It isn’t clear that either of those things were the cause, but in any event, there were an awful lot of police around last night — I lost track of how many squad cars I saw, some of them chasing cyclists, some angling them into the curb, some barking contradictory messages through their loudspeakers, and some just driving around.

Mike over at tucsonvelo.com has a full report. I’ll just say that as obnoxious as it at times was, the police actually showed a lot of restraint compared to what they did two years ago, when they raced menacingly and repeatedly through the crowd on motorcycles and followed the ride with a paddy-wagon.

It appears that they do want to find a way to make this thing work instead of just destroy it (no doubt, the political capital required to destroy it is daunting) because they have evidently contacted Perimeter Bicycling Association of America to help them “assure the safety” of the riders. I’m not sure how well that is going to go over, (I hope the designated PGAA route leaders keep their expectations low as to being liked, appreciated, or followed) but hopefully there will be some way to temper this ride’s more hazardous elements and make it an enjoyable and safe outing for all.

I will say I was struck by the bizarre route and the lack of interest among the ride leaders in waiting up for those stuck at red lights behind. The route included Congress west of the I-10, Grande, and 6th Street — some of the worst streets in Tucson for riding a bicycle. Over time the ride became extremely strung out because of so many people left behind at red lights. I wish the leaders would wait at lights so all can cross as a group, as in the “old days” of the ride.

–Erik Ryberg

I reviewed his police report, and found that the officer noted that the cyclist’s inattention was the cause of the collision. The driver, by contrast, was recorded as having “taken no inappropriate action.”

Carry on.

–Erik Ryberg

Tucson is probably the only community rated Silver or higher by the League of American Bicyclists that does not have an active bike advocacy organization. How can Tucson become a more liveable community where the bike is seen as a valid mobility tool instead of just as a recreational tool, if no one is working on building consensus on what that vision is? We have some super active individuals in this community who serve on numerous boards and committees, and who volunteer their time encouraging folks to ride, or teach folks how to be more confident riders. But we don’t have a group who has the time to work the many hours needed to define or implement such a vision for better bicycling in Tucson. This is a real weak spot that the League of American Bicyclists have pointed out. Until a group mobilizes and defines their vision, the leadership of this community will continue to focus on other issues.

I have thought about this a lot. I think the problem is that, first, we really do have a lot of people who are doing great work around here. We have Mike M over at tucsonvelo.com, we have BICAS, the BAC, Jean Gorman, the El Tour folks, active involvement by many local bike shops and riding clubs, and then we have folks in the City who are accessible, thoughtful, and hard-working.

Independent advocacy groups tend to flourish where there is a demonstrable bureaucratic vacuum in local government, where some kind of injustice or neglect is undeniably occurring. But here in Tucson’s governmental infrastructure we have people like Tom Thivener, Ann Chanecka, Jennifer Donofrio, Matt Zoll, and lots of others who are quite obviously doing their level best to implement the vision Thivener is talking about. Their very presence (and competence) is one reason we don’t have an independent advocacy group!

But this isn’t to say one wouldn’t help. Such organizations give cover to local bureaucrats who are hoping to make changes but cannot show their superiors that the changes are justified. The problem is, a community has to really want such a group in order for one to form. It doesn’t seem as if Tucson is there yet, and part of the problem is that when Tucson cyclists call up City Hall, one of the people I’ve named above answers the phone, and actually listens.

The one area where this isn’t true, of course, is with law enforcement. I predict that if anything finally mobilizes Tucson bike advocates, it is going to be a failure of law enforcement. Probably a tragic one.

–Erik Ryberg

Thought I’d pass on some news of a good experience with the Scottsdale police.

I ride to work frequently from my house in Tempe to my office in Phoenix, roughly 15 miles each way. A good portion of my route goes though Scottsdale, specifically 68th St. On my ride home this past Friday a truck full of what appeared to be freshly graduated high school kids (in daddy’s Escalade nonetheless), buzzed me within inches heading southbound on 68th just south of McDowell. I hadn’t quite reached the start of the bike lane, and it appeared to be on purpose since the car lane is plenty wide there.

Unfortunately for them, they didn’t see the squad car that turned south off McDowell just after them. He pulled them over immediately, and I originally planned to ride on, but I stopped just past them to see what he would do. He spoke to them briefly then saw me and walked over. He explained that he didn’t need me to hang around, but that he was going to ticket them for violating the 3 foot law with intent. Not having seen or heard of this being enforced before, all I could do was smile. I shook his hand, said thanks and rode home.

So at least somebody out there is paying attention and willing to do something. Hopefully you’ll get more positive emails about this in the future.

Maybe Ed over at azbikelaw.org can help here, but I have never yet heard of a single citation being given in the state of Arizona for a three-foot rule violation, except in cases where the violation resulted in an injured or deceased bicyclist. I think this might be a first.

I have regularly submitted Public Records Act requests to the City of Tucson for copies of their three-foot rule citations, and done the best I can to cross-check them with car/bike collisions (not too hard, since rarely are there more than two or three of these citations given in a year).

Of course, it’s bittersweet because in reality, those kids in the Escalade just got away with threatening someone’s life with a deadly weapon. If I point a gun at you “just for kicks,” I don’t get off with a $124.00 traffic ticket. (Although if you are a bicyclist the penalty won’t be all that severe even if I shoot you.) (And see also the comments to this post, including one from the victim.)

Update: Oh how short my memory is! Of course, just two months ago Flagstaff bicyclist Randy Mason successfully, after a long fight, got this rule enforced against a bus driver who grazed him and then yelled at him and then called the cops on him.

In my defense, this is the first time I’ve heard of it happening the way it is supposed to.

–Erik Ryberg

Buick nearly collides with UAPD bicycle officer

UAPD officers were on routine bicycle patrol in the area of University Boulevard and Park Avenue on Oct. 13 at 10:45 a.m. when a white Buick nearly collided with an officer while making a right turn. Police initiated a traffic stop at Fourth Street and Park Avenue and made contact with the driver. The driver identified himself using an Arizona driver’s license. A records check revealed a suspended driver’s license. Police cited the man on charges of driving on a suspended license, making an improper right turn, and failure to provide proof of mandatory insurance. His vehicle was towed for a mandatory 30-day impound and he was released on scene.

I wish they had also cited all the people who have put my clients in the hospital by doing the same thing.

Next time they don’t, I think I’ll bring this up. Why is it illegal to right-hook a police officer but not a civilian? Is that in the statute somewhere?

–Erik Ryberg

Concerns about bike accessibility at 4th ave underpass

Recent improvements to the 4th Avenue underpass are another example of how the city is making it easier to get around town. But some say getting to the new underpass can be dangerous.

In August the 4th Avenue underpass opened with great fanfare. It was designed to give pedestrians and bicyclists easier access to and from downtown.

But in the weeks since it’s opened, bicyclists like Erik Ryberg who travel Broadway and use the underpass have noticed problems.

“A bicyclist is going to have to merge across three lanes of traffic and then get into a left hand turn lane which has trolley tracks,” he says.

Crossing the trolley tracks on a bike isn’t hard within itself, but Ryberg says it can be when you’re looking over your shoulder trying not to get hit by a car.

Even though the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, TPD says it’s an area where most people are going faster.

“This makes for a very dangerous mix of speeding traffic, too many lanes to cross and tracks to cross,” Ryberg says.

In our effort to be balanced the city says it’s working with the bike community to find options.

“One option is to perform a “box turn” where a bicyclist goes through the intersection, pushes the button and turns left,” says Tucson Dept. of Transportation Director Jim Glock, noting the city built a HAWK crossing on Broadway near the underpass.

“Another option is to open up Herbert Ave. Which is a named alley,” Glock says.

I have no idea how “opening up” Herbert will help anyone because you would have to ride down the sidewalk against traffic on Congress to get to the underpass. Does anyone know what Glock is talking about?

And I am getting the feeling that the Tucson Bike Advisory Council is also throwing up its hands at this problem, which really worries me.

I see several possibilities for improving things.

First, since TPD admits people speed there, why not spend some of those coveted bike safety dollars ENFORCING THE SPEED LIMIT there?

Another thing would be signs that say “watch for bicycles merging” and a large sign indicating the speed limit is 25 mph and enforced. Maybe camera enforcement.

The City could also stripe a bike lane on the left-hand side of Broadway, so cyclists can merge safely at Church, Scott, or 6th Avenue before traffic speeds up.

It will never be perfect, but it could easily be a whole lot better. I very much hope no one has to die before Glock and others take this problem seriously.

I will keep saying it: we spent 46 million dollars on that underpass. We can spend a little more to make it safe.

–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

It took six comments for somebody to bring up spandex, but, oddly, it took 85 comments before someone reminded us that cars are bigger and heavier than bicycles, and a full 103 comments before we learned that until bicyclists have to license their bikes and pay taxes on them, they are not owed any respect when on the road. So, things are getting better.

I would very much like to see the analysis that shows that bicyclists are more likely to be injured from running a stop sign than they are from getting hit from behind. If TPD even gave out five percent as many tickets for violating the three foot rule, if they spent just one-percent as much time enforcing it as they spend enforcing stop sign violators, I would be delighted.

Bicyclists: remember, if you have been ticketed and you do not contest the ticket, your motorist insurance will likely increase dramatically, especially if you are in your ‘teens or ‘twenties. Your only solution other than bike diversion is to contest the ticket and ask the judge not to forward the conviction on to the Department of Motor Vehicles.

–Erik Ryberg

Today I took the car to Ordinary Bike Shop to get some work done on my beloved Surly 29er single speed. On the way back I stopped at the intersection of 7th Ave. and Toole, where I was to make a right turn. Traffic comes up pretty fast there from the left, which is the direction my head was pointed . . . when a young woman on a bicycle flew across my vision, about six inches away from my front bumper. She was moving fast, the wrong direction, and if I had stopped a bit further on I might have hit her.

I suppose it was my fault for not looking both directions before advancing past the sidewalk, into where a crosswalk would be had one been painted there. But you just don’t expect wrong-way bicyclists. Even me. And you would think a wrong-way bicyclist would at least slow down a bit at the intersections.

Well, I’m sure glad I didn’t hit her.

Many people grew up learning that riding the wrong way down the road is the safest way to ride, because you can see traffic coming at you. It’s why I wish TPD would issue more warnings to such riders, and perhaps take the opportunity to let them know just how dangerous that kind of riding is (rather than just tell people not to do it).

I think it would pay bigger safety dividends than ambushing bicyclists at deserted four-way stops.

–Erik Ryberg

But what do you think happens in a motor vehicle/bike accident where the motor vehicle flees the scene? It’s the same violation whether you hit a bicyclist, a motorist, or a person riding an elephant, A.R.S. 28-661, so you would think the status of the victim would not control whether the fleeing driver gets the letter.

But it does. According to TPD, they don’t send letters to motorists who hit cyclists and then drive away. I personally find this to be a stunning and unjust double standard.

A double standard I intend to change.

Erik Ryberg