Letter: Tempe to consider updating local ordinance for bicyclist right-of-way
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 4:39:16 PM
To: CM – Council Communicator
Subject: Sec. 7-52(d)
I write this both as a cyclist who cycles in Tempe daily, and as president of Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists.
I understand that in the wake of the tragic death of cyclist Xiaoying Wen in a crosswalk there has been additional scrutiny of Tempe’s city code:
Sec. 7-52. Riding on sidewalks or bicycle lanes.…(d) Any person riding a bicycle on a bikeway, sidewalk or bicycle path that is about to enter or cross a roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic on such roadway.(quoted here without the ebike updates)
http://www.cazbike.org/
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Keating, Randy <Randy_Keating@tempe.gov> wrote:
Hi Ed,
At the last work study session, I requested staff bring back the bike codes for review. It’s my intention to change this code so that cars would need to yield to bicyclists in the crosswalk, not the other way around.
Thanks,
Randy
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Ed Beighe <edb@cazbike.org> wrote:
Thanks for your attention to this issue.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Keating, Randy <Randy_Keating@tempe.gov> wrote:
Hi Ed,
Sorry for the delay, but I have an incredibly busy day yesterday. I understand you point about the bikeways and that will be something we look at as well. Thanks for the very helpful information.
Have a good day,
Randy
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Keating, Randy <Randy_Keating@tempe.gov> wrote:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your patience on this. I just met with city staff and PD, and we believe there are things that can be done to improve bike safety in Tempe, specifically looking at section 7-52 as well as other avenues. I will be forming a working group at the August 2nd Work Study Session to work with city staff and the transportation commission to come up with recommendations to take to council. As a stakeholder, I will be sure you are invited to those working group meetings if you are interested in participating.
Thanks,
Randy
A LOT OF TIME GOES BY; A WORKING GROUP DEVELOPS EXTENSIVE CHANGES TO CHAPTERS 7 and 19 (bicycles, and traffic, respectively ) ; over time the focus of the w.g. becomes how to handle e-scooters
Date: Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:23 PM
Subject: Bicycle Ordinance
To: CM – Council Communicator <CouncilCommunicator@tempe.gov
It blurs the established distinction in ARS (Arizona Revised Statutes) between a ‘vehicle’ and a ‘device’. A bicycle, as well as an electric bike, electric miniature/standup scooters, and things like skateboards, roller skates, wagons are all NOT vehicles; yet the ordinance makes reference to “Human/Non-human Powered Vehicles”. This can cause unexpected, negative side-effects for users of these devices. Your code should be consistent with ARS.It also contains a new, and complex, section applying to persons on a bicycle which appears to be an attempt to mimic a state statute which already applies all bicyclists (and ebicyclists, and escooterists). In your version, there are several unexplained language differences; again a source of possible confusion, and mis-interpretation. Your code should not contain codes if their only purpose is to duplicate state statute — you should strike this complex section in its entirety and simply extend rights and duties of bicyclists under state law to whomever you feel.We are also disappointed that the ordinance fails to address how bicyclists are expected to enter crosswalks (where riding on the sidewalk is permitted) other than to say they “shall yield to all traffic”.
There are a number of drafting issues, typographical errors, “hanging” definitions, out of date definitions, and so forth; Please see a list at
This letter (follow link to read) was submitted by Eric Post to Tempe City Council 6/20/2019 regarding proposed changes pending at the 6/27 council meeting.
Any confusion regarding right of way is unacceptable. I propose a physical standard, reflecting the speed and mass of the vehicle or pedestrian. All larger and faster vehicles must yield to smaller and slower vehicles or pedestrians, unless the intersection is controlled by a sign or a signal light. Larger and faster vehicles may pass only if a minimum space between themselves and the slower, smaller vehicle or pedestrian is maintained. Regardless of precedent law, the larger and faster vehicle or person must be held liable in case of accident.
Review of this ordinance is on the agenda of the 4/10/2018 Tempe Transportation Commission Agenda.
There is a staff report (Item 4) in the meeting packet.
http://www.tempe.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=62687
The staff report contacts are Shelly Seyler, Deputy Public Works Director Shelly_seyler@tempe.gov, and Julian Dresang, City Traffic Engineer Julian_dresang@tempe.gov
0) This is more of an aside — in the powerpoint version; 28-815A, Arizona’s AFRAP (as-far-right-as-practicable) is quoted out of context, it leave the impression bicyclists must always stay to the far right; without exception. Mis-understanding of this law is the root of bicyclist harassment by motorists. By quoting ot of context, you are reinforcing these prejudicial views and spreding mis-information.
AND, the law seems to me to have NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, does it?
1) I have nothing against Julian or Shelly but I would have prefered to see this information authored by the City Attorney’s office.
2) The staff report does not address the issues raised above relating to bicyclists in the roadway (the “bikeway” clause).
(see https://www.cazbike.org/letter-tempe-to-consider-updating-local-ordinance-for-bicyclist-right-of-way/ for email exchange between myself and Councilman Keating).
These are critical issues to bicyclists using Tempe’s roads because many of Tempe’s roads appear to fit the defintion of a bikeway.
3) The report states (claims?) that Phoenix as well as Mesa and Scottsdale require that “Upon entering roadway, bicyclist
must yield the ROW to all vehicles approaching”
In reviewing Phoenix ordinances, I don’t believe this to be the case (I didn’t specifically look again at mesa and Scottsdale) — can you provide me with the ordinance number you are referring to?
I believe you may be misconstruing the code about emerging from an alley or driveway, etc; and does NOT apply to crosswalks.
PCC 36-110 Yielding right-of-way.
The operator of a bicycle emerging from an alley, driveway, or building shall, upon approaching a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across such alley, driveway, or building exit, yield the right-of-way to all pedestrians approaching on said sidewalk or sidewalk area, and upon entering the roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on said roadway.
4) No analysis of bikes at crosswalks in Arizona could possibly be complete without an understanding of the Arizona Supreme Court decision on Maxwell, which by the way occurred in Mesa.
https://azbikelaw.org/sidewalk-cycling-in-arizona/
Regards,
Ed Beighe
President, Coalition of Arizona Bicyclists
a side note: this is same packet that has staff report (Item 6) on proposed changes to several speed limits within City of Tempe (speed limit changes, per city law, require hearings and an ordinance change)