bureaucrat at ADOT has violated their own policies and continue to ban bicyclists altogether even though no other feasible route exists.

Other road restrictions: there are NO KNOWN restrictions preventing bicyclists from legally using any other road or highway anywhere in Arizona(!).

Footnotes

[1] Example of duplicative ordinances: this Phoenix code is already covered in ARS 28-701A, Arizona’s basic speed law —

PCC Sec. 36-108. Speed limit.
No person shall operate a bicycle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing.

[2] . Example of bad ordinances for bicyclists: In Yuma  bicyclists may not “impede the free flow of traffic”; this subverts the intent of Arizona’s far-to-the-right law 28-815A, which is simply to permit traffic flow around slower bicyclists but only when safe). If you are wondering about the Arizona statue regarding impeding traffic, 28-704A only applies to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

[3] Around 2010 the town of Blackhawk, CO banned bicycles from most of its streets; although the general ban was eventually overturned (which is great but would you want to, or be able to take a traffic ticket to the the supreme court to get satisfaction?). Arizona, by the way, does not have the same legal protections.