Here’s a new one
I obtained a police report recently for one of those extremely rare cases where a ticket is given to a driver for a violation of the “three foot rule,” A.R.S. Sec. 28-735. These citations are almost never given out except in cases where a driver has struck and killed or seriously injured the cyclist. Only a few citations have been given in the past two years in Tucson.
So it was pretty unusual to see this police report just for that reason alone.
The cyclist was right-hooked and apparently not too badly hurt.
What made it a new one is that the cyclist also got a ticket, for not riding “as far to the right as possible” under A.R.S. 28-815. He was in the bike route, but apparently the officer thought if he’d been further over he would not have been right hooked?
Is it me or was this officer looking for a way to distribute fault to both parties?
–Erik Ryberg
October 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Hi Erik!
“He was in the bike route”. did you mean to say he was in a (designated) bike lane? If not, I don’t understand what you mean by in a bike route. Can you explain?
Here in phoenix, we have a number of streets that are signed bike routes that also have a shoulder stripe see e.g. Ray Road and Critical Width. This configuration is a pet peeve of mine, because it is constantly confused with being a designated bike lane.
October 14th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I got chastised earlier for using the term “bike lane” to refer to the area designated on maps as a “bike route” and which has signs on it and white line several feet from the edge of the road. Apparently these need to be six feet wide to qualify as “lanes,” otherwise they are “routes.” I don’t understand the exact terminology and am mixed up by it myself. This case involved a person riding to the right of the white lane in an area designated as a “route” on the maps.
EBR
October 14th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Ah, well then in my non-professional opinion — it being a bike route has no bearing whatsoever. It is a shoulder, plain and simple. Someone riding to the right of the white stripe isn’t even on the roadway! (the shoulder isn’t part of the roadway, see roadway definition 28-601). There is one sticking point (if there is a curb involved) in 28-815 you will have to get past: “…as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway”. I take the “or” to mean that a cyclist can meet his duty to right to the right by either being near enough to the edge (the shoulder stripe in this case — the cyclist was clearly exceeding this duty) OR riding close to the curb. BOTH conditions are NOT required. Do you know of any case law on this?