On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 08:28:46 -0700, Martha J. Retallick wrote:
> This is from today's (23 January 2003) Arizona Daily Star newspaper in Tucson, Arizona:
>
>
http://www.azstarnet.com/star/today/30123BICYCLIST2fsrl-jmd.html
>
> NOTE: The link will change tomorrow. Best way to go back to the story would be to go to:
>
>
http://www.azstarnet.com/
>
> and navigate to the Thursday Star. Use the "Thursday" link that's halfway down the page on the
> left side.
>
> With regards from Tucson, Martha Retallick
I noticed there was an email address to send in some feedback. I took advantage of this, I pasted my
reply below. Anyone in the area please feel free to send in your own reply. Feel free to paraphrase
what I wrote, but do not copy is that may be poorly received.
The cyclists, Leo Mellon, has good grounds for appeal based on my reading of the Arizona
traffic code.
Richard Kaiser
* What do you think of Tucson's bicycle route and path system?
No path or trail system can be as safe as the road nor can it go everywhere a cyclist needs to go.
Bike lanes cannot improve safety as bike lanes do not protect cycles from conflicts in intersections
where almost all car-bike accidents occur. Poorly implemented bike lanes can add conflicts and
reduce visibility resulting in more accidents.
* Do you think bicyclists should ride on busy streets during rush hour?
Increased cycling is one way of reducing congestion. If the outside lane is wide enough to share
then there is no problem. If the road is not wide enough to share that is not the fault of the
cyclist. In actual practice a cyclists only delays a motorist a few seconds and then the motorists
can quickly regain their position in traffic. Since a cyclists has equal rights to the road are
motorists in heavy traffic cited for obstructing bicycles who are capable of going faster?
* From my reading of the Arizona traffic code on Leo Mellon's obstructing traffic case:
From section 28-812 of the AZ traffic code: "A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder
adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to
the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in
this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their
nature can have no application."
So motorists and cyclists have the same right to use public roads and cyclist do not have to get out
of the way. This section should have been enough of a defense as cyclists by their very nature
cannot travel as fast as a motorist and so are exempt from being required to do so.
Section 28-704 A on blocking traffic by driving slow explicitly states it applies to motor vehicle
so it cannot be applied to a person riding a bicycle. Paragraph C requires using a pullout or where
sufficient room exists only when traveling on a two lane highway where passing is unsafe. Since this
was a four lane road this section does not apply.
The only special instructions for a person riding a bicycle that may apply is section 28-815 A
which states:
"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:" [irrelevant sections not
shown] "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." [irrelevant sections not shown]
Practicable means the cyclist does not have to sacrifice his or her safety and utility for the
convenience of motorists.
If Leo was riding one to three feet from the right side of the road that was wide enough to share
then the he was legal. If the road was not wide enough to share then paragraph A4 exempts cyclists
from riding to the right and allows him or her to take the lane.
Richard Kaiser Littleton, Colorado
