Zero citations so far for “Three foot passing rule” in Tucson this year
A couple times a year I send a public records request to the City Court to determine how many people have been cited in Tucson for violations of the three-foot safe passing rule, A.R.S. 28-735 (A).
The statute reads:
“While overtaking and passing a bicycle proceeding in the same direction, a person driving a motor vehicle shall exercise due care by leaving a safe distance between the motor vehicle and the bicycle of not less than three feet until the motor vehicle is safely past the overtaken bicycle.”
I just got a response today on my most recent request. So far this year, none have been issued. (Three were issued in all of calendar-year 2008.)
Apparently allowing three-feet of passing distance between a motor vehicle and a bicycle just isn’t all that high on the enforcement agenda.
–Erik Ryberg
July 14th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Well I saw a middle school kid wearing no helmet ride in front of a motorcycle cop that was looking for speeders driving west bound on Speedway before Campbell. Oh yeah, the kid was riding down the sidewalk and the cop did nothing at all. My girlfriend saw bicycle cops riding three abreast down Speedway, with one on the sidewalk. Cops need to enforce the laws and follow them as well.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Okay. So far, so good…good work gathering info and publicizing!
But where do you go from here? If the issue is police resource allocation (as it seems to be), do you go to the various internal and external TPD oversight bodies?
What’s the next step?
July 14th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Both houses in the Texas legislature passed a 3 foot passing law this spring and Governor Perry, a cyclist, vetoed the law a few weeks ago. I keep telling cyclists in Austin that passing the law doesn’t mean enforcement, or even fewer fatalities.
Was the driver who hit Mr. Okusako not cited for that particular infraction?
July 14th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Pam, according to my copy of the police report, the man who hit Okusako was not cited with the 28-735(A) violation. However, he has much worse things to deal with.
EBR
July 14th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
[...] cycling lawyer offers good advice for when tempers flare, while the other cycling lawyer notes that not one driver has been cited for violating Arizona’s three-foot passing law in Tucson this year. Two Milwaukee bike cops are [...]
July 14th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
So how many cyclists have been cited for blowing through red lights and stop signs? Do you ever ask?
Erik says
“I am sure they exist, but I have never met a cyclist who regularly comes to a complete stop — wheels not moving at all — at all stop signs. That’s my point in all of this — TPD is ticketing cyclists for behavior that is not dangerous and that is not ever going to change…”
As Scott notes in previous posts, Erik’s contention is crap – I HAVE (occasionally) seen a cyclist come to a complete stop, most recently at 4th and University, where the cyclist executed a remarkable balancing act (neither foot touched ground) while three automobiles crossed the intersection. If he can do it, you can, though you may have to extend a leg. If you aren’t willing to stop at signs and lights, and otherwise observe the traffic laws, you should walk, drive, or stay home.
Radar Man says “I say bicyclists should be allowed to ride on the sidewalks (in the direction of traffic!) so long as they yield to pedestrians and people in wheelchairs.”
OK, but I regularly use the sidewalks (when available), frequently on long walks (e.g. to the airport to retrieve a car). I also walk trails in Tucson Mountain Park and the road in Sabino Canyon to access trailheads. In each of these places I’m regularly run over by cyclists who show as much concern for pedestrians as those cyclists claim drivers show for them. If Radar Man yields to pedestrians. he’s the only cyclist in Tucson who does.
So while whining about the “carhead” mentality of Tucson drivers and cops, kindly spend some time contemplating the implications of the “spandexhead” attitude displayed by many cyclists.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
For the record, I don’t wear spandex, I’ve not ridden on the sidewalks in months, and never ran over a pedestrian in the time that I did. Now I ride where I’m ’supposed to,’ which is a much bigger pain than I expected.
I think a distinction needs to be made between the Armstrong-wannabe spandexheads and the average bike commuter. For every lycra-clad road warrior I see two or three DUI-cases on their kids’ Huffy or Magna mountain bikes trudging down the sidewalk on the way to work. They tend to ride slowly and are fairly easy to dodge, and most will try to avoid hitting any other pedestrians or bikers. I’ve never actually seen a spandexhead on the sidewalk.
Anyway, if you do want bicyclists to get off the sidewalks, you’d have to convince the city to enforce the 3-foot rule and get the crap (broken glass, drywall screws, goatheads, etc.) out of the “bike lanes” so it will be safer and better to ride. Until then, (many) bicyclists will continue to use the sidewalks and avoid the annoyance of patching tubes or the danger of being run over.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Hi kk,
I think you misread me. I did not say cyclists never can come to stops, or never do. I come to a complete stop at a stop sign every day. I just don’t come to a complete stop at all of them. It depends. If there is or might be traffic around, I come to a stop.
Bicyclists can see better than people in cars. They can also hear better. If they hit something they aren’t likely to hurt it much. They are more alert. They are also positioned better to see. They can stop more quickly and they are smaller. And, coming to a start after a complete stop uses up an enormous amount of energy versus coming to a start after even a tiny bit of forward movement.
Stop signs were designed for cars. It is practically impossible to use a bike for regular day-to-day errands and stop at every stop sign. You’d probably be better off walking.
As for Radarman and his sidewalk riding, I think cyclists should be able to ride on sidewalks in certain circumstances, but it is clearly one of the most dangerous ways to ride.
Oh and actually I have asked about the numbers of cyclists who get ticketed for stop signs, but TPD doesn’t keep records that way. They only know how many total violations, for cars and bikes together, were given.
EBR
July 15th, 2009 at 8:29 am
First, an explanation and an apology to Radar Man. I think bicycles on the sidewalks are a good idea, as far as cyclist safety is concerned, given the relative speeds, masses and squishabilities of autos, cyclists, and pedestrians, and acknowledging the trash found in bike lanes. My concern is that virtually all cyclists treat pedestrians like speed bumps, as illustrated by my experience on sidewalks, on the Sabino Canyon road, and in Sweetwater Preserve.
I hiked all of the Sweetwater trails one day earlier this year and encountered only 9 cyclists, 8 of whom ran me off the trail, despite the fact that every trailhead has a sign stating that cyclists are required to yield to hikers and both are required to yield to horses. The only cyclist who did NOT run me off the trail was parked on an uphill stretch, either enjoying the scenery or catching his breath, or both. If cyclists want respect for laws and common courtesy from motorists, they should show some.
Secondly, I realize that Radar Man and numerous other riders don’t wear Spandex and a few of them always obey the laws and are both sensible and courteous while riding. But if cyclists are going to contemptuously refer to motorists as “carheads”, addressing arrogant cyclists as “Spandexheads” is entirely appropriate.
Radar Man says “I think a distinction needs to be made between the Armstrong-wannabe spandexheads and the average bike commuter.” True, but cyclists are blowing through stop signs and red lights everywhere, from Saguaro National Park to the University. The cyclist who performed the balancing act at 4th and University was the only rider who stopped at the 4-way of the 20 cyclists I saw while loitering on the corner. Sixty percent didn’t even slow down, and one guy crossed the center line into oncoming traffic to avoid the stop sign.
Regarding Erik’s comments – “Stop signs were designed for cars”. Maybe, but they also apply to cyclists until someone changes the law, and cyclists (even lawyers) should obey all laws, or suffer the consequences. My apologies to Erik regarding
stop sign violations. It’s surprising separate violation stats aren’t available for cyclists. They certainly commit enough of them.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:29 am
kk,
When was the last time that you saw a car come to a complete stop at a stop sign? My neighborhood has 2 stop signs that I walk my dogs by every morning (for the past 3 years) and I’ve seen exactly one car come to a complete stop. I’m all for equal enforcement of the law, but rolling a stop is not exclusive to bikes. Since cyclists are a small fraction of vehicular traffic, shouldn’t there be more of a concern about car/truck violations?
July 15th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, bicycle operation on sidewalks were to be made legal in Tucson. What changes in what laws and ordinances would have to be made? Would it be a matter of changing City of Tucson Code, or would ARS have to be revised (which means state legislature, ugh).
Red Star’s bias: There are miles and miles of nice sidewalk that simply aren’t being used by peds in any great numbers. City of Tucson is unwilling/unable to construct dedicated bike roads. Legally open the sidewalks to cyclists and cyclist safety might improve by getting some real physical separation between cyclists and autos. Yes, in such a scenario, major intersections would remain a problem, but not necessarily insurmountable. And no, Red Star is not suggesting that cyclists be restricted to sidewalks in this thought experiment–no serious recreational cyclist (Red Star is one such) would want to go bumpity-bump on sidewalks. The idea is to make it safer for commuters.
~~~~~~
Can Erik tell us what, law-wise, would have to change?
July 15th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Red Star, the law change would be easy. But I would not support it. The statistics show sidewalk-riding to be one of the most dangerous things you can do on a bike. If you do get hit, you aren’t so likely to be killed on a sidewalk (because everyone tends to be going slower — you and the vehicle that hits you), but you are quite a bit more likely to be hit in the first place.
EBR
July 15th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Plus it would just serve to reinforce the popular driver’s misconception that bicycles are toys that don’t belong on the street.
And Rex, “all the other kids do it too” has never been an acceptable excuse for any other type of bonehead behavior either. All the cars I see pulling a “rolling stop” at least slow way down – most of the bicyclists I see ignore them completely. At the most they might stop pedaling and coast through the intersection, but you never see a single hand wrap around a brake lever, and I’m willing to bet that includes the folks who adamantly insist here that they slow way down even if they don’t stop completely.
It’s not a difficult concept – if we want bicycles to be thought of and treated as serious vehicles, then we need to operate them as though *we* consider them as such.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:37 am
“If you do get hit, you aren’t so likely to be killed on a sidewalk (because everyone tends to be going slower — you and the vehicle that hits you), but you are quite a bit more likely to be hit in the first place.”
Hit by what? Oprah on a futile weight-losing power walk? But that aside, what do the stats show on Suvs and crazy motorist teenagers taking over the sidewalks and killing cyclists? Mostly the crazy teenagers and suvs stay off the sidewalks, somehow.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Scott,
I’m not suggesting that failing to stop can be rationalized by either cyclists or cars. What I’m suggesting is that law enforcement is in disproportion to the number of car/cyclists. Like Erik, if there’s a car in the vicinity, I come to a complete stop. You claim “you never see a single hand wrap around a brake lever”, you’ve obviously never ridden around me. I don’t think that we should brand all cyclists or motorists with the same broad brush. Would I like to see all cyclists, and motorists, obey the law? Sure, but how realistic is that?
Red Star,
My guess is that the danger spot is when the cyclist transitions from the sidewalk to a crosswalk. A motorist making a right turn could easily turn into a cyclist, since they wouldn’t expect them to be there. Probably increased likelihood of a left hook, also.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Red Star, the critical point of interface for sidewalk riders is the inevitable point where they aren’t riding on the sidewalk any more. Unless you are just going around the block at some point when going from A to B you will have to cross a street or road, at which point sidewalk riders are 12 times more likely to be hit. This is the same objection I have against cycle tracks (physically separated bike paths parallel to a street), except that a well designed cycle track has signage to warn drivers about traffic to the right not turning, nothing like that for sidewalk riders.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
On sidewalks, every driveway is an intersection, and often it’s a blind one.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I understand that is is frustrating to drivers when I cyclist blows though a sign or light when the driver clearly had the right away. That type of attitude gives us all a bad name. I also think it is silly to have to put my foot down at a stop sign when I am clearly the only one near the intersection.
That being said those scenarios are not the ones that are causing the most serious injuries and deaths. Hooks and rear hits are. Why do most of these incidents occur? Because the driver wasn’t paying attention and didn’t see the cyclist (or pedestrian for that matter). Drivers do a better job stopping at stoplights and signs because there has been enforcement of those laws.
Until there is enforcement of the 3 foot law then drivers will continue to ignore it. I wonder how many drivers even know about the law.
Police should be enforcing the laws that make people the most safe. So what would make more people safe, putting your foot down on 3rd street BIKEWAY or making drivers be attentive and give cyclist 3 feet of room?
What is the cost of a 3 foot ticket? Maybe we need to make it more lucrative for the officer to start handing out those tickets rather than stop sign violations.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
· MikeOnBike Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“On sidewalks, every driveway is an intersection, and often it’s a blind one.”
The same applies to driveways intersecting streets (which they all do, right?). There are plenty of those in Tucson.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
· Opus the Poet Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“Red Star, the critical point of interface for sidewalk riders is the inevitable point where they aren’t riding on the sidewalk any more. Unless you are just going around the block at some point when going from A to B you will have to cross a street or road, at which point sidewalk riders are 12 times more likely to be hit. This is the same objection I have against cycle tracks (physically separated bike paths parallel to a street), except that a well designed cycle track has signage to warn drivers about traffic to the right not turning, nothing like that for sidewalk riders.”
Agree that interface is a very good point. That’s why Red Star wrote (above): “Yes, in such a scenario, major intersections would remain a problem, but not necessarily insurmountable.” Sensible interface seems to be one of many issues Tucson/Pima bike and transpo czars need to work on to maintain cred.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rex Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
“Red Star,
My guess is that the danger spot is when the cyclist transitions from the sidewalk to a crosswalk. A motorist making a right turn could easily turn into a cyclist, since they wouldn’t expect them to be there. Probably increased likelihood of a left hook, also.”
Red Star is unable to disagree that risk exists. It’s about minimizing risk and maximizing efficiency so that people can get on with the rest of their lives. Hey who knows, perhaps a motorist might turn into a cyclist!
July 15th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Re: Driveways intersecting both sidewalks and streets: The differences include:
A cyclist going past a driveway several feet from the curb has much better sightlines and much better buffer space compared to the same cyclist on the sidewalk. And people entering/exiting driveways don’t normally expect 15 mph traffic on the sidewalk.
This isn’t theoretical. It’s what car-bike crash studies demonstrate.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Agree with MikeOnBike that people should be careful and considerate in their habits and practices.
If nothing else, car-bike crash studies demonstrate physics…
July 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Michael McKisson Says:
July 15th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
“I understand that is is frustrating to drivers when I cyclist blows though a sign or light when the driver clearly had the right away. That type of attitude gives us all a bad name. I also think it is silly to have to put my foot down at a stop sign when I am clearly the only one near the intersection.”
I think you’ve nailed it. So how do we get the law enforcement community to enforce the 3 foot law and how do we get vehicle operators to pay attention to what they’re doing? For that matter, how do we get cyclists to respect their fellow road users. I’ve noticed that TPD hasn’t been attending TPCBAC meetings, so is this an indication of a lack of concern for cyclist’s safety?
Yes I know, to many questions and not enough answers…
July 15th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
A three-foot violation is a
hard ticket to write. Lots of
cars pass me closer than three
feet, but there’s never a cop
around. And if there was, he’d
have to be in position at the
proper angle and actually
looking during the one second
it takes a car to pass. It’s a
lot to ask of the poor guy. And
then the driver would claim I
veered close to him. Without a
sideswipe or a right-hook incident,
it’s just too hard to prove especially
when compared to a stop sign violation.
Cops aren’t looking to make their job
harder.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
kk –
You will never hear me defending cyclists on trails who blow past hikers. I am in complete agreement with you. But don’t transfer your hatred for these people to guy who is trying to use his bike to get to the post office until you’ve tried it yourself. You can either ride on a street like Speedway, and take your life in your hands, or you can ride on a residential street and face a battery of stop signs. Try it. You will soon find yourself slowing down, looking both ways, and moving on.
Those who fly through intersections without braking or looking are idiots. See my post earlier this week called “My Comeuppance.” I am well aware these people exist, and I am not making excuses for them, either.
Coghauler: I agree with you but I wish the police would give it a try. They take teams of cops out specifically to target bicyclists and essentially set up bicycle “sting” operations. Could they just ONCE IN A WHILE do the same for motorists? Have a plainclothes officer ride down Grant and radio ahead to every car that grazes him. Give warnings. Drivers would get the message.
EBR
July 15th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
I think that Coghauler is probably right about it being hard ticket to write.
What about changing the law from 3 feet to something more along the lines of a “reasonable and prudent” distance?
Obviously having a hard number feels like it is better than something as ambiguous as “reasonable and prudent”, but then maybe it makes it easier for an officer to write that ticket.
July 15th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
A pretty interesting discussion. I figured allowing cyclists on sidewalks would reduce accidents, especially deaths, and given that I’m usually the only pedestrian in sight, except around the University or downtown, it seemed a workable idea. A little caution should solve the “interface danger”, but of course a lack of caution is often the problem. By the way, original source references for various specific statements, e.g. “12 times as dangerous” would be helpful.
I must respond to Erik when he says “But don’t transfer your hatred for these people to guy who is trying to use his bike to get to the post office until you’ve tried it yourself. ”
I don’t hate anyone, except maybe Wall Street bankers, I just get tired of cyclists griping about lousy drivers when those same cyclists admittedly violate the law, then try to justify doing so. C.f. Erik’s headline of March 15, “Canadian motorists take note: if you see two cyclists riding side by side, you can kill them.” What hideous assault took place? Was Hannibal Lector stalking Canadian cyclists? Nope. Roughly 15 of 20 Canadian cyclists were “knocked down” (apparently not injured) while illegally riding en mass, i.e. 4 abreast, and blocking the road. Granted, the two motorists were also at fault, according to Canadian authorities, but the incident would never have occurred if the cyclists hadn’t decided that “peloton” is French for “we don’t have to obey no stinkin’ traffic laws.”
The Critical Mass rides, violating traffic laws, blocking traffic, and assaulting drivers who dare to try to use the road, are similarly counterproductive if cyclists want to engender positive responses from the public. It seems axiomatic that self-righteous belligerence is a poor stance when one is out-massed by a factor of 15-30.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
It would be nice to use video to write tickets. To bad I can’t the plate number easily.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWCRz_OgIpQ
July 15th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@kk, it’s well known from many studies that sidewalk riding is unsafe. You’ll find some links here: http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm
July 16th, 2009 at 9:45 am
If it is a police resource allocation, why not pay for it out of that big fat fund generated by citations to cyclists?
July 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
There is a thresh hold (or if you wish, the hackneyed “tipping point”) to be reached by lazy mediocre newspapers (such as ADS) before they cover something and even when they do, the coverage is standard Arizona beer gut.
While not conceding that selective legalization of sidewalk cycling is a horrible idea, why not have a look at another matter, perhaps the biggest problem: “Intersection Treatments to Improve Bicycle Access and Safety” from that socialist state known as Oregon:
http://www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/Multi-Modal%20Intersection%20Design.pdf
(you’ll need free to Adobe Acrobat Reader or some such to read it)
July 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Credit where credit is due: The lit survey (above) was reached via Jennifer Dill’s,
http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/index.php
July 16th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
It seems to me that conversations such as these frequently get derailed from what really matters, and that is not the breaking or following of the law, but the simple and tragic fact that bicyclists are being killed on the roads. The spirit of the 3-foot law is to protect bikers from fast moving masses of metal that can injure, maim, and kill with ease. The frequency with which we read about a biker being killed is completely unacceptable, especially considering that a large number of these deaths are caused from being hit from behind (hello 3 foot rule). Bikers are not being killed by not stopping completely at stop signs, or even by being rude on mtn bike trails or any other interactions with pedestrians. These are separate matters in the same way that bad car drivers are often annoying, simply bad at driving, or flat out rude – none of those things have anything to do with their right to use roads and expect a reasonable amount of safety and concern for their well being. In fact, when people die in car accidents we are saddened and outraged and have enacted very stiff laws to punish people who are responsible. No so when bikers die on the roads. And one law, such as a three foot rule was made law for just that (there are others of course) and while it is clearly difficult to ticket for violation of that when there has not been an accident, the fact that there have been no 3-foot rule citations thus far and already several deaths where clearly that law was broken speaks volumes about the level of importance that law enforcement place on the lives of bikers. That is what needs attention. Not whether every biker follows every law, stops at every stop sign, or is kind and generous to everyone they encounter. That would be nice and is certainly something to strive for. But it won’t happen, just as not all drivers will always follow the laws or always be kind. But using those things as a distraction from the more important matter of creating an environment of safety and awareness for bikers (who will only become more numerous as fuel prices rise and education grows) should be one of our main priorities.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Tom- thanks for the refs!
Matthew – Of course most cyclists are hit from behind – they’re traveling at 1/2 to 1/4 the posted speed limit! Had I hit the cyclist who blew through a stop sign right in front of me in Saguaro National Park West in May, or the cyclist who blew through the red light at Sunrise and Kolb a couple of weeks ago, both would have been hit from behind, even though they were at fault, because they turned into my lane.
The claim that “the cyclist was hit from behind, so it must be the automobile driver’s fault” is nonsense. Because they’re so slow, comparatively, most cyclists will be hit from behind no matter who is at fault, unless someone’s in the wrong lane.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
@kk Actually, according to League of American Bicyclists aggregated data, less than 4% of bicycle / car crashes are “bicyclist hit from behind” where the driver is at fault. It’s certainly not the most prevalent type of bicycle / car crash. I’d have to talk with Radar Matt ( fellow League Cycling Instructor here in Phoenix) again to get the exact numbers, but roughly half of bicycle / car crashes are cyclist’s fault. The other half is motorist’s fault. I do not know what the combined percentage is.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Hi Tom – Pardon my poor phrasing. I have no idea what percentage of bicycle/car crashes involve “cyclist hit from behind.” I was just pointing out that “cyclist hit from behind” is not by itself evidence that the automobile driver was at fault, as is frequently implied on this site. Clearly, if the driver and cyclist are both traveling in the same direction at the moment of impact, even of the cyclist just entered the lane, the slower cyclist will be hit from behind by the faster auto.
I’m not surprised that “roughly half of bicycle/car crashes are cyclists’ fault” and half are the motorists’. Thanks again for the data -when you hear from Radar, further crash and safety info would be appreciated.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
What about the 5 foot bus rule? Any stats on that?–D
September 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
We had a friend/cyclist killed in Green Valley yesterday. We think the driver of the vehicle was cited for the “three foot’ law? A misdemeanor! Why?
September 5th, 2009 at 8:15 am
At least the driver was cited for something – looking at recent past incidents, it seems like the deciding factor for whether or not LE takes a dead or injured cyclist seriously is how much press they think it might generate.
September 6th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
It is very unusual for police (in this case the Pima County Sheriff’s Office) to cite immediately. The normal pattern in fatal collisions (e.g. Allen Johnson) is nothing gets issued, a lengthy investigation is conducted, after which the prosecutor declines to file criminal charges, and finally traffic citations are issued.
Does the issuance signal something? Will there be no investigation? Impairment?
September 6th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
oh, i forgot the link
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/307547.php
p.s: this isn’t really a real bike lane, is it? (It’s a “bike shoulder” or somesuch made-up terminology)
September 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
[...] issued. Will there be no further investigation? Seems hasty. Entry at tucsonbikelawyer.com also see zero-citations-so-far-for-three-foot-passing-rule-in-tucson-this-year for interesting facts about just how rare citations for 28-735 [...]
October 16th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
[...] A perennial problem with any such law is lack of enforcement (or perhaps enforceability, depending on who you ask), e.g. In the city of Tucson over an 18-month period there were a total of 3 citations according to tucsonbikelawyer.com; zero-citations-so-far-for-three-foot-passing-rule-in-tucson-this-year. [...]
November 7th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
[...] fatalities in Tucson caused by the cyclist running a stop sign). At the same time, police rarely (a total of 3 over an 18month period by Tuscon PD) ticket motorists for passing cyclists too closely — [...]