Cycling and Vehicle Doors / Trolley Tracks

The following information was prepared by Tucson attorney Eric Post:

In Arizona, anyone who opens the door to a vehicle has the duty to make sure it is safe to do so. This is by statute in the Arizona Revised Statutes as follows:

28-905. Opening vehicle door
A person shall not open a door on a motor vehicle unless it is reasonably safe to do so and can be done without interfering with the movement of other traffic. A person shall not leave a door open on a side of a motor vehicle exposed to moving traffic for a period of time longer than necessary to load or unload a passenger.

Unfortunately, there is a common perception that people on the roadway should watch out for parked vehicles and combined with the well known American love for our automobiles, this results often in motorists blaming the cyclist for hitting the door when the motorist opens it after parking.

The cyclist often does not have the ability to see if there is a driver or passenger in a parked car. Tinted glass, light reflections, and lighting conditions all work to obscure vision into the vehicle while riding. Further, the cyclist must look for road hazards including debris, glass, potholes, and whether or not the lane is free to move into for adequate clearance. As such, the law placing the duty on the door opening person is appropriate.

There are certain situations where a bike lane, or a route with striped shoulder will parallel an area of vehicles parked on the side of the road. This places the cyclist in a zone of danger. To be safe, the bike lane / route should be at least 3 feet from the parked vehicles.

In the common event that a cyclist must take evasive action to avoid a door swinging open, there has to be a good solid roadway to the cyclist’s left to allow the diversion.

In the situation of 6th Avenue in Tucson just South of Congress, the bike shoulder is in the zone of danger, however, there is a lane to the left that may be passable depending on traffic.

In the situation of the proposed trolley tracks on 4th Avenue just North of the downtown area, the bike route that is in the zone of danger is bordered on the left with trolly tracks and the cyclist cannot safely perform an evasive maneuver.

Bicycle wheels on trolley tracks require a near 90 degree crossing or the front tire may easily slide along the metal and cause a catastrophic loss of control.

Therefore, it is my opinion that cyclists should not be placed in a danger zone where they have the trolley and the tracks to the left and vehicle doors to the right. This is unsafe and similar to Russian Roulette in that sooner or later, an injury will occur.

I do not recommend banning cycling on such roadways. A cyclist is a legitimate road user with the same right to the road as the driver of a vehicle under A.R.S. 28-812.

The solutions would be to ban parking completely because parking vehicles do not necessarily have a right to the roadway. Also, post signs reminding drivers of their responsibilities (including rear seat passengers who have a door), or relocating the bike route, or relocating the trolley tracks. Regardless of what solution is chosen, it must be a good working solution.

In the future, it is important to design roadways in such a manner as to not create a hazard for cyclists and non-motorized traffic.

There is a Federal statute that requires the preservation of safety of non-motorized traffic on our roadways.

23 U.S.C. 109 (m) Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic. –The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.

New Organization Level Membership Dues

CAzBike encourages local and national participation by clubs and businesses. Therefor we are offering to discount our membership rate to those so involved. Your membership dues are important, but more important is your communication and participation! We hope our new fee schedule will allow you to support CAzBike as well leave funds for other national and local support.

Organization, Full Dues $150/yr, or with one affiliation $100/yr, or two affiliations $75/yr (see table below for eligible affiliations). Please help improve cycling in Arizona, JOIN or RENEW now! As always, donations in any amount are accepted.

If you are a:

Eligible Affiliate Organizations:

Bicycle Club LAB / IMBA / Thunderhead Alliance
Business Sponsor LAB / IMBA / Thunderhead Alliance / ABC / Flagstaff Bicycling / GABA Tucson / GABA West Valley / MBAA / PMBC / Prescott Alt
Trans / Prescott Chain Gang / Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists / VVCC / Other …

Bike Lanes and Light Rail 7th to 24th Streets along Washington & Jefferson Streets.

Many more photos here.

The following is an email thread of discussion of the work the City of Phoenix is doing for cyclists on the subject issues.

Bob & Bill:

Below is the response from Mike Cynecki, the City traffic Engineer doing the rework. As you can see, they are making it better, albeit slower than we want. Contrary to what I said is that the 9th St intersection is recognized to be fixed. Richard Moeur suggested a block of shared lane (both sides) along the business / bike roadway, to give a cyclist plenty of leeway as to when to try to move to the right. I like that more than another bike box that I suggested. Richard also suggested a good consultant.

What I’m saying is that the City is recognizing the problems and is helping. A total rebuild is not going to happen and antagonizing our friends is going to hurt us. We have a city budget crisis now and future light-rail expansions are coming. They are receptive now to our inputs. Keeping involved and offering reasonable suggestions are our best path.

A week ago, I was informed by a cyclist that there is another L-R vs. bike lane area that needs to be looked at. This is between Priest and theTempe Town Lake crossing. Haven’t had a chance to look there yet.

Gene

“Putting my muscles where my mouth is.” [tm]

Radar has written that bike lanes be eliminated and that shared lane markings be use in the right-most motor vehicle lane. I replied:

Use of shared lane markings, while established in some localities, have the same “unfamiliarity” factor as bike boxes in Arizona. Use of either will require education and compliance by cyclists and motorists alike. Trying shared lane markings in an area that was specifically designed for speedy high-volume motor traffic would harm more than help. Further, ARS 28-735 exempts motor vehicle drivers from the penalties when an injury occurs where there is a nearby bike lane. That would not be good. I don’t want the introduction of shared lanes to occur in such a motorist-favored area as Jefferson St. between 7th St. and 24th St. I believe we do not want to force good, but less trained cyclists to abandon a good place to ride, namely the business access/bike lanes on the left sides of the tracks. These people will be dis-enfranchised rather than ride in the “slot-car” lanes where the shared-lane markings would be.

Bob wrote:

As far as I’m concerned, the whole section of Washington/Jefferson from 7th Street to 24th Street, should have condemnation proceedings lodged against it and removed from any semblence of bikeability in the metro area. The whole section is an abortion in my opinion and should be ripped out and put together correctly (as if that would actually happen), and the all seeing, all knowing engineers that “engineered” this project should be reprimanded and sent for re-education as to what constitutes Bicycle Friendly facilities. I realize that there are some that did not approve of this finished project, but they are in the minority and constitute little political clout. In the meantime, I and many others will avoid the downtown area on our bikes until this exercise in stupidity is rectified! Bob.

— On Tue, 12/30/08, Mike Cynecki wrote:

> Subject: Re: 9th St & Jefferson St Bike Lane configuration.
> To: geneh@cazbike.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 2008, 12:15 PM
> Gene – You make a good point and we have not forgotten about
> this issue .
> . . or the lack of bike detection along the frontage road at some of the
> signals. Richard Moeur had suggested we retain a good bike consultant to
> look at this issue and others along the LRT line and give
> us some recommendations. However, with our horrible budget
> situation, it takes away our ability to react quickly. One of the things we
> are working on is getting as-built paint plans to see exactly what was
> installed, and we will be seeking suggestions for alternate designs.
> Richard suggested that
> we designate a shared vehicle/bike frontage road for about 500 feet east
> of 9th St before designating the right side for bicyclists to allow for a
> larger merge area.
>
> I am a bit hesitant to install yet another bike box when we just asked the
> Feds permission (after the fact) to experiment with the three we already
> installed. However, it will still remain an option. Bike boxes are
> supposed to be at traffic signals. It may also be wise to extend the
> bike lane for a block and then (without a bike box) have the conversion
> over to the right side of the frontage road.
>
> Mike Cynecki
> Traffic Engineering Supervisor
> Street Transp. Dept.
>
> All:
>
> Since the Bike Lane issue vis-a`-vis Light Rail tracks and motor vehicle
> lanes has been an issue, one aspect has been lost. Lots has been said
> about the Bike Boxes now in place at 7th & 24th Streets at Washington &
> Jefferson Streets. This discussion has involved the proper use and
> designation of a bike box and the related knowledge and skills of
> motorists and cyclists alike, along with what education of each might
> actually occur. However, an actual safety issue exists at 9th St.
>
> Please see the attached diagram. A cyclist following the eastbound bike
> lane approaches this intersection on the far-left (north side of
> Jefferson). The bike lane continues beyond 9th St. adjacent to the
> light-rail tracks, as part of the business access / bike lanes.
> Unfortunately this involves another crossover of bicycle and motor vehicle
> paths. The crossover occurs within the intersection. Since a car
> approaching in the left m-v lane MAY proceed straight (and will not be
> signaling), the cyclist is risking a rear-end collision when attempting to
> cross to the continuing bike lane.
>
> During the on-site ride several weeks ago, traffic engineers that are also
> cyclists recognized that the decision time for a cyclist would actually
> occur before the car has visually indicated a turn or straight maneuver.
> Not a good situation should the cyclist guess wrong, even after using the
> skills we teach in our classes.
>
> Fortunately, I have a simple solution. That is, continue the bike lane on
> the far-left of the business access lane for another block to the east.
> Then provide a bike box for the cyclist to cross over when there is no
> ambiguity of what a motor vehicle would be doing.
>
> Gene


Bikes on light rail

… light-rail trains contain hooks on the ceiling inside the cars. Bikers must hang their bikes vertically inside a car rather than load their bikes on the front exterior the way they do on a bus.

Rich Rumer, chairman of the Arizona Coalition of Bicyclists, said most cyclists he has talked to like the idea of bringing their bikes on the train. “The bike community as a whole is excited about it because it’s an intermodal thing, and that should be the goal,” he said.

Loading bike on train requires feat of strengh, The Arizona Republic, Dec 27, 2008