Comments on: Cyclist killed this morning in Tucson

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 01:37:21 +0000

Coghauler, I guess I didn’t make the assumptions you made. Standards and measures of safety cannot be made subjectively.

By: Red Star

Red Star — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:28:04 +0000

5th/6th can and should be spliced, from Country Club (or perhaps the empty parking lot known as El Con Mall) to around 4th Ave. That route is right out of Urban Planning 101 and if Zoll and Thivener can’t get it done, then perhaps it is best if they toil away at their meaningless little bike lanes, frame and bone wrecking bike routes, and cute asphalt paths along the dried up rivers.

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:28:14 +0000

Tony-
I was commenting from the point that
if city government started closing streets
to cars, they would feel pressure from
citizens and feel vindicated in designating
some streets off limits to bikes. It’s
really best not to go there.
“roads like 22nd, grant, Aviation highway, and 5th-6th street as some good examples of roads that are too unsafe for cyclists”….it’s a subjective view.
I won’t go on 5th-6th and I think Aviation is
prohibited by sign but it has the path.
Reasonable alternatives exist for a lot of
the higher risk routes.
I really doubt all streets will be made “safe”
to the standards of the most timid riders.
It could be that the car has skewed our
cultulral view of risk.

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:02:48 +0000

OK…so it seems cars have carte blanche
to kill people guaranteed by the constitution.

Contrasting and comparing the three deaths
most recently:

the 19-year-old who left the scene,
the cop on the bike on Spanish Trail &
the motorcycle cop killed by a left turn
violation.
The most serious infraction we know of so
far is leaving the scene….yes?
The deaths are incidental.
The list of violations seems pretty
irrelevant, then, even though the
school bus and crossing stuff is in
there.
So how does a list of violations get
created that reflects and appropriately
criminalizes deaths in situations of
high vulnerability?

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 18:17:39 +0000

Coghauler, there are roads in Tucson that bikes cannot travel on, the two main reasons being either the road is too unsafe or there is a statute prohibiting pedestrians and cyclists from accessing them (with a few of the ‘hardcore’ riders willing to make exceptions). I see roads like 22nd, grant, Aviation highway, and 5th-6th street as some good examples of roads that are too unsafe for cyclists, and I remember seeing signs posted at the on-ramp to I-10 prohibiting cyclists and pedestrians.

The logic you used to figure out that you would have to (I guess) consent to roads being closed off to bikes, if you agreed that roads should be closed off to cars, does not make any sense.

Oh, and I hope you have figured out that bikes cause a lot less damage to pavement then motor vehicles do. There are a lot of roads in great shape that can be turned into designated bike-ways, and the city would save money doing this instead of making more roads. Tucson will not be able to clean up after cars for much longer (hopefully) because eventually it wont have enough money to buy asphalt. Good people have to do the right thing (in the mean time) and stop participating in Tucson’s economy until either Tucson has it’s own monetary system that is safe for people to use, or every last dollar has been spent and the idiotic representatives can’t buy any more harm and can go on ignoring everyone else as long as they like.

Wouldn’t a lawyer advise mitigating loss if, in the case, eliminating loss altogether is not an option?

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:25:36 +0000

“but it needs to be elevated to a moving violation so that charges can be made from it.”

coghauler — that’s not the crux of the problem. There is no specific list of what can elicit a homicide charge. It’s a homicide if the prosecutor says it is. If you look here:
http://azbikelaw.org/carlaw/homicide.html
particularly– see what it says about negligent homicide and manslaughter in the chart about the 4 types of homicide.

If 28-735 was part of 28-672; it would be a baby step in the right direction, since the criminal penalties for 28-672 are negligible, it is a class 3 misdemeanor. That is the same class as “LITTERING on the highway” (see 28-7056) for cryin out loud

By: Coghauler

Coghauler — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:46:17 +0000

I really don’t want any streets closed off
to bikes, so I’m not an advocate of closing
any streets to cars. Won’t happen anyway.
Pavement condition is inconsistant on a lot
of routes and hopefully on future bike
boulevards that can be addressed…there
would be no point in having them if it wasn’t.
It’s not parity when a cyclist has to devise some
zig-zag, circuitous route to get somewhere.
Surface conditions can cause injury when a
rider’s attention is drawn away. It should be
part of the platinum condition.

Scott hits a crucial point about consequences
in these bike fatalities. Had the 19-year-old
not left the scene, we have no reason to believe
any charges would have been filed. It would be
just like the officer’s death on Spanish Trail.
Driving straight ahead on a striped shoulder
(remember it is not a bike lane) is not a moving
violation. We had some good legislators come up
with the three-foot law, but it needs to be
elevated to a moving violation so that charges
can be made from it.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:21:10 +0000

As someone who does so daily, I know that it’s possible to get almost anywhere in this town on all but deserted residential streets – as long as you’re going predominantly east-west. (And really RedStar? You get a nice clear east-west bike route through the middle of town that’s nearly car-free for its full length and you’re whining about six blocks of cracked pavement? No wonder we don’t get taken seriously.) North-south routes could use some work, but honestly even that’s not so bad if you’re willing to plan and go a little out of your way – get a bike map, explore some, and mark your favorites. (Although I admit, I like the idea of treating Mountain and perhaps a few others the same as 3rd St. through Sam Hughes is now – not necessarily closing it off to car traffic altogether, but prohibiting car entry from the main cross-streets. That makes a huge safety difference without negative impact for the residents living along those streets.) The biggest infrastructure problem in this town occurs as you get further from city center, where the only routes between separated neighborhoods and developments are typically high speed no-shoulder thourofares. Separate lanes are really only necessary – and should be seriously considered – in these areas, and funding for safe non-motorized access could be required from the developers building these isolated communities.

But the 600lb gorilla standing in the way of bicycle-friendly status is *not* infrastructure problems or lack of promotion or other city programs – its local law enforcement’s abject refusal to provide equal protection under the law to an entire class of citizens. Drivers in this town don’t pay any heed to bicyclists because they don’t have to – as long as you’re not drunk you can mow down cyclists with impunity in this town and fear no consequences. This must change! We need the statistics that prove anti-cyclist bias, and we need to start making noise at city council and county sup meetings – particularly the ones in which law enforcement budgets are being discussed. We need the victims of this bias to stand up and ask “why no justice for us?” Teresa, just let us know when and *I’ll* be there, we all should!

By: Fatality in Tucson — driver was reportedly “weaving” @ Arizona Bike Law Blog

Mon, 01 Jun 2009 22:38:38 +0000

[...] This has caused an understandable stir in the Tucson bicyling community. [...]

By: Stephanie Jackter

Stephanie Jackter — Sun, 31 May 2009 16:58:07 +0000

I can imagine closing off Mountain Ave. (the street Kevin Robinson got right hooked by the bus on while going to school), and 5th street. Just by closing 5th street alone, we would give safe bike access from the east to downtown for 50,000 U.of A. students and employees, 3,500 Tucson High Students, not to speak of the students from Roskruge and the other middle school across from the U.ofA. and all of Rincon High school. That’s not even considering all the neighborhood elementary schools that line that corridor.

Let’s get outside the box of bikeways as afterthoughts that should be fit around existing car culture. It is time to take away from what has been dedicated to the car and give to those who live more naturally and healthfully with their environment, as Coach Oak exemplified so well in his own daily life. – Stephanie