AZ Daily Star weighs in on bike enforcement
The Arizona Daily Star has a depressing, simple-minded editorial about the Third Street bike enforcement that is occurring.
They say:
The recent, albeit limited, crackdown of cyclists who ignore the traffic rules of the road is a positive move, not because cyclists aren’t welcome in Tucson, but because our community is bicycle-friendly and keeping everyone safe is paramount.
If keeping everyone safe is paramount, why is there no enforcement of the three-foot rule? The vast majority of cycling fatalities in Tucson occur because drivers hit cyclists from behind, often while the cyclist is in a bike lane. I am sure it has happened, but I can’t recall a single recent incident of a cyclist being killed from running a stop sign, and certainly not a stop sign on the Third Street bikeway.
And if keeping everyone safe is paramount, why the insanely dangerous Fourth Avenue underpass? As I told Channel Four News the other day, and as I have stated in this blog: we spent 46 million dollars on that underpass. We can spend a little more and make it safe for cyclists. Will we? Or will we wait for another hit-from-behind fatality on Broadway as a cyclist attempts to merge across those lanes to reach the underpass?
I have no problem with citing cyclists who literally blow through stop signs, and I am well aware that college kids, especially newly minted ones, can ride like idiots. Tickets might actually help some of them. But what about also targeting the behavior that is actually killing cyclists?
This passage really got me:
“Ghost bikes,” or bikes painted white and mounted near a road to mark where a rider was killed, can be found throughout the city, sad reminders of what can happen when people don’t pay attention to each other on the road.
It would be wonderful if bicyclists and pedestrians on and around the UA campus would decide on their own to obey traffic laws and stop at stop signs, yield when necessary and look before they go plunging into the road.
The Star is correct that these memorials can be found throughout the city. I have personally installed many of them, and all were for people who were killed by drunk, angry, speeding, or inattentive drivers. People who never had a chance, and who were obeying traffic laws.
Anyway, Bob Mionske has said it all particularly well here.
The Star has it backwards. If the City wants to encourage bicycling, as it says, then it will make the Third Street bikeway easier, not harder, to traverse (I very much doubt that removing that stop sign–making the intersection a two-way, instead of four-way stop–would make things any more dangerous for cyclists or motorists).
And if TPD wants to improve the safety of cyclists it will start following up on assaults and move at least some of its enforcement resources towards targeting the motor-vehicle violations that keep killing cyclists, instead of focusing only on the violations that annoy drivers.
–Erik Ryberg
September 18th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Many of the comments resulting from the Star’s article and editorial are jaw-dropping. They are so obtuse and loaded with snark and idle provocation that one is left to conclude they are essentially willfull in some complex way.
The Arizona Daily Star practices beer gut journalism. It stands to reason that that the practice begets beer gut editorials. So, on top of everything else, the so-called newspaper is part of the problem…
September 18th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Erik Ryberg asks, “If keeping everyone safe is paramount, why is there no enforcement of the three-foot rule?” (above)
Red Star suggests that the answer is it would be too dangerous (read costly) for TPD to wade into traffic to enforce the law. Look at all the offcers just standing around at 3rd and Treat in the Star photo.
Perhaps they and other little cookie-cutter people such as TPD Sgt. Diana Lopez heard “treat” and thought they would get doughnuts…
What do you think?
And of course there’s the other thing: the infrastructure thing…
September 18th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
“The vast majority of cycling fatalities in Tucson occur because drivers hit cyclists from behind…”
That would make Tucson different from the norm, where hit-from-behind accidents constitute only a minority (5-25%) of all car-bicycle accidents. http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/ch2.html
September 18th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Derek, the study you cite looks at car-bike collisions (from my cursory review of it); I am talking about fatalities. I agree we should try to reduce all collisions, but what worries me the most when I get on my bike is the horrific possibility of getting hit from behind like so many cyclists in Tucson have: Jose Rincon, Laura Varela, Andrea Ligas, Charles Nystrom, Alejandro Nunez, Allen Johnson, Drake Okusako, and legions more. It is a real problem here.
Why can’t we start addressing the behavior — motorists’ behavior — that is killing cyclists in Tucson?
–EBR
September 18th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Once more, same as before – Erik’s assumption that “hit from behind” is proof the motorist was at fault is nonsense. Because cyclists travel so slowly, they will ALWAYS be hit from behind if traveling in the same direction as the motorist at the time of collision. So a cyclist blowing through a stop sign to enter the motorist’s lane will be hit from behind through no fault of the motorist.
If you don’t want to obey the traffic laws while riding, don’t ride.
September 19th, 2009 at 11:06 am
One more time – Erik’s repeated claim that “hit from behind” is proof that the motorist is at fault is flat-out wrong. Because cyclists are so much slower than motorists, a cyclist blowing through a stop sign or red light and into the motorist’s lane will be hit from behind, and it’s all the cyclist’s fault.
September 19th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Good point Erik. We all fear the rear end collision, not many walk away from such a wreck. The 3 foot rule is a little known law that TPD ignores. Just last week I stopped a TPD officer and asked him about the law, his reply, “what 3 foot law”. SAD ! You know, TPD has not issued one citation this year for such a violation, I dare say they will never issue such a citation. Why ? I think “stings” are more fun and easier for them. Real enforcement is over TPD’s head. Like many of us I have become very bitter and that too is a shame. I long ago lost faith in the motorists in this town. Lately I have lost faith in it’s law enforcement. Someone there is asleep at the switch, not dealing with the real problems cyclists face. Have you ever seen a citation issued for making a right turn while in a bike lane? Why can’t we get law enforcement to work a “sting” that would really help bike riders? AND last, we have to deal with reality, motorists don’t like us.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Something is seriosly wrong with TPD. They have lost one of their own and they still refuse to own up to the 3 foot rule. I know the inhouse fighting is pretty bad there, but when you bury one of your fellow officers for a very obvious infraction of the 3 foot rule and you don’t come out in spades making sure the driving public shudders at even breaking wind near a bike, I gotta say the morale has to be pretty damn low.
September 19th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Eric wrote: “Derek, the study you cite looks at car-bike collisions (from my cursory review of it); I am talking about fatalities.”
The link I provided also lists statistics for fatalities. Out of 814 fatalities, 200 (24.6%) were caused by the bicyclist getting hit from behind. And out of 2,800 accidents where the bicyclist was hit from behind, only 200 (7.14%) were fatal.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am
Hey Derek,
That’s really interesting. I’m glad you pointed that out. I don’t have very good numbers, just what I collect around Tucson. And I am well aware that people get killed on their bikes in Tucson in all sorts of ways, not just from getting hit from behind. George Goode Jr. comes to mind, who was hit crossing the street.
Also, plenty of people get hit from behind and aren’t killed, thank goodness. Like the eight people that woman plowed into on the Shootout Ride a few weeks ago.
But when I think back on the fatalities in this town, what really jumps out at me is the predominance of hit-from-behind victims.
EBR
September 21st, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I like to think of myself as both a recreational mountain biker and conscience motorist and can understand the outrage voiced here against motorists. I don’t know about any national numbers or even Arizona statistics. All I feel like voicing is my thoughts that last weekend I almost killed my first cyclist.
Nothing became of my run in with the cyclist. In fact she never even knew she almost impaled herself against my car. I would like to say I was being a stupid motorist and tell you I was on my cell phone and drinking my Starbucks Frappuccino while shaving and texting as I changed radio stations. But that wasn’t the case. I was actually paying attention.
The cyclist in question ran a 4 way stop and passed in between a landscape truck (who was stopped for me – as I had the right of way) and a brick wall. As I pulled away from the stop sign heading straight, all I saw was the flash of a yellow Jersey with some sponsor’s names from the left pass by in a full sprint. Had I been a second..maybe a ½ a second sooner, she would be in the ICU and there was nothing I could have done about it.
So as a motorist and part time cyclist, I watch for bikers. But seriously, this woman looks like she ignored a stop sign on purpose only to risk her life for what?
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am
Erik, I just moved here and have a few questions (perhaps you could write an article about these issues). I read somewhere on this site (maybe above) that in Tucson cyclists cannot ride through crosswalks, because if they are hit doing so they are at fault. My primary question pertains to bikeways, such as the Aviation bikeway, that are designated for bikes but cross streets through crosswalks multiple times. Is there an exception in the law allowing for cyclists to ride through cross walks that are designated bike routes? Or do I have to stop and walk my bike through every designated crosswalk on the Golf Links/Aviation bikeway on my 10 mile ride to UA?!
Furthermore, could you clarify the crosswalk situation? What if I rode from the exit of the bike route into the right lane of the street and crossed there instead of the crosswalk. Would that be legal? Remember that the exit is right at the crosswalk, but I could quickly move left to technically be in the street, then move back right to re-enter the aviation bike path at the crosswalk/sidewalk boundary.
I also heard, from my Wife’s co-worker, that if a cyclist is going straight/through on the street (bike lane or not) that if a driver turns left into them, there is a law that specifically exempts the motorist from being at fault. Is this true?
Why does Tucson have such crazy bike laws? It is supposed to be bike friendly here, and I do see a lot of cyclists, but it seems that the motorists and the law are much worse for cyclists than Albuquerque.
Thanks
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 am
Israel, there is no law against riding a bike in a crosswalk, but bicyclists do not enjoy some of the statutory protections that pedestrians do if they are hit in a crosswalk.
That said, you should be particularly careful whenever riding in a crosswalk because motorists expect people to be moving slowly there.
It won’t help you to ride just outside the crosswalk. Just ride slowly, especially if you are going against the direction of traffic! Take the same precautions you would as a pedestrian — make eye contact, if possible, with the motorist.
As for a statute that exempts motorists from fault if they hit bicyclists while making a left turn, uhm, no.
However, just because no such statute exists doesn’t mean the Tucson Police Department won’t pretend pretend otherwise. I represented a woman once who was hit by a left-turn driver while she was crossing an intersection. She had the right of way — in fact the police report indicated she had a green light — but she got a ticket anyway for “failure to yield.”
We won that one.
EBR
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 pm
kk–
I did not say that if a cyclist gets hit from behind it is “proof the motorist is at fault.” When did I say that?
And cyclists running red lights and stop signs would likely be hit from the side, no? Or head on?
I will say that if a motorist hits a cyclist from behind it is likely the motorist’s fault unless the cyclist suddenly swerved three feet or more into traffic. Or perhaps blew a yield sign and merged into the path of the car. But those are obvious.
EBR
September 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Erik,
Thanks very much for the clarification. I almost always stop at crosswalks before proceeding, unless it is completely clear, otherwise I can be in a very dangerous situation. But walking all the way across is just senseless.
So my next question would be why is there such a divide in policy here in Tucson. It seems like the city is trying to be very bike friendly, they put in bike lanes everywhere, and generally seem to encourage cycling. But then, the police department seems very anti-cycling. Everyone I speak with who cycles a lot here has some story about how horrible the police here are to cyclists. Someone needs to reel them in. Is the chief of police elected or appointed here in Tucson? Why isn’t the city government, who obviously have some kind of pro-cycling agenda with all the infrastructure they have paid for, setting rules for the police department? Usually the Mayor or Mayor’s office has a lot of clout with the Po-Po.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
HI Erik,
I was also confused by k2’s message about “fault” but typically, if you get rear-ended by a motorist, it’s because they aren’t paying attention and creamed you out near the right shoulder. When I have to merge lanes to make lefts on divided roadways I usually pick my spot and once I am over to the left turn lane I position to the right to put me in the appropriate space in the intersection and in my direction of travel.
I do have a specific question about 4th Ave as I don’t live in Tucson anymore. If I wanted to get to Eastbound Broadway why would I want to take the 4th ave underpass anyway? Just cut across south of Tucson High at 8th, 9th or 10th Ave to Euclid and make a normal Left. Or is it to access the Aviation Parkway Bike route? I think the bridge picks up right near the corner of Euclid and Broadway too.
Not saying that we shouldn’t work for better safer roads but until we fix ‘em lets be smart (safe) about it
September 25th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
@kk
The example you gave of a cyclist blowing through a stop sign and then getting t-boned by a car doesn’t really make any sense. In that scenario the car would be hitting the cyclist from the side.
The hit from behind argument Erik is making is in regards to a cyclist traveling normally down Tucson streets on the right side of the road in the shoulder/bike lane. If an inattentive driver decides to veer into that shoulder and run down the cyclist, then how can you possibly assign blame to anyone except the inattentive driver? If that were another car and someone switched lanes and rear-ended him, the same logic would apply.