An important court win for Pima County cyclists!
Pima County cyclists got a nice court victory today. Judge Richard Gordon of Pima County Superior Court (which has jurisdiction over civil traffic appeals) issued a favorable ruling on a civil traffic appeal filed by an out-of-state cyclist who got ticketed for not riding “as close as practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway” on the road up to Madera Canyon. Many people received these tickets last year.
I had been hearing about these tickets and was hoping I would be contacted to fight one of them, so I was pleased when Corey Piscopo, who had received one of these tickets along with a group of other riders, asked if I would represent him.
We lost, of course, in Pima County Justice Court in Green Valley, even though I proved that it was mathematically impossible for a normal-size vehicle to have safely passed Mr. Piscopo and still left him three feet of space, as is required under Arizona law. I sat in on a number of these trials in preparation for ours and never saw anybody win one.
And we didn’t win, either. So we appealed.
The appeals judge reversed the conviction in a written opinion that is now available for anyone to use, should they need it.
I think it is safe to say there won’t be many more of these tickets given to cyclists anymore, at least not on narrow rural roads here in Pima County. But if you get one, call me!
Special thanks to Dave Boston of the Pima County Bike Advisory Committee for agreeing to go out and measure the roadway and testify at the trial, pro bono. You all owe him and me and Corey Piscopo a beer.
–Erik Ryberg
December 17th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
[...] community though cyclists were scantily clad before, just wait until this weekend. Arizona cyclists win the right to take the lane on appeal. New Bikes Allowed Use Of Full Lane stickers on sale now – which [...]
December 18th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Awesome job to all involved! Thank you.
December 18th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Good news. Also, something pertaining to narrow roads and roads without bike lanes, I was reading this article on bikeportland.org
http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/16/new-fhwa-rules-will-give-engineers-more-tools-for-bike-traffic/
New Federal Highway Administration book came out with national standards for signs, including some for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. A new Bikes “MAY USE FULL LANE” sign is available, as well as Shared Lane road markings.
December 18th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Thanks! One day I will make the trek from Phoenix to Tucson and buy you a beer.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Congrats to Pima, Tucson and Arizona for making it a better place to live. Our great (soon to be ex) Texas governor vetoed our 3ft law!
December 19th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Tucson is getting bike lanes?
Orange Grove w
Congress by A MT.
919 s 10th ave small litte complete the street section.
They’re now already there. MUCTD code book thing also states you no longer need to use the “Bicycle Lane” sign in order to have a bike lane. You can use just the stencils and line.
Now Tucson is in a state of suspense. Are they going to be bike lanes or shoulders?
I love the current treatment “bike route” signs. But motorists haven’t a clue.
December 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am
On another note,
Congrats TBL.
Stating the obvious of course. You’re a man ahead of your time.
This is also why the three foot law is so important. Even if it doesn’t have teeth. Video should be enough IMO Id’ing the driver is not my problem, go after the owner, who they allowed to drive, or who was driving themself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNOXWDfYS0Y
December 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I think the law’s use of the word
practicable illustrates the attempt
to acknowledge that judgement is
necessary in determining a rider’s
position on the road.
To say,”As far right as possible” does
not allow for adjustment to conditions.
To say, “As far right as practical”
introduces too much subjective leeway.
‘Feasible’ and ‘reasonable’ are even a
little weak for use in this instance
because they miss the sense of obligation
that practicable alludes to.
This is why I have to debate BB’s positioning
in the roadway on the video in #7. I am NOT
debating his right to be where he is but rather
his NEED to be where he is…is it practicable?
In the first segment, traffic is heavy and there
is 3-4 feet of paved shoulder that looks to be clear
and ridable. Why force the issue in that situation?
In the 2nd segment there is no allowance for bikes
and the pavement is not ideal. Given the dangers of
intersections, however, was he not obligated to contribute
to the safe negotiation of all by being further to the
right allowing for more vehicle clearance. The driver
should have followed and waited for him to relinquish
the lane (a real world fantasy), but an action on his part
could have made the pass legal. Doesn’t practicable impart
this sense of obligation to the rule?
Please keep in mind this comes from someone who has a
*BIKES* MAY USE FULL LANE sign transfered onto the back
of a riding shirt.
December 19th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think the pavement in the first segment is actually a bus pullout an ends pretty quickly.
It seems to me, especially in segment #1, isn’t the safer option to ride down the center of the lane so that people can’t try to squeeze by?
December 19th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@ Coghauler
I have a lot of video which could and does get debated (more specific link).
“This is why I have to debate BB’s positioning
in the roadway on the video in #7.” ##### This one’s for you! Hwy 60 through the Queen Creek tunnel. http://www.youtube.com/bodybait#p/u/39/guSDgFGIOAE turn off sound.
###
In my link video the road way ends with a white line, bus pullout.
Need to yes, it ends. You can also see by not taking the left side I was subject to improper pass by the truck. The people are trying to get on the freeway.
Further more need to YES.
In order to avoid the right hooks onto a free ramp. You would move all the way left facilitate passing on the right.
segment two is a urban narrow lane period. You pass on the left. My need you bet. I ride on the right tire track 95 percent of the time. Very few roads carry a 14 foot lane for too long to be practical.
December 20th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Well gee, BB, I just don’t know…
isn’t there 3-4 feet of paved
shoulder to the right of the white
line. I’m looking at where the line ends.
A lighter colored asphalt extending over
to the dirt. Am I misinterpreting that?
I also see the truck’s rear tire on the
white left line. That means that a 7 foot
wide truck would be 5 feet from the right
edge of a 12 foot lane. Doesn’t that look
about right? If the cyclist is 2 feet to
the left of the line, the truck has given
3 feet. But would not practicable dictate
that the cyclist be closer to the white
line, especially if there is pavement to
the right of the line? Oh, and I only see
two lanes of traffic at this point. How
far down the road is the ramp? The video
is excellent, but I can’t really tell that.
Can’t debate what I can’t see.
December 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
here is the more of the ramp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af52ZpZHUcY. and http://tiny.cc/fqlbq google maps
I want don’t want to ride next to any guard rails. Nor do I want to have to merge into traffic by riding to the right.
I am not sure what shoulder your talking about. http://tiny.cc/fqlbq google has it as a bus pull out, and wider area ends in the “Wild West.”
FYI I was turning onto this road from “Wood st” headed northbound or left. So taking the lane seems rather real to me. Establish control early.
I think your missing the predictable point. If am traveling straight. I want to continue straight, so I don’t follow a path leading into, which is going to be right turn lane only. Here is another good video for that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLzWqNkSCvQ Here I split traffic (you’ll love that) so Freeway traffic has a dedicated lane.
Many intersection widen and contract. Predictability comes into play. I am into the road widths after intersections where I am traveling to determine practical solutions.
December 21st, 2009 at 12:12 am
This is fantastic news! Thanks and a pat on the back to all involved.
January 18th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
[...] practicable to the right-hand side of the roadway.” This was a much more difficult case than the similar appeal we won last month, and I was concerned after our oral argument that we would not win this case. But I received the [...]
January 20th, 2010 at 8:42 am
[...] case; Arizona V. Piscopo, Pima County (see more generally at Two Abreastness. Also see the case at TBL, the blog of the lawyer who represented [...]