Bill makes harassing a ped or cyclist illegal

[Update as of 2/23/2012, HB2528 it is not 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)

HB2528 makes it explicitly illegal to harass a pedestrian or bicyclist.

Numerous people have pointed out that the language of the bill is odd in that to be in violation of it, the victim must fall. I’m not sure why it was written that way.

Three Foot Passing Laws

[Updating this is cumbersome and I am probably missing some… This page at says it’s updated to the end of 2015]

As of the 2015 legislative season, by my count, 22 US states have added three-or-more-foot passing provisions (not counting NY, Missouri or SC, which both relatively recently added “safe passing” laws without specifying a distance):

2018 Michigan news item. amends section 257.636
2015 South Dakota HB 1030 minimum 3/6 foot.
2013 California AB 1371
2012 Pennsylvania HB 170 3303(3) FOUR foot passing
2011? Delaware see below
2011 Kansas HB2192 K.S.A. 8-1516
2011 Georgia
2011 Nevada SB248 NRS 484B.270; 3-feet AND must change lanes on multi-lane
2010 New York* A10697 S 1122-A (right section, wrong bill?)
2010 Mississippi info
2010 Maryland SB51. code 21-1209. has bad features
2009 Louisiana
2009 Colorado  info
2008 South Carolina *
2008 Connecticut
2008 New Hampshire
2007 Tennessee info
2007 Maine info
2007 Illinois info
2007 Arkansas info
2006 Florida
2006 Oklahoma
2005 Utah
2005 Missouri *
2004 Minnesota
2000 Arizona HB2625 44th/1st Regular. ARS 28-735
1973 Wisconsin

*NY, SC and MO: requires “safe operating” — not specific distance. I also need to look up NC; i seem to remember they have a 2-foot specification for passing. Continue reading “Three Foot Passing Laws”

Bicyclist stop sign law changes re-introduced

50th 2nd regular session (2012) HB2221. This is (i think) an exact copy of the bill from last year; which was a tweak to the original try in 2009.

HEARING SCHEDULED 1/26/2012 at 9AM by the House Transportation committee. All video is archived, in case you miss it live, you can also view the 3/4/2009 hearing at the archive — it’s kind of interesting.

BILL PASSES out of the Transportation Committee 1/26/2012, on an 8-2 vote. It was passed “DP” (do pass. i.e. passed without any amendment). If you didn’t see it live, you can catch it on archived, but it looks like there is a day or two delay… (bill ultimately dies). Continue reading “Bicyclist stop sign law changes re-introduced”

SB1218 – 37th Leg, 2nd Regular Session – 1986

Legislation prior to around 1997 is not available online, so below is the full chaptered version of a major bicycle legislation from 1986 (the 37th legislature). Here is the scanned image — thanks to Justin for providing it — and let me know if you spot any discrepancies. See here for a chronology of bicycle legislative changes.

Some of the changes were merely symbolic, e.g. removing references to play vehicle in conjunction with bicycles in the Article title. While others were important and substantial, and in addition allowed for greater conformance to UVC.

Particularly significant, this legislation gives us our modern §28-815A — our “stay to the right law”, along with its many and significant exceptions, along with the alternate hand signal (§28-756) — these were done expressly to conform to UVC, as was the arm signals (I think. It also strikes me as odd that motorcyclists can’t use the right arm signal; and also vehicles with right-hand drive are out-of-luck as they may not give arm signals at all!). It also added the two-lane highway impeding clause to n §28-704 .

“S.B. 1218 makes two changes in order to conform with the uniform vehicle code (UVC). The first change allows a person operating a bicycle to give a right turn signal by extending the right hand and arm horizontally to the right.  Second, it allows an operator of a bicycle to depart from the most extreme right position of the road in four specific situations…” — Revised Senate Fact sheet  for S.B. 1218 (that document can be found within this bundle of pages)

Also notable; the mandatory sidepath rule was still in effect; it would thankfully be repealed in 1989. Continue reading “SB1218 – 37th Leg, 2nd Regular Session – 1986”

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”

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”

Arizona texting ban dies for real, again

After some lazerous-like moments, the Arizona legislature finally killed a texting ban for this session. SB1334, (select 49th Legislature, 2nd regular session before clicking). [news item1] … “S1334, a bill to ban texting while driving sailed through the Senate early in the session, but it stalled in the House and never received a hearing. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Al Melvin, a Tucson Republican, and it’s likely to come back again next year”.[azcapitoltimes news item] (Republican Andy Biggs is the chairman of the House Transportation Committee)

The usual complaints from the we-already-have-enough-laws legislators were successful once again, despite a groundswell of diverse support.  For example typical sentiments at the time that Phoenix Banned Text Messaging “Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City, (at the time) chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said there are enough laws against distracted driving. He said further legislation is a waste of time. ‘If it comes to my committee I would hold it,’ Gould said”.

More recently, in March Gould said (in the video news piece) that if you really want to improve safety, you ought to ban talking on cell phones. And I agree. He, of course, doesn’t support such a ban; he supports neither.

“Idaho Stop” bill re-introduced

Stop-as-yield has been reintroduced.

49th Leg, 2nd Regular Session; HB2633 ( text of HB2633). Its been assigned to the House TI (Transportation and Infrastructure) committee. It’s hard for me to imagine Chairman Biggs letting this bill go anywhere.

You can review articles and background materials from the last session here.

Vulnerable Legislation

What is a ‘Vulnerable Roadway User’ Law?

The general idea is to create a subset of road users who are somehow more vulnerable than those inside of enclosed motor vehicle; this usually would include pedestrians and bicyclists, and might include motorcyclists, animal riders, animal drawn conveyances, and so forth. If someone in this subset is harmed by the negligent actions of a motorist, then that motorist is subject to enhanced penalties.

This page from the Cascade Bike Club (the state of Washington) describes it pretty well. The idea of making it a legislative priority is pretty popular. E.g.: Virgina Bicycling Federation. LACBC (California). Illinois. New York. Rhode Island. So it is a bit of a trend — and much like the Safe Passing Distance Laws were/are a trend, there isn’t any evidence one way or another that show these laws are effective.

Oregon 2007

Oregon has had a vulnerable road user law since 2007 (effective date Jan 1,2008) — making it the first such law in the US. Bike lawyer Ray Thomas  was instrumental in passage. He offers interesting and useful political legislative considerations here. Oregon’s enhance penalties are non-criminal, and involve various trade offs between a fine, license suspension, or community service. The penalty is keyed to the commission of a careless driving offense that results in a serious injury or death.

To see the actual language of the law: look up HB 3314 from the 2007 Regular Session at It adds a new section to Oregon’s existing careless driving law, ORS 811.135

What have been the results? It’s way to early to tell anything with crash stats (I originally wrote this article several years ago; perhaps in 2010?) — it ultimately might be impossible to discern. But one does wonder what became of prosecutions under this law?? There were, for example, 104 traffic deaths of bicyclist and ped in 2008 and 2009, the last full year of NHTSA stats available. (51+35 peds, 10+8 cyclists, 2008 and 2009 respectively). And there must have been at least several hundred of serious injuries. What became of these cases? How many vulnerable users’ prosecutions; any license suspensions, etc? I can’t find any outcomes.

As I am updating this now in late 2013, Oregon’s law has been on the books for just shy of six years; I have yet to see more than a tiny handful of mentions of this law (here is one involving a bicyclist hit by a garbage truck; I can’t even find the outcome, the article just says the driver will be charged). There have been now at least many hundreds (more reasonably a couple of thousand — it is some fraction of fatal or seriously injured bicyclist or pedestrian) of potential cases; where are the charges? (that fraction tends to hover around 50%). See this comment below from story published in nextcity in 2014. Here is one conviction where a Trimet bus driver Sandi Day killed two peds in a crosswalk.

Nevada 2011(?)

I can’t find the legislation, but it seems to be from same year as a 3-foot/move over bill was passed. In any event it obviously passed, here from NV’s DMV:

Motorists may be charged with reckless driving if they are at-fault in any collision with a bicyclist or a pedestrian. Penalties include a driver license suspension. (NRS 484B.280)

Washington 2011

Legislative effort in state of WA passed a vulnerable user’s law in the spring 2011 (but doesn’t become effective until June 1, 2012). As of March, a similar bill had passed both houses. See kiptasun article, which also has lots of links. HB1339 passed March 2, 2011; and SB5326 passed the week before. The bill is being pushed by the widow of bicyclist James “Mike” McClurkan. Here is a good graphic representation of “how a bill becomes law” in WA (but is very similar everywhere); Several articles from the Cascade Bicycle Club have lots of rich detail.

The law was signed by the governor May 16, 2011. To see the actual law; follow the link above to the senate bill SB5326, and in there there is a link to Session Laws: Chapter 372, 2011.

Some updates:

City Attorney to police: Don’t write a ticket at scene when someone walking or biking is injured includes references to SCAO (Seattle City Attorney’s Office) memo that i would like to read but can’t find; “…conduct falling just short of King County’s filing standards for ‘dry’ vehicular homicide charges”. I assume ‘dry’ being a reference to not impaired.

Law enforcement and judiciary still in the dark about Vulnerable User Law refers to what may have been the first prosecution under the VUL stemming from a serious injury in 2012; the driver was fined $2,500 and (I think?) a 90-day license suspension (or is it a maximum 90 day?).

Note that according to seattlebikeblog, my emphasis added:

“The brilliance of the law is that it does NOT SEEK TO CRIMINALIZE negligent driving. Instead, it outlines a series of financial penalties, license suspensions and driving education or relevant community service projects that, in theory, will ensure the person driving takes a level of accountability for what they have done.”

Washington updated 2019

Includes a very worthwhile change-lanes-to-pass provision.

See Substitute Senate Bill 5723; As of 5/3/2019 the bill is awating action from Gov. Here’s a .pdf of the markup.

The Texas Experience 2005-2009

San Antonio Metro Columnist Veronica Flores writes of political problems with such legislation: “For eight years, bicycling advocates worked to get such legislation passed, changing the proposal as necessary to gain widespread support… In vetoing the bill, Perry cited penalties that he said already exist when a motorist is at fault for causing a collision, “whether it is against a ‘vulnerable user’ or not.”

But here is some more detail on the actual sausage-making process… Saying that the proposal was changed as necessary to gain widespread support is a nice way to put it. NTVC (North Texas Vehicular Cyclist) puts it more bluntly “Bills introduced this session sought to include various pedestrian groups among legitimate road users in an effort to garner support among otherwise indifferent legislators” — in other words, a little horse trading that would, in NTVC’s view, would water-down cyclist’s rights.

In more recent news, the CITY of El Paso pass their own version, Ordinance number 017466.

New York 2010

New York state recently got two new laws, the first dubbed Hayley and Diego’s Law (A0791) is a vulnerable user’s law. The second, Elle’s law (A10617), stiffens penalties including mandatory license suspension for any motor vehicle driver who KSIs (kills or seriously injures) anyone. More at

The LAB weighs in (early 2013 timeframe)

LAB weighs in in support of VRU (Vulnerable Roadway User) laws, and has model language.

Wisconsin 2013, 2014, 2015 and ongoing

Interesting history… this is the first instance that I am aware of where motorcycling groups formally got involved, in this case to block legislation. The model bill from LAB includes motorcyclists as vulnerable users; it’s not clear to me how many of the states that have passed VULs include motorcyclists. Ray Thomas (of OR), the one who started it all, at least in the US, mentions/implies that the AMA would be in favor of VUL “…even though the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) ‘Motorcyclists Matter’ campaign was a pioneer in the enhanced penalty area”; though i’m not so sure of the implication.

I get the impression that the AMA is to motorcycling what the  (modern day) LAB is to the bicycle industry. I.e. large-scale D.C. lobbying shops, more industry-supported rather than member supported. And that the MRF (Motorcycle Riders Foundation) and the ABATE chapters are what the LAB used to be — they are true member-based organizations. I say this based on like 15 minutes of googling on motorcyclist organizations. If you don’t know what I’m talking about regarding LAB see e.g.

2013:  gets a bill introduced, LRB 1701/2, I think (not sure of the numbering scheme), be sure and scan through the comments because there are comments from ABATE leaders as well as counter-comments from WBF.

ABATE of Wisconsin ( a motorcyclist rights organization) opposes the bill, for equity reasons.

2014: A law passes which WisconsinBikeFed describes as “diluted” version of last year’s bill. From what I read briefly it contains no penalties, just some sort of education. story about Gov Walker signing AB388. (There was also an unrelated bill which passed, AB730, to allow bicycles on state trails; apparently they were heretofore banned?)

2015: Ramping up for what I imagine is their next legislative season, an Oct 2015 opens with the usual sensationalized nonsense “It’s been a deadly season for Wisconsin bicyclists. More than a dozen have been struck and killed by cars, but in most cases the drivers don’t face criminal charges, even when they appear to be at fault”

Why I do not support Vulnerable User Legislation

As an aside —  I don’t really see it happening in our current political climate.

The foundation for the supposed need seems to be based on a false premise. That being that when cyclists (or peds) are killed, the justice system has some sort of bias that prevents the responsible party from being appropriately punished.

This has not been my experience; at least in the cases of cyclist fatalities. That is to say, a negligent motorist who kills a cyclist is treated the same as a negligent motorist who kills another motorist.

The general rule involves whether or not the negligent driver is impaired: impaired = criminal charges; not impaired means no criminal charges. It is independent of the mode of transportation of the victim.

And in flagrant cases, charges are brought against reckless drivers who cause fatalities. See e.g. the driver who killed Drake Okusako, who was charged with manslaughter. Or the driver who killed Bob Walmsley (neg hom and leaving the scene).

What should be done

Arizona has no vehicular homicide or vehicular assault law.

I support any sort of stiffening of penalties for negligent drivers who kill / injure anyone. Arizona is one of only three states (AZ, Alaska, and Montana) that does not have a vehicular homicide law (more here), so perhaps that would be helpful. The general idea is that a special/another type of homicide is created; generally with relatively minor criminal penalties. So it would be similar to negligent homicide, a class 4 felony; but with a different standard of conduct. Neg Hom requires the prosecutor to prove the defendant was “criminally negligent”.

More tangibly — Arizona already has a criminal misdemeanor law 28-672. Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation. There are only two problems with it, 1) getting (in this case typically city) prosecutors to use it — but that would be the same problem with a new VUL law, and 2) the law itself has a discrete list of infractions.  The answer is to simply do away with the list of infractions and make it any moving violation. It would also be good to open up the ranges for the amount of time driver’s licenses get suspended — shamefully, the law has no mandatory minimum suspension period. This law has been tweaked several times in recent past, so there is at least some hope it could be tweaked again.


Here are some thought from cyclist (and here too) regarding vulnerable user legislation generally.

some context: Bicyclist’s trip represent about 2% of traffic (citation?); In Arizona there were 106,767 crashes between all types of traffic in 2009, of those 1,995 were bicylist crashes, representing 1.95% of all crashes. Source:  Motor Vehicle Crash Facts for the state of Arizona (ADOT)


Here is Mionske’s take on vulnerable user legislation.

Why I support “Bikes safe at stop signs”

See Stop sign compliance for links to the present laws, and Bicycle stop sign changes proposed for the pending legislation.

There are a couple of serious objections to allowing bicyclists to legally roll through stop signs that should be considered:

1) Same Roads – Same Rights – Same Rules (SRSRSR). I find this argument specious at best and disastrous at worst. SRSRSR may be useful as a teaching aid, slogan, or PR position but simply does not, and can not, work as a legal position. In Bicycles are not motor vehicles and why it matters I explain why as a practical matter cyclists would be banned outright from most roads were we to actually be subjected to the same rules. There are a myriad of other, lesser, examples; pacelineing would be illegal, bikes would be required to have lights (24×7, not just at night), horns, and so forth, cyclists would have to be licensed, and thus children wouldn’t be allowed to ride bicycles (16″ or more wheelsize), bikes would require insurance and registration stickers (BLT, bicycle license tax, anyone?), there would be no riding on sidewalks statewide, nor would parking be allowed on sidewalks (I guess I would definitely have to get a kickstand).  §28-735, the “3-foot passing law” would have to be repealed.

Beyond the issue at hand, as a matter of consistency, advocacy of any sort of bicycle lane would have to be disavowed — “Same Roads”, remember?

2) Safety; my own feeling is simply that the cyclist’s self-preservation instinct is stronger than any law, and as such changing the law won’t cause any (additional) problems.

Beyond just feeling, my review of traffic engineering literature indicates that the problem at stop signs isn’t one of strict compliance, but rather one of driver-error, see Stop sign compliance for references.

Also, we have an actual example in the state of Idaho. In reply to queries about the law’s impact on safety Mark McNeese said “No impact; nothing changed; current behavior was just legalized”. His full comments are below. Boise and its metro area have populations of around 200,000 and 600,000 respectively. By comparison, Tucson is about 500,000 / 1,000,000, and Phoenix is even larger. Still, it’s hard to claim that Idaho’s almost 3 decades of real-world experience is irrelevant. Continue reading “Why I support “Bikes safe at stop signs””

Bicycle Legislation Introduced

Roundup of legislation in Arizona affecting bicyclists, spring 2009 (49th 1st Regular Session):

1) HB2479 “Bikes safe at stop signs”. See Bicycle Stop Sign changes proposed and Why I support “Bikes safe at stop sign”.

  • Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee hearing scheduled for Wed March 4th.
  • Failed (3 for, 5 against — which was omniously strictly party-line. Patterson, a Democrat, backed it. Every Republican voted against.) to pass committee. The bill was amended to apply to only ages 16 and older. The hearing was pretty interesting; discussion of HB2479 went on for over an hour(!). I watched it on the internet, that worked really well –from what i can tell, you can only see it in real time, i.e. there is no archive. There was open skepticism that police in Tucson are issuing tickets to cyclists just because they “did not put both feet down”, there was further skepticism that such a citation would hold up in court “even in Pima county” (that got some chuckles), Patterson replied that judges tend to defer to police officers. When asked to support the claim that “hundreds” of these citations were being issued by TPD, Rep Patterson explained that he asked but that TPD does not keep records by bike vs. motorist. But the bottom line is that not one of these non-foot-putter-downers materialized to corroborate these claims. Another committeman (Seel?) quoted state ofIdaho Bike coordinator McNesse (out of context, in my opinion) to make it sound as though McNeese is against the stop-as-yield law — he is not.  Rep Barnes (i think) said something encouraging in effect: “I sense anti-cyclists sentiments and I don’t share them… we need to work to make cycling safer (in other areas)”
  • Hearing on Oregon’s stop-as-yield bill soon. They have been through this before, twice even, and I expect one of these times it will stick.

2) HB2546 “motor vehicles; bicycles; operation requirements”. Contains a bunch of things. It contains several of the same elements of HB2503 (46th 1st regular session, you MUST “change sessions” FIRST before clicking the link) that died in 2003.

  • As of mid-March, the bill looks dead. It never made it to hearing. It is “stuck” in the transportation committee. The bill’s main sponsor, Nancy Young-Wright, is not optimistic for this session.

3) HB2394 and SB1082 (identical) “technical correction; overtaking bicycles” is some wording changes to the existing §28-735(C). Seeing as how HB2546, above, seeks to completely replace 28-735(C), might this be a problem?

28-672 in the news

[ There have been many changes to this law, most recently in 2019, see history, below, as well as a couple of Court of Appeals opinions, most recently in 2021]

Prosecutors routinely decline to prosecute negligent drivers who kill/injure. Nearly without exception, they will only seek homicide (i.e. negligent homicide, or manslaughter) / aggravated assault charges if the driver is impaired. Short of that, the hurdle, in the minds of prosecutors, is very very high.

Arizona has no vehicular homicide law, it does however since 1998 have a law, §28-672, ” Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation” (and some companion laws 28-675 and 6 which work in an analogous fashion). The catch is that in order to be charged with 28-672, the driver must have been engaging in one or more of a specific list of infractions. For example, running a red light. Continue reading “28-672 in the news”