Sidewalks are not for riding,they are for walking/jogging. They are designed (the standard design criteria is for a pedestrian speed of 4ft/sec which is about 2.73mph) and designated by law for pedestrian traffic. Pedestrian traffic is in Minnesota either afoot or in a wheel chair, by the code. Every study I have seen shows that your are about 2X more likely to be involved in a car bicycle accident while sidewalk riding (see numerous studies as documented on sites: ITE, AASHTO, NHTSA, etc). However, riding the wrong way on the sidewalk while entering an intersection ups the statistical chance of a collision occurrence to 4.8X as likely. As far as Maxwell v Gosset, it could be sited in any state without case history as a persuasive argument. The problem I have with the ruling is that it ignores AZ law which designates the crosswalk as part of the street. Also from the point of administrative law, the state of AZ follows the AASHTO definitions. This also defines a sidewalk as part of a street, and a crosswalk as part of the street. Yet the court says it will ignore that and follow some unspecified ruling that has held that a crosswalk is not part of the roadway (street/highway and roadway are not by definition the same). It goes on to state that the 10 year old child in question, whether riding a bicycle or walking would have been in the intersection and struck. The problem with this faulty logic is that a bicycle travels much faster than a person afoot. It would seem more likely that our cyclist would not have been as deep into the crosswalk,and thus struck, if he had walked his bicycle across the intersection. Better yet, if he had followed the flow of traffic, as a cyclist should, even on a sidewalk, then it would have not been possible for the cyclist to have been struck by the car. Remember, a cyclist and a pedestrian are defined differently by the law. Pedestrians may have a direction of travel by law, it will usually pertain to walking against traffic flow if a sidewalk is not available for their use. Still, we are stuck with this mish-mash of law and logic. Yes, it could bite us.
Again, how Arizona courts and police interpret the law and prosecute it is bizarre at best. Tucson is a bit more sane than Phoenix and what the state government would lead you to believe, but not much. You could argue that given what the police do and the courts find, AZ doesn't follow any real definitions in practice. As for the law and sidewalks, non-cyclists are a large enough and loud enough contingent that in practice and in some places by law, cyclists are forced onto sidewalks. Equal rights for cyclists on the road is a condition that's far from realized. We are expected--and should--follow traffic laws, but the protection of cyclists as road users is not usually enforced in any way. There are periodic enforcement activities focused on cyclists, but I've yet to hear of an enforcement activity forced on motorists wherein motorist behavior toward and around cyclists is what is being enforced. In some ways, encouraging or forcing cyclists onto sidewalks can be viewed as way for the police and the courts to not have to deal with an issue, namely the equal protection of cyclists. Too often, what's legal isn't smart. It seems pretty obvious that any move to encourage or legally force cyclists onto sidewalks is not smart and is in fact pretty damned stupid. There's no safety upside, neither for the cyclists nor the pedestrians. It's a win, however, for car centric city planners, police departments, courts, and a lot of citizens.jandjmartin123 said:
