The problem is, if you want to, you can carry just $15,000 worth of such coverage — an amount that has remained unchanged since it was first set by the Arizona Financial Responsibility Act back in 1972.

What that means is that if you get hit by somebody who is carrying the minimum policy — whether you are driver, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian — the most you are going to recover from the driver’s insurance company is $15,000. And, sadly, most people on the road in Arizona carry the minimum coverage.

Arizona’s requirement is particularly low. Only four states in the U.S. require less coverage than Arizona; thirty-seven require more.

Now, in most collisions that involve modern, motorized vehicles, $15,000 is more than enough. Most of the time most people are not badly injured if they are inside a motorized vehicle.

But if they are hit while on foot or on bike, $15,000 often doesn’t even start to pay for their injuries. If you have an ambulance ride, a CT scan, and a couple of X-rays, you are probably going to be pushing that $15,000 policy limit pretty hard. Throw in a broken bone or an overnight stay, and you’ve exceeded it. You will owe the hospital money for your troubles.

The AZ legislature could easily bring Arizona in line with the times by increasing the minimum to $25,000 or more. This would provide much better protection for our state’s pedestrians and bicyclists, and the increase in coverage should cost the consumer very little (remember, unless a driver actually hits a cyclist or a pedestrian, he or she is still only going to pay whatever the costs are now — so the actual increase in rates should be small).

Of course, the likelihood of our legislature doing such a thing is nil.

If you are a bicyclist, please be sure you are carrying health insurance or, at a minimum, underinsured motorist coverage on your driver’s policy. This will usually protect you even while you are on your bike or on foot.

I too often see people in my office who have hospital bills that exceed or nearly exceed the minimum policy limits of the driver who hit them, and it breaks my heart to have to tell them that most likely the best we can do is make a sizeable dent in their hospital bills. It’s worse still when they have permanent injuries.

–Erik Ryberg

Update: Above is a photo of the signs Matt Zoll, Pima County Bike/Pedestrian Program Manager, says are the appropriate solution to construction sites.

I’ve been getting a lot of emails about the decision to close the Kolb Access road to bicycles during construction, even though the speed limit there is now 15 mph, a speed almost any cyclist can sustain for the 1/2 mile-long closure, and a speed that is actually slower than most of the commuting cyclists who use that road generally travel.

The result is that bike commuters have to now make a truly dangerous detour.

Here’s the latest email exchange with the U of A over the matter, which I found quite illuminating. As usual with such exchanges, read from the bottom:

To “Ken Marcus”

Subject RE: Kolb access road closure to cyclists
Ken – thanks for the response. The word ‘almost’ is key regarding the
alternate route. I completely agree that up to the point of crossing the
RR tracks it is just fine. From there to the entry gate it is terrible.
I’m sure in car it seems like nothing, but 2 lanes of cars and trucks
are passing at 60 MPH on a curve with zero shoulder. All of us (the
cyclists) would take our chances with a little wet dirt any day.
Everyone likes to talk about going green, but when things get squeezed a
bit the knee jerk reaction is almost always to ban the bicycles. It’s
telling of course that you refer to the ‘bicycle issue’ instead of the
‘unsafe driver issue’.
Ironically in this case, we’d actually be a bit safer in the
construction zone because everyone would be going the same speed. The
large construction vehicle argument is nonsensical, if they are a threat
to bicycles they surely are a threat to motorcycles and other vehicles
as well.

>From *”Ken Marcus” *
> To Steve
> RE: Kolb access road closure to cyclists
Steve,
Thank you for your concern of cyclists on the Kolb Access Road. We have
looked at the safety concerns regarding bicyclist using the Kolb Access
Road and at best when there is no construction we believe there is a
bicycle issue because there is no bike lane. With the beginning of
construction the dangers for bicycles is even more acute since there is
small area with large construction vehicles, dust and wet dirt and
pavement. The road is governed by the Project Operation Agreement and we
concur with the Managing and Contract Operator’s decision to not allow
bicycles on the Kolb Access Road.
I did travel the Valencia , Old Vail Road to Rita Road route and found
it to have a bike lane and level shoulders for almost the entire route.
This appears to be a very safe alternative with very little added distance.
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns.
Ken

Ken Marcus
Director / CFO
University of Arizona Science and Technology Park
9070 S. Rita Road Suite 1750
Tucson, AZ 85747
Phone (520) 382-2482, Cell (520) 401-8636, Fax (520) 382-2499

> *From:* Steve
> To:* kmarcus@uatechpark.org*
> Subject:* Kolb access road closure to cyclists
Ken – I wanted to ask for your help with an issue we’re having with
Grubb & Ellis here at the Tech Park. I’m part of a group of cyclists
that regularly commute to IBM at the site. Many of us regularly use the
Kolb Rd entrance as it’s our most direct and safest route. With the
recent construction for the new Vail High School, G&E has taken the
rather draconian measure of banning cyclists from the access road for 3
months.
This is difficult for us to accept as the detour is quite lengthy and
more dangerous than the construction zone with there being high speed
traffic on Rita Rd combined with zero shoulder. Ironically the
construction zone is actually safer for us as it slows down the cars and
we can maintain the speed limit of 15 MPH through the construction zone,
which is less than 1/2 a mile.
The bottom line is that there is no rational reason to ban bicyclists
from the area. It’s no more dangerous for us than a motorcycle. I know
you are interested in making the site more green, and it would seem that
banning bicycles is a step in the wrong direction. Any help you can give
us in this area would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Steve

As usual, someone who doesn’t really know anything about bicycles or bicycling has decided to make a decision ostensibly to improve their “safety” and has offered (in my opinion) patronizing reasons for why his decision has done that, over the objections of many very experienced cyclists.

Of course, I suspect the real issue has nothing at all to do with the stated concerns for safety. The real issue is that the U of A wants to limit its liability wherever possible. (Cue up the anti-lawyer arguments now everyone.)

–Erik Ryberg

Suspended sentence for driver who tried to run cyclist off road…9 times

By Simon_MacMichael – Posted on 03 February 2010

A teenage driver who repeatedly tried to run a cyclist off the road has been told by a judge sentencing him to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, that he had made a “bit of an unfortunate choice of victim” – an off duty senior police officer. Even so, the judge only gave him a suspended prison sentence.

Detective Inspector Martin Melvin had been cycling home from Burnley police station last July when 18-year-old Benjamin Harrison, who lives in the town, pulled alongside him and started beeping his horn, shaking his fist and shouting, “Get off the road. I will run you off the road. I will kill you. Get off the road,” according to a report in the Lancashire Telegraph.

Burnley Crown Court heard how Harrison had made nine attempts to run Detective Inspector Melvin off the road, trying to hit him on the pavement and making contact with his handlebars and causing him to veer into trees, with the result he came off his bike. He also threw coins and stones at his victim.

Besides the suspended sentence, Harrison was given a 12-month supervision order, ordered to carry out 100 hours’ unpaid work and pay £750 costs, and banned from driving for two years.

Harrison was arrested at his parents’ house, where it is claimed he told police, “Can I not just apologise?”

Story here. I’ve got nothing else to add.

–EBR

The gist of the report is that cyclists and pedestrians pay disproportionately — with their lives, that is — for their chosen modes of transport. We die more often than drivers do while we’re trying to get somewhere, but the government spends less on our safety.

As bad as that is, I think there is something even worse going on, which is that we are permitted to drive around in provably deadly machines in a country that does not provide health care to all, and we are permitted to do so with levels of liability insurance that are horrifically insufficient.

Here in Arizona it is perfectly legal to purchase just $15,000.00 in liability insurance. Which means, if you hit a cyclist, the most your insurance company will have to pay the poor cyclist is $15k, no matter how badly you injure them.

The thing is, even a minor accident will likely swallow up that entire amount. If there is a trip to the hospital in an ambulance and a CT scan (which is common even when a head injury is not noted), you are looking at a seven thousand dollar bill. Add a broken collarbone and a few X-rays, and you just ate up the entirety of the policy.

Break a leg and, unless you can recover from the driver directly, you will owe money.

Of course, if you are encased in a giant SUV, you aren’t that likely to rack up big hospital bills when you hit something, but you are very likely to inflict them on anyone you hit.

The natural result is the never-ending escalation in the size of the vehicle, the societal rush to encase ourselves in ever-larger, ever-”safer” — for the driver — cages of steel.

–Erik Ryberg

78. Comment by Kevin T. (thehotelguru) — January 8,2010 @ 4:33PM
Ratings: Thumbs Down Thumbs Up -2 +1

A cyclist gets as much space when I pass as they allow themselves. I don’t cross into their lane and they should stay out of mine. If this works out, they need no more room than the car in the lane on the other side of me. My tire stays in my lane. If the cyclist crosses the white line, that’s their problem. Cyclists, in Tucson at least, are jerks. Riding along like they are in some time trial to get from light to light on River Rd. Plenty of places to act like Lance Armstrong that aren’t our roads. If you feel the need to play dress up in your spandex do it on the river paths or in a gym where the bikes are in no danger of encountering a car.

–EBR

A tiny proportion of accidents involving cyclists are caused by riders jumping red lights or stop signs, or failing to wear high-visibility clothing and use lights, a government-commissioned study has discovered.

. . .

The data, which was analysed by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), showed that more than a quarter of all cycling deaths in 2005-07 happened when a vehicle ran into the rear of a bike. This rose to more than one-third in rural areas and to 40% in collisions that took place away from junctions.

. . .

“We believe this report strongly supports our view that the biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving. With that in mind we are greatly concerned that the government still seems fascinated with analysing and promoting cycle helmets, the value of which appears to be inconclusive. We believe that the government should now focus on tackling the causes of injury which appears to be mainly inconsiderate and dangerous driving. Reduced speed limits, stronger traffic law enforcement and cycle-friendly road design are the solutions.”

I’ve often argued that it’s the hit-from-behind accidents we need to address. Those are the ones that are killing and seriously injuring us, and they’re the ones that we have virtually no control over. Even extremely cautious, extremely experienced riders can be hit from behind, and it all too often results in the death of the cyclist. A starting point to solving this would be for local authorities to begin enforcing the three-foot rule, and letting drivers know that they owe a cyclist three feet even if the cyclist is in a bike lane. (Something even Flagstaff city bus drivers don’t seem to know.)

Prohibiting cell phone use in cars would be next. And then? Well, as long as I’m dreaming, decrease the minimum drinking age and increase the minimum driving age.

I believe in educating cyclists to ride more carefully and I am a huge, huge fan of proper lighting. But in the end I know there is only so much I can do against the bad driving I contend with every single day.

–Erik Ryberg

Apparently the poor firefighter is the one who was threatened, so he had little choice but to point a gun at the cyclist’s head and pull the trigger. But he feels just terrible about it.

Former Asheville fireman gets 4 months for shooting at cyclist

By Clarke Morrison • November 20, 2009

ASHEVILLE — A former Asheville firefighter will spend 120 days in jail for shooting at a bicyclist, narrowly missing his head with a bullet that pierced the man’s helmet.

Charles Alexander Diez, 42, pleaded guilty Thursday to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, but testified during his sentencing hearing that he only fired a warning shot and didn’t intend to hurt Alan Ray Simons.

“I was the one who felt truly, truly threatened,” Diez told the court. “It was not my intention to shoot him.”

I often have to tell my clients that bicyclists are basically hated by a large segment of the public, and must not expect the same treatment by juries, judges, arbitrators, and insurance adjusters that a motorist would receive. If you get hit from behind while on a bike, for example, you are going to be declared to have swerved in front of the vehicle until proven otherwise. Not so if you are a motorist.

And it seems that if you are shot in the head by a firefighter, you shouldn’t expect sympathy either.

–Erik Ryberg

Tucson does slightly better by pedestrians than the state average when it comes to spending. Arizona spends an average of $2.16 per person per year on bicycle and pedestrian projects. Tucson spends about $2.52 per person, the report says.

This part is interesting, too:

The report also said 14.1 percent of all traffic deaths in Arizona [during 2007 and 2008] involved a pedestrian. The state spends an average of 2.6 percent of its federal transportation funding on pedestrian-oriented projects.

Hmmm.

–Erik Ryberg

Folks, that is a photograph of seven year old Kylie Bruehler. She is at a funeral service to bury her parents, both of whom were killed last week when a driver veered onto the shoulder and drove his pickup truck into them.

They were riding together on a tandem.

The local news reports that “investigators say there are no charges on the driver. They believe this was an accident and that somehow the driver lost control of his truck.”

Texas’s governor recently vetoed a law that would mandate a safe passing distance for cyclists, saying it was unnecessary.

Photo: Tom Reel, San Antonio Express News.

–Erik Ryberg

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