Phoenix, Az. Bicycle on Sidewalk Laws-NEED HELP!



P

Progunner

Guest
OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this topic, or
if this is even on topic, so I cross posted to another ng.
hoping to get a response. (So, please forgive me if I am ot)
----------
I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles on
sidewalks in Phoenix, Arizona.

Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
------------
The scenario goes something like this:

A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot
driving towards an exit.

Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the
vehicles leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a stop
sign, usually there is not.

A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile
shows that there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so
the driver is concentrating on the traffic to his/her
left, looking for an opening in the traffic to turn onto
the roadway.

Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
the sidewalk.

Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he is
in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path of
the automobile.

If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
please help? Possibly a url or ???

Many thanks in advance for your help.

James
 
just the bike specific stuff- http://azbikeclub.r.m6.net/bikelaw.html

check it with the actual law-
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/title28.htm

It's my understanding that in arizona bicycling on the
sidewalk is not against the law, as a bicycle is not
considered a vehicle in that state. although, operating at a
speed faster than the normal users of a sidewalk could be
considered reckless driving on the part of the cyclist.

hope this makes things somewhat blurry...

progunner wrote:
> OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this
> topic, or if this is even on topic, so I cross posted to
> another ng. hoping to get a response. (So, please
> forgive me if I am ot)
> ----------
> I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles
> on sidewalks in Phoenix, Arizona.
>
> Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
> ------------
> The scenario goes something like this:
>
> A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot
> driving towards an exit.
>
> Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the
> vehicles leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a
> stop sign, usually there is not.
>
> A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile
> shows that there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so
> the driver is concentrating on the traffic to his/her
> left, looking for an opening in the traffic to turn onto
> the roadway.
>
> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.
>
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???
>
> Many thanks in advance for your help.
>
> James
 
So it looks like you were driving and got into a heated
discussion with that sidewalk cyclist.

For whatever it's worth, I learned rights-of-way and yields
with a simple rule of thumb: traffic on the smaller road
always yields to traffic on a larger road, except where
signs or signals say otherwise.

When riding a bicycle on a path or sidewalk, I always
consider the path or sidewalk the smaller road, and
therefore am compelled to yield to traffic on regular roads
and highways as well as wider paths that intersect the path
that I'm on (such as driveways and the supermarket entrance
that you describe).

Since the sidewalk or parallel cycle path is *always* the
narrower road for the purposes of determing right-of-way,
you can see why it's such a pain to ride on the sidewalk. At
speeds faster than your average walker or runner (easily
attainable by a cyclist, whatever his condition!), it places
the cyclist in a very awkward legal situation: does he stop
at every intersection and driveway, or does he ignore cross-
traffic and ride blithely on? The former is very sound, so
far as the law goes, and quite safe--but inconvenient. You
might as well walk. The latter is convenient but, as you
saw, hazardous, as it sets a cyclist up for all sorts of
inevitable confrontations.

This is why I ride in the roadway. If traffic won't yield to
me, it will definitely yield to the car behind me, or the
truck behind him, or the bus behind that.

The cyclist riding wrong-way and on the sidewalk was
therefore probably in the wrong, and operating under the
fatal misapprehension that all traffic should yield to him
in whatever circumstance. Had he collided with your car
and done actual damage, you'd probably have a good case on
your hands.

Get on your bike and try it sometime in a quiet
neighborhood. You'd be surprised.

-Luigi
 
[email protected] (progunner) writes:

> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.
>
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???

Laws regarding use of bicycles on sidewalk vary from state
to state, with some states allowing local jurisdictions to
regulate the use of a sidewalk by bicycles. Regardless of
the laws regarding that, however, there is a general
obligation to operate a vehicle at a safe speed, and laws in
every state reflect that.

From your description, the bicyclist would have been riding
at a speed unsafe for the conditions (I presume the car was
moving very slowly towards the road as the driver tried to
get a better view of traffic.) I've seen bicyclists (usually
teenagers too young to drive) go very fast on a sidewalk and
shoot out into an intersection, with buildings or other
obstructions blocking the view for a driver on a cross
street. With the bicyclist riding against the flow of
traffic, the driver can have well under a second to react,
which is far too short to have any chance of avoiding a
collision.

BTW, riding against the flow of traffic on a sidewalk has
been shown to be about 4 times more dangerous than riding
on the road in the same direction as traffic, even with
most bicyclists riding at what would seem to be a
reasonable speed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:21:09 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Laws regarding use of bicycles on sidewalk vary from state
>to state, with some states allowing local jurisdictions to
>regulate the use of a sidewalk by bicycles.

Or maybe the guy is trying to blame the cyclist for a
SMIDSY...

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Hi, You should contact the Arizona State Department of
Transportation. They would be able to give you an accurate
answer to your question about bikes on sidewalks. Also,
contact the City of Pheonix about any local ordinances
governing bikes.

In my state, Florida, riding on sidewalks is allowed but you
must give way to pedestrians. But, in the city I live in
there is a local ordinance prohibiting riding (you can walk
them) bicycles on sidewalks in the downtown district.

As for accident, if that same scenario happened here I would
say the cyclist is at fault for hitting the stationary
vehicle. Here's a couple links to get you in the right
direction. Take care - www.dot.state.az.us
www.ci.phoenix.az.us

progunner <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this
> topic, or if this is even on topic, so I cross posted to
> another ng. hoping to get a response. (So, please
> forgive me if I am ot)
> ----------
> I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles
> on sidewalks in Phoenix, Arizona.
>
> Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
> ------------
> The scenario goes something like this:
>
> A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot
> driving towards an exit.
>
> Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the
> vehicles leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a
> stop sign, usually there is not.
>
> A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile
> shows that there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so
> the driver is concentrating on the traffic to his/her
> left, looking for an opening in the traffic to turn onto
> the roadway.
>
> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.
>
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???
>
> Many thanks in advance for your help.
>
> James
 
"Luigi de Guzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> For whatever it's worth, I learned rights-of-way and
> yields with a simple rule of thumb: traffic on the smaller
> road always yields to traffic on a larger road, except
> where signs or signals say otherwise.
>
> When riding a bicycle on a path or sidewalk, I always
> consider the path or sidewalk the smaller road, and
> therefore am compelled to yield to traffic on regular
> roads and highways as well as wider paths that intersect
> the path that I'm on (such as driveways and the
> supermarket entrance that you describe).
>
That's might be a good rule for survival, but as law it's
all wet. Let's suppose we have a through street with a
sidewalk, and several side streets with stop signs. Let's
suppose we have a pedestrian walking straight, using the
sidewalk on the through street. A pedestrian on the sidewalk
has the right of way over vehicles on the side streets. They
have to stop for him. That same pedestrian also has the
right of way over traffic turning off the through street
across his path. The traffic has to wait until he has
crossed the street.

What's true for the pedestrian is true for any legal user of
the sidewalk (jogger, baby carriage, wheelchair, Segway, in-
line skater, bicyclist, marching jazz band).

What the original poster was talking about is a legitimate
problem from both sides. The vehicle driver often can't see
whether traffic is coming without pulling far enough forward
to block the sidewalk. However, this blocks the sidewalk
from other users who, in fact, have the right of way. This
is particularly irritating when there's no way for the
pedestrian to walk behind the vehicle safely.

Courtesy is the best rule in these circumstances, but
shouldn't obscure the basic principle that it is not legal
for a vehicle to block a sidewalk.
 
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:40:16 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:21:09 GMT, [email protected]
>(Bill Z.) wrote in message
><[email protected]>:
>
>>Laws regarding use of bicycles on sidewalk vary from state
>>to state, with some states allowing local jurisdictions to
>>regulate the use of a sidewalk by bicycles.
>
>Or maybe the guy is trying to blame the cyclist for a
>SMIDSY...

OK, I'll bite.

SMIDSY?

"sorry, mate I didn't see you?"

In any event, Guy, the cyclist was counterflow and moving
fast on the footpath. Nobody looks for anything there. A
few of these SMIDSY incidents and I was a confirmed
vehicular cyclist.

-Luigi
 
The whole Phoenix code, in searchable form, is here:livepublish.municode.com/2/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=altmain-
nf-hitlist.htm&2.0 (this specific link is the result of a
search on "sidewalk")

Oh, and my previous post may have been a bit snippy.

I certainly agree with those who point out that, legal or
not, it is imprudent for a bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk
in the "wrong" direction at a high rate of speed.

In my pedestrian mode, I'm really tired of people blocking
the sidewalks.
 
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:08:49 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The whole Phoenix code, in searchable form, is here:ivepublish.municode.com/2/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=altmain-
>nf-hitlist.htm&2.0 (this specific link is the result of a
>search on "sidewalk")
>
>Oh, and my previous post may have been a bit snippy.
>
>I certainly agree with those who point out that, legal or
>not, it is imprudent for a bicyclist to ride on the
>sidewalk in the "wrong" direction at a high rate of speed.
>
>In my pedestrian mode, I'm really tired of people blocking
>the sidewalks.

Agreed. But now what I want to know is whether or not there
is a difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the
sidewalk, legally-speaking. If a cyclist on the sidewalk is
considered a pedestrian moving really really fast, that's
one thing. If the cyclist is considered a vehicle operator
who is incidentally permitted to operate on the sidewalk
(where other vehicles are not permitted), then that's qutie
another, isn't it?

-Luigi
 
>But now what I want to know is whether or not there is a
>difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the
>sidewalk, legally-speaking.

Mostly if you are riding a bicycle you are required to yield
to sll pedestrian traffic regardless of situation.

That may not be applicable in Montana but it applies in DC.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY
MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------ __________306.350.357.38-
>>[email protected]__________
 
rec.bicycles.soc is the closest newsgroup

As I recall, case law is weighing in against cyclists
claiming to be pedestrians but going 3 - 6 times faster,
even on crosswalks. I doubt you could hold a driver liable
if someone entered the street any faster than jogging speed,
regardless of mode of conveyance.

Given cyclists are considered vehicle operators, they would
be given the least leeway.

Some people are just jerks and think they have the right to
tell the whole world to get out of their way.

"progunner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this
> topic, or if this is even on topic, so I cross posted to
> another ng. hoping to get a response. (So, please
> forgive me if I am ot)
> ----------
> I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles
> on sidewalks in Phoenix, Arizona.
>
> Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
> ------------
> The scenario goes something like this:
>
> A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot
> driving towards an exit.
>
> Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the
> vehicles leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a
> stop sign, usually there is not.
>
> A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile
> shows that there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so
> the driver is concentrating on the traffic to his/her
> left, looking for an opening in the traffic to turn onto
> the roadway.
>
> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.
>
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???
>
> Many thanks in advance for your help.
>
> James
 
In article <[email protected]>,
progunner says...
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???

Don't know the exact laws there, but, no matter if he is
allowed to be there, if you hit a bicycle with your car,
it's gonna be your fault. Also, if a bike rams you, it's his
fault. Then everything else.

--
"There's a fine line between an attitude problem and
thinking clearly."
d.B. ICQ: 138579247
 
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:00:09 -0500, "Eric S. Sande" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>But now what I want to know is whether or not there is a
>>difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the
>>sidewalk, legally-speaking.
>
>Mostly if you are riding a bicycle you are required to
>yield to sll pedestrian traffic regardless of situation.

But is a cyclist on the sidewalk a *pedestrian* that must be
yielded to?

I'm honestly quite confused on the issue.

>
>That may not be applicable in Montana but it applies in DC.

Especially in the designated "central business district"
where bicycles are positively prohibited from using the
sidewalks.

-Luigi
 
progunner wrote:

> OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this
> topic, or if this is even on topic, so I cross posted to
> another ng. hoping to get a response. (So, please
> forgive me if I am ot)
> ----------
> I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles
> on sidewalks in Phoenix, Arizona.
>
> Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
> ------------
> The scenario goes something like this:
>
> A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot
> driving towards an exit.
>
> Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the
> vehicles leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a
> stop sign, usually there is not.
>
> A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile
> shows that there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so
> the driver is concentrating on the traffic to his/her
> left, looking for an opening in the traffic to turn onto
> the roadway.
>
> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.
>
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???

I don't know how the law sees this in AZ, but riding like
this -- against the flow of traffic, and on the sidewalk --
is almost begging to be hit.

Matt O.
 
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> writes:

> >In my pedestrian mode, I'm really tired of people
> >blocking the sidewalks.
>
> Agreed. But now what I want to know is whether or not
> there is a difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian
> on the sidewalk, legally-speaking. If a cyclist on the
> sidewalk is considered a pedestrian moving really really
> fast, that's one thing. If the cyclist is considered a
> vehicle operator who is incidentally permitted to operate
> on the sidewalk (where other vehicles are not permitted),
> then that's qutie another, isn't it?

The rules in Calfornia are that pedestrians have the right
of way on sidewalks and at uncontrolled intersections
(otherwise they have to obey traffic lights.) But, there is
also a law that says that pedestrians cannot leave the
sidewalk unless it is reasonably safe to do that. I.e., you
can't just jump out from behind a bush in front of a car and
expect the driver to stop with nearly no warning. The driver
must, however stop to let you go if he can do that without
slamming on the brakes.

Also, bicycles in California have all the rights and
resonsibilities as vehicles. Aside from some special cases
(registration, etc.), a bicycle is in fact treated as a
vehicle (but not a motor vehicle.)

Most states do something similar.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.

Regardless of the actual rule of law, the bicyclist was
operating his "vehicle" in an extremely unsafe manner for
one reason- lack of predictable behaviour. It is not the
norm to expect a cyclist coming towards you at high speed
from the "wrong" direction on a sidewalk. Darwin comes into
play here; any cyclist that thinks doing so is a good idea
is likely to come upon many potential collisions.

In general (but not always the case), the rule of law
supports and encourages predictable behaviour, and for very
good reason. The more random our roadways, the more
dangerous they are.

So, to me, even if the cyclist was acting legally, he's
still an idiot waiting to be killed. I wouldn't give him
much thought, except to recognize that there might be others
out there like him, and that you've now got one more thing
that you should be paying attention to a bit more closely
than before.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

"progunner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this
> topic, or if this is even on topic, so I cross posted to
> another ng. hoping to get a response. (So, please
> forgive me if I am ot)
> ----------
> I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles
> on sidewalks in Phoenix, Arizona.
>
> Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
> ------------
> The scenario goes something like this:
>
> A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot
> driving towards an exit.
>
> Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the
> vehicles leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a
> stop sign, usually there is not.
>
> A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile
> shows that there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so
> the driver is concentrating on the traffic to his/her
> left, looking for an opening in the traffic to turn onto
> the roadway.
>
> Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on
> the passenger side, (right to left) and moving much faster
> than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost rams the
> passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the
> driver of the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on
> the sidewalk.
>
> Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he
> is in the right, and that the driver of the automobile is
> supposed to yield to the bicyclist crossing the exit path
> of the automobile.
>
> If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you
> please help? Possibly a url or ???
>
> Many thanks in advance for your help.
>
> James
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote
in message news:JZM4c.38005$%[email protected]...

> So, to me, even if the cyclist was acting legally, he's
> still an idiot waiting to be killed.

I agree with Mike. It is inherently unsafe to be riding the
wrong way on the sidewalk. This behavior is only excusable
for children using their bikes as toys under adult
supervision; or cyclists at extremely low rate of speeds,
i.e., at a walking pace, or perhaps "Fred Flintstoning"
along. When I come out of the transit station downtown,
I scootle in this fashion for a half block to get to the
street, for example.

Then again, I've spent some time recently in Phoenix, my
impression is that the city seems to suffer from an
extremely car-centric design and behavior, and totally
clueless cyclists. You just want to knock everyone's heads
together and put some sense in their brains.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Email me re: the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)
 
>But is a cyclist on the sidewalk a *pedestrian* that must
>be yielded to?

A good hair splitting queston. In my opinion, no.

The cyclist wouldn't have been on the sidewalk in the first
place, it was illegal.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY
MIND_______________________ ------------------"Buddy Holly,
the Texas Elvis"------------------ __________306.350.357.38-
>>[email protected]__________
 
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:40:25 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Regardless of the actual rule of law, the bicyclist was
>operating his "vehicle" in an extremely unsafe manner for
>one reason- lack of predictable behaviour. It is not the
>norm to expect a cyclist coming towards you at high speed
>from the "wrong" direction on a sidewalk. Darwin comes into
>play here; any cyclist that thinks doing so is a good idea
>is likely to come upon many potential collisions.

Additionally, this is all at a blind corner (that's the
impression that I got, anyway).
--
Rick Onanian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back