Bicycle stop-as-yield sign likely to be heard soon
There is a growing amount of material–most of it very intelligent, actually–appearing for both sides on the proposed Arizona law to permit bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. Check out the materials compiled at the http://azbikelaw.org/blog/ site for an example. There is even correspondence on that site from the Idaho State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. Idaho, of course, already has this law in place.
Sadly, I have been a little too busy to go gathering these materials lately, so I am pleased that the folks at AZBikelaw.org are so on top of it. Also, I received a call from Rep. Patterson who says the bill is making its way forward in the legislature and he is hopeful it will be put to a vote. We will need Arizona cyclists to weigh in with certain legislators soon, so please be ready to write a letter or two in the coming week.
–Erik Ryberg
February 24th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
2) A bill “motor vehicles; bicycles; operation requirements” has been introduced in the Arizona Legislature; you can follow it here: HB2546 (2009, 49th 1st regular session).
Sorry but I like this bill a lot better than stop signs.
Fault for not keeping 3 feet in an accident, fault for hitting me on a bike path, Allows cars to cross over into the center lane to over take, Allows me to ride a foldable bicycle, It takes away must ride in a bike lane, and adds assault to people who touch me or throw things at me.
Damn that is some great action there. Not to take away from other bills, but this bill is great.
February 25th, 2009 at 7:30 am
[...] to Consider Idaho-Style ‘Rolling Stop’ for Cyclists (Tucson Bike Lawyer via [...]
February 25th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
HB2546 info is at:
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2546
February 25th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
BB: Haven’t read HB2546. What in the law prevents you currently from riding a folder?
February 25th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
P.S.
It deals with smaller than 16 inch wheels and the current restrictions to this.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:34 am
That language looks like it was put in primarily to specifically define what a bicycle is – as opposed to something like a kick-scooter or razor for instance. Apparently it would still be ok to throw trash at people riding those things.
February 26th, 2009 at 7:47 am
For folks who for some reason don’t want to follow the link…
The current definition of a bicycle is:
“6. “Bicycle” means a device, including a racing wheelchair, that is propelled by human power and on which a person may ride and that has either:
(a) Two tandem wheels, either of which is more than sixteen inches in diameter”
This Bill adds:
“except that the wheels may be smaller if the bicycle is foldable.”
This Bill also adds to the definition of assault the following:
“Touching or throwing an object at or in the direction of any person riding a bicycle.”
As well as stuff like:
“C. If a collision occurs between a motor vehicle and a bicycle, the collision is prima facie evidence of the driver’s failure to leave a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle.”
“(ii) If no traffic is present in the lane, a driver may enter the lane a sufficient distance to provide the minimum three foot safe passing distance to bicyclists required by section 28-735.”
“F. If a driver of a motor vehicle violates this section and the violation results in a:
1. Minor injury to a bicyclist, the driver is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.
2. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13‑105 to a bicyclist, the driver is subject to a civil penalty of up to One thousand dollars.”
February 27th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“C. IF A COLLISION OCCURS BETWEEN A MOTOR VEHICLE AND A BICYCLE, THE COLLISION IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE DRIVER’S FAILURE TO LEAVE A SAFE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MOTOR VEHICLE AND THE BICYCLE.”
Oh, great! Another invitation for vacuously megalomanic cyclists to endanger themselves and other travelers by ignoring traffic laws or any semblance of self-restraint! Yesterday while driving east on Kinney Road I had to simultaneously hit the breaks and the horn to avoid hitting a cyclist who blew through the McCain Loop Road stop sign without slowing or even looking for traffic. Had I not been driving far below the speed limit, she would have decorated the front of my sedan, the county mounties would have “prima facie evidence” that the collision was my fault, and you would be reporting another tragic instance of an innocent cyclist run down by a neolithic “carhead”. Do cyclists EVER concede that they are responsible for their actions? Have you EVER cited in your blog an accident in which you agree the cyclist was at fault?
February 27th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Hi kk,
In the circumstance you just described, the provision you have quoted would not apply. The provision you cite applies when a car rear-ends a cyclist in the road. Basically it says, if you hit a cyclist, then you have violated the so-called “three foot rule.”
But if a cyclist blows through a stop sign and you hit them, the burden would actually be on them to show that they did not blow through the sign.
EBR