Driver who killed TPD motorcyclist cited, but still no citations in Allen Johnson case

Carhead, Our eternal quest for Platinum Status, TPD shortcomings, getting off easy again, safety, vexation of the spirit May 28th, 2009

Several readers have written in to inform me that the driver who made a left turn into the path of Tucson Police Officer Peter Mannino has been cited with failure to yield and, more importantly, A.R.S. § 28-672, “Causing serious physical injury or death by a moving violation,” which could land her in jail for 30 days and carries a fine of up to $10,000.00.

Unfortunately, no citations have been given yet in the death of TPD Officer Allen Johnson, who was killed on his bicycle when he was struck from behind by a negligent motorist.

Oh and that A.R.S. § 28-672? It doesn’t apply to running down a bicyclist from behind.

–Erik Ryberg

8 Responses to “Driver who killed TPD motorcyclist cited, but still no citations in Allen Johnson case”

  1. Red Star Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    “Oh and that A.R.S. § 28-672? It doesn’t apply to running down a bicyclist from behind.”

    Why not?

  2. Erik Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    If you click on it you can see that none of the enumerated violations include hitting a bicyclist from behind. They do include left hooks though.
    EBR

  3. Red Star Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    So are you saying the problem does not lie in A.R.S. 28-762 itself, but rather in application (or lack thereof) in the Johnson case?

  4. Coghauler Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Well, I think it used to be that
    when you hit someone from behind
    it was automatically your fault
    and that might have been a “moving
    violation”. But driving straight
    forward is not a moving violation so
    that part is out.

  5. Erik Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    Seems like not leaving a cyclist three feet of space might be a moving violation. But it isn’t in the list.

    EBR

  6. Opus the Poet Says:
    May 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    You just need to have “adjustments” added to the bill as an amendment to one of the budget bills in the lege now. What’s the statute number of the 3 foot law? Just get that added to the bill, happens all the time here in TX…

  7. Ed Says:
    May 30th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Erik — “They do include left hooks though.
    EBR”…

    There’s a problem with respect to 28-772, a “left hook”, when the victim is a cyclist
    “The driver of a vehicle within an intersection intending to turn to the left shall yield the right-of-way to a VEHICLE”

    The word “vehicle” probably ought to be “traffic” instead. In AZ bikes aren’t vehicles (more explanations here ). This distinction may seem to be hair-splitting, but getting away with this nuance, particularly on a criminal charge, is not likely to fly.

    This seeming oversight is on a short list of statute tweaks I would like to see.

    http://azbikelaw.org/blog/28-672-in-the-news/comment-page-1/#comment-1688

  8. Ed Says:
    May 31st, 2009 at 10:54 am

    Opus asks: “What’s the statute number of the 3 foot law? Just get that added to the bill”

    3-foot law for passing a bicyclist is 28-735.
    http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00735.htm

    the law referred to above, that makes it a (very minor) crime when committing certain, specific, violations is
    28-672 http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00672.htm

    moving *any* cycling legislation in Arizona is, um, very challenging.

Leave a Reply