Tag: bikelaw

The need for better law enforcement training

Destination positioning is a central and foundational concept of bicycle traffic safety. Moving away from the far right is at times not just legal and not just safer for a bicyclist, but is at the same time courteous to drivers behind. While most law enforcement officers know the rules and do the right thing, there are times where better training is necessary. Read here about one bicyclist in Phoenix recently who was unfairly ticketed for not being “far to the right” while waiting at a red light, and the great lengths he had to go to  get justice.

If you believe you have been unfairly ticketed by a police officer, although the Coalition cannot represent you, we would like to know about it. We would also encourage all bicyclists to view the law enforcement training that was put together jointly by the Coalition and Glendale Police Department; and encourage your own local police force to provide specific training to their officers on bicycle traffic safety and law enforcement.

List of Cell Phone related driving restrictions

THIS LIST IS DRAMATICALLY OUT OF DATE; as of April 18, 2019 there are said to be twenty seven local laws(!) on the subject. On that date, the Arizona legislature finally passed a general purpose “handheld ban”.

Although the state of Arizona has no specific restrictions on operating a cell phone while driving, several cities and counties have enacted various restrictions on use of cell phones on drivers:

 

City or County Year Type of restriction more info
Phoenix 2007 Text Ban more info
Tucson 2012 Text Ban more info
Coconino 2014 Text and Talk (handheld) ban more info
Flagstaff 2014 Text Ban more info
Tempe 2015 drivers may not “hold” any mobile electronic device “if such driving constitutes a risk to that person or others”. more info
Pima 2016 Text and Talk (handheld) ban more info
Oro Valley 2017 Text and Talk (handheld) ban more info
Clifton 2017 Text and Talk (handheld) ban more info
Yavapai 2018 handheld ban news item ,
Ord 2018-2
Surprise 2018 handheld ban news item
Glendale 2019 handheld ban. news item
. . . .

 

(google docs table)

School bus drivers

School bus drivers in Arizona are prohibited altogether from using cell phones and related device when operating the bus, via an Arizona Administrative Code:

AAC R13-13-104(D)(28) Except as provided in subsection (D)(27), a school bus driver shall not use audio headsets, earphones, earplugs, Bluetooth devices, cellular phones, personal digital assistants, or other interactive wireless devices, whether or not hands-free, when the school bus is in operation.

Interstate Truck and Bus Drivers

Additionally, The US Department of Transportation issued a final rule in 2011 banning the use of hand-held cell phones by interstate truck and bus drivers while the vehicles are in operation.

Statewide Legislation, 53rd 1st Regular Session

The following bills have been introduced in the Spring 2017 (53rd 1st Regular) Session, courtesy of Look! Save a Life / Arizona:

***Sponsored Bills Prohibiting Texting/Driving & Protecting Vulnerable Road Users***

Sponsor: Senator Karen Fann
SB 1080 – teenage drivers; communication devices prohibited
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68707…
Bans cell phone use while driving for novice drivers in the first six months of their license. This is the only bill on the topic being pushed by AAA.
Easily passed Senate. Being held as of mid-April in House by Rules committee chairman Lovas, see comment below for update.

I’m concerned that this is worse than nothing. In effect, it says to new teen drivers (and everyone else!) that once they turn 16-1/2, driving while texting is A-OK. I can just imagine snapchat-while-driving parties to celebrate a 16-1/2 birthday, much like what happens with drinking on a 21st birthday. In this form, I would have to be opposed. Can only work in tandem with a statewide ban like 1087 or 1135 in place simultaneously.

Sponsor: Senator John Kavanagh

SB 1049 – text messaging while driving; prohibition
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68522…
A statewide texting ban, but does not ban reading facebook, snapchat, texts, emails, or anything else on your smartphone while driving. Also does not ban inputting visual messages. Would not have stopped Officer Huffman from being killed. Reading is as dangerous as writing in studies. This needs to be amended to ban reading as well.

Sponsor: Senator Steve Farley
SB 1135- Handheld communications devices; driving; prohibition
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68884…
Statewide hands-free only law, like the law recently enacted in Oro Valley, AZ; current law in 18 states.

Sponsor: Senator Steve Farley
SB 1086 – Sentencing; aggravating factor; texting
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68719…
Just like if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you get more jail time, this allows judges to add jail time for the use of a cellphone while driving in the injury or death caused by a vehicle crash.

Sponsor: Senator Steve Farley
SB 1087 – Wireless communication device; driving; prohibition
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68720…
Statewide ban on the use of a handheld device to read or write a written or visual message while driving.

Sponsor: Senator Steve Farley
SB 1088 – Vehicles; collisions; injury; texting; penalty
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68721…
Allows judges to suspend a driver license if the driver has killed or injured someone while using a cellphone and driving.

Sponsor: Senator Steve Farley
SB 1085 – Vulnerable users of public ways
https://apps.azleg.gov/BillStatus/BillOverview/68718…
Protects bicyclists, pedestrians, construction workers, first responders, and disabled people who are adjacent to or using a roadway from vehicular assault in a number of ways; establishes that throwing objects at vulnerable users or forcing them off the road are crimes.
*
*
*
Here is the link to both the House (60 Members) and the Senate (30 Members). It lists each elected officials email prefix and then add “@azleg.gov” but it shows everyone in each Chamber for the 2017 Legislative Session.

New list for the Senate:
http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster/?body=S
New list for the House:
http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster/?body=H

How to find your district:
http://azredistricting.org/districtlocator/

.

Pima County Enacts Texting Ban

Pima county follows action by the cities of Phoenix, and Tucson (see this article for more about Tucson), and Flagstaff as well as Coconino County, with various bans on electronic communications while driving. The state legislature has repeatedly failed to act regarding limits on use of electronic devices while driving.

Sheriff Chris Nanos worked diligently with the Pima County Government Board of Supervisors to construct a new ordinance that prohibits texting and driving in Pima County. On May 17, 2016, the ordinance was approved. It became effective on June 16th, 2016.

According to this ordinance (10.34.020): A person may not, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway, manually manipulate a handheld electronic device for any purpose other than to initiate, receive, or engage in voice communication. It is a civil traffic offense to violate this ordinance. — see more

Click here for ordinance 10.34.020

 

Here is a text copy of the full ordinance:

ORDINANCE NO. 2016- 31

AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RELATING TO THE USE OF HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE. (All Districts)

The Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona, finds that:

1. The Pima County Board of Supervisors has the authority under Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 11-251(4) to lay out, maintain, control, and manage public roads, ferries, and bridges within the County; under A.R.S. § 11-251(17) to adopt provisions necessary to preserve the health of the County; and under A.R.S. § 11- 251 (31) to make and enforce all local, police, sanitary, and other regulations not in conflict with the general laws.

2. The Pima County Board of Supervisors has authority under A.R.S. § 28-626(8) and A.R.S. § 11-251.05 to adopt, by ordinance, additional traffic regulations on Pima County highways that are not in conflict with A.R.S. Title 28, Chapters 3, 4, or 5.

3. The use of handheld electronic devices while operating motor vehicles has increased in recent years and causes distracted driving, which has been shown to increase the risk of motor-vehicle crashes.

4. The Arizona Legislature, to date, has not enacted legislation directly regulating the use of handheld electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle.

5. Regulation of the use of handheld electronic while operating a motor vehicle will protect the public health and safety by promoting and encouraging safe driving on Pima County highways.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA:

Section 1. Title 10 of the Pima County Code is amended to add new chapter 10.34 to read as follows:

Chapter 10.34 USE OF HANDHELD ELECTRONIC DEVICES WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE

10.34.010 Purpose and intent.

The purpose and intent of this ordinance is to promote public safety in Pima County by restricting the use of hand held electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle on Pima County highways.

10.34.020 Prohibited conduct.

A person may not, while driving a motor vehicle on a highway, manually manipulate a handheld electronic device for any purpose other than to initiate, receive, or engage in voice communication. For purposes of this section, “drive” and “motor vehicle” have the same meaning as those terms are given in Arizona Revised Statutes Title 28, Chapter 1.

10.34.030 Exemptions.

Section 10.34.020 does not apply to any of the following: 1. Use of handheld electronic devices by authorized law enforcement or emergency personnel in the performance of official duties. 2. A person driving a school bus or transit vehicle that is subject to Arizona or United States Department of Transportation regulations. 3. Use of a hand held electronic device on property that is not open to vehicular travel by the general public. 4. Use of a handheld electronic device while a motor vehicle is stationary.

10.34.040 Classification and penalty.

A. A violation of Section 10.34.020 is civil traffic violation. B. A peace officer may stop and issue a citation to a person operating a motor vehicle on a highway if the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Section 10.34.020 has occurred. C. A person who violates Section 10.34.020 and is not involved in a motor vehicle crash is subject to a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00), plus any other penalty assessments authorized by law. D. A person who violates Section 10.34.020 and is involved in a motor vehicle accident is subject to a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00), plus any other penalty assessments authorized by law.

10.34.050 Severability.

If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any provision of this chapter, is invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this chapter. The provisions of this chapter are severable.

Section 2. The various County officers and employees are authorized and directed to perform all acts necessary or desirable to give effect to this ordinance.

Section 3. This ordinance is effective 30 days after the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors, Pima County, Arizona, this 17th day of May , 2016. ~

 

Overtaking Bicycles and Arizona’s Three Foot law

this is the next in an occasional series on laws governing bicycle use in Arizona

In the last installment, we noted that a bicyclist is subject to the rights and responsibilities of a “driver of a vehicle”, as well as some special rules which apply specifically to bicyclists; and that there were important legal distinctions between the driver of a motor vehicle and a bicyclist. Today we examine a special responsibility applicable only to the driver of a motor vehicle — the duty to overtake a bicyclist proceeding in the same direction not only safely, but with a minimum of three feet of clearance.

The general rule for a driver overtaking another vehicle is as follows:

§28-723. Overtaking a vehicle on the left
The following rules govern the overtaking and passing of vehicles proceeding in the same direction:
1. The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass to the left of the vehicle at a safe distance and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle…

 

A special rule was created by bicyclist advocates in 2000, HB2625, to bring attention to overtaking, allow for increased fines for violators, and to provide for additional educational opportunities. The rule applies only to the driver of a motor vehicle when overtaking a bicyclist, the new statute reads, in full:

§28-735. 28-735. Overtaking bicycles; civil penalties
A. When 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.
B. If a person violates this section and the violation results in a collision causing:
1. Serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars.
2. Death to another person, the violator is subject to a civil penalty of up to one thousand dollars.
C. Subsection B of this section does not apply to a bicyclist who is injured in a vehicular traffic lane when a designated bicycle lane or path is present and passable.

 

Note that the minimum safe distance of not less than three feet, subsection A, applies on all streets in Arizona. Streets come in a wide variety of configurations, most streets are divided into lanes, but others are not, some have shoulders, or no shoulders, paved or unpaved, some have designated bicycle lanes, many do not. The minimum safe distance of not less than three feet applies on all streets in all configurations regardless of the position of the bicycle to be overtaken.

R4-11 BMUFL sign with Change Lanes to Pass placard

On many streets with lanes, the lane is not wide enough to safely share side-by-side with a vehicle and the bicycle. Drivers of vehicles in this situation will need to change lanes, at least partially, in order to pass safely and legally. Since the adjacent lane must be clear to move even partially into it, the Coalition encourages drivers to make a full lane change when passing, the same as when passing any other vehicle.

There is a misunderstanding that the minimum safe distance of not less than three feet does not apply on streets with designated bike lanes; this is simply not true. Subsection C states that the enhanced fines of subsection B do not apply if a bicyclist is struck while riding outside of a “passable” designated bicycle lane. It has no relevance to Subsection A. Subsection A always applies.

Note that Subsection C is presumably poorly drafted in that it does not allow for a bicyclist  who is legally turning left to be “protected” by subsection B — although an overtaking motorist is still, as always, required observe the minimum safe clearances specified in subsection A.

Education

In addition to the minimum three foot passing law, HB2625 also added a new directive to include “those practices and laws relating to bicycles” (underlined below) and as a result ADOT/MVD has added a question relating to bicycles to the Arizona’s drivers license test

§28-3164.B. The (drivers license) examination shall include all of the following:

1. A test of the applicant’s:

(c) Knowledge of safe driving practices and the traffic laws of this state, including those practices and laws relating to bicycles.

.