Phoenix, Az. Bicycle on Sidewalk Laws-NEED HELP!

But now what I want to know is whether or not there is a difference
between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the sidewalk, legally-speaking.

Mostly if you are riding a bicycle you are required to yield to sll
pedestrian traffic regardless of situation.

That may not be applicable in Montana but it applies in DC.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

rec.bicycles.soc is the closest newsgroup

As I recall, case law is weighing in against cyclists claiming to be
pedestrians but going 3 - 6 times faster, even on crosswalks. I doubt you
could hold a driver liable if someone entered the street any faster than
jogging speed, regardless of mode of conveyance.

Given cyclists are considered vehicle operators, they would be given the
least leeway.

Some people are just jerks and think they have the right to tell the whole
world to get out of their way.


"progunner" wrote in message
m...
OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this topic, or if this
is even on topic, so I cross posted to another ng. hoping to get a
response. (So, please forgive me if I am ot)
----------
I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles on sidewalks
in Phoenix, Arizona.

Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
------------
The scenario goes something like this:

A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot driving
towards an exit.

Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the vehicles
leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a stop sign, usually there
is not.

A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile shows that
there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so the driver is
concentrating on the traffic to his/her left, looking for an opening
in the traffic to turn onto the roadway.

Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on the passenger
side, (right to left)
and moving much faster than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost
rams the
passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the driver of
the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on the sidewalk.

Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he is in the
right, and that the driver of the automobile is supposed to yield to
the bicyclist crossing the exit path of the automobile.

If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you please
help? Possibly a url or ???

Many thanks in advance for your help.

James

In article , progunner says...
If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you please
help? Possibly a url or ???

Don't know the exact laws there, but, no matter if he is allowed to be there,
if you hit a bicycle with your car, it's gonna be your fault. Also, if a bike
rams you, it's his fault. Then everything else.

--
"There's a fine line between an attitude problem and thinking clearly."
d.B. ICQ: 138579247

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:00:09 -0500, "Eric S. Sande"
wrote:

But now what I want to know is whether or not there is a difference
between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the sidewalk, legally-speaking.

Mostly if you are riding a bicycle you are required to yield to sll
pedestrian traffic regardless of situation.

But is a cyclist on the sidewalk a *pedestrian* that must be yielded
to?

I'm honestly quite confused on the issue.


That may not be applicable in Montana but it applies in DC.

Especially in the designated "central business district" where
bicycles are positively prohibited from using the sidewalks.

-Luigi

progunner wrote:

OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this topic, or if this
is even on topic, so I cross posted to another ng. hoping to get a
response. (So, please forgive me if I am ot)
----------
I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles on sidewalks
in Phoenix, Arizona.

Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
------------
The scenario goes something like this:

A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot driving
towards an exit.

Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the vehicles
leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a stop sign, usually there
is not.

A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile shows that
there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so the driver is
concentrating on the traffic to his/her left, looking for an opening
in the traffic to turn onto the roadway.

Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on the passenger
side, (right to left)
and moving much faster than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost
rams the
passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the driver of
the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on the sidewalk.

Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he is in the
right, and that the driver of the automobile is supposed to yield to
the bicyclist crossing the exit path of the automobile.

If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you please
help? Possibly a url or ???

I don't know how the law sees this in AZ, but riding like this -- against the
flow of traffic, and on the sidewalk -- is almost begging to be hit.

Matt O.

Luigi de Guzman writes:

In my pedestrian mode, I'm really tired of people blocking the sidewalks.

Agreed. But now what I want to know is whether or not there is a
difference between a cyclist and a pedestrian on the sidewalk,
legally-speaking. If a cyclist on the sidewalk is considered a
pedestrian moving really really fast, that's one thing. If the
cyclist is considered a vehicle operator who is incidentally permitted
to operate on the sidewalk (where other vehicles are not permitted),
then that's qutie another, isn't it?

The rules in Calfornia are that pedestrians have the right of way on
sidewalks and at uncontrolled intersections (otherwise they have to
obey traffic lights.) But, there is also a law that says that
pedestrians cannot leave the sidewalk unless it is reasonably safe to
do that. I.e., you can't just jump out from behind a bush in front of
a car and expect the driver to stop with nearly no warning. The driver
must, however stop to let you go if he can do that without slamming on
the brakes.

Also, bicycles in California have all the rights and resonsibilities
as vehicles. Aside from some special cases (registration, etc.), a
bicycle is in fact treated as a vehicle (but not a motor vehicle.)

Most states do something similar.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on the passenger
side, (right to left)
and moving much faster than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost
rams the
passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the driver of
the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on the sidewalk.

Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he is in the
right, and that the driver of the automobile is supposed to yield to
the bicyclist crossing the exit path of the automobile.

Regardless of the actual rule of law, the bicyclist was operating his
"vehicle" in an extremely unsafe manner for one reason- lack of predictable
behaviour. It is not the norm to expect a cyclist coming towards you at
high speed from the "wrong" direction on a sidewalk. Darwin comes into play
here; any cyclist that thinks doing so is a good idea is likely to come upon
many potential collisions.

In general (but not always the case), the rule of law supports and
encourages predictable behaviour, and for very good reason. The more random
our roadways, the more dangerous they are.

So, to me, even if the cyclist was acting legally, he's still an idiot
waiting to be killed. I wouldn't give him much thought, except to recognize
that there might be others out there like him, and that you've now got one
more thing that you should be paying attention to a bit more closely than
before.

--Mike--
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com

"progunner" wrote in message
m...
OK, I'm not sure if I have the correct ng for this topic, or if this
is even on topic, so I cross posted to another ng. hoping to get a
response. (So, please forgive me if I am ot)
----------
I need clarification about bicycle riders riding bicycles on sidewalks
in Phoenix, Arizona.

Is this covered by state, county or city statutes???
------------
The scenario goes something like this:

A driver of an automobile is in a supermarket parking lot driving
towards an exit.

Usually, there is a sidewalk crossing the exit path of the vehicles
leaving the parking lot. Sometimes there is a stop sign, usually there
is not.

A quick check to the right by the driver of the automobile shows that
there are no pedestrians on the sidewalk, so the driver is
concentrating on the traffic to his/her left, looking for an opening
in the traffic to turn onto the roadway.

Out of nowhere, a bicyclist [approaching the vehicle on the passenger
side, (right to left)
and moving much faster than a walking or jogging pedestrian] almost
rams the
passenger side of the vehicle, and starts swearing at the driver of
the vehicle for not yielding to the bicyclist on the sidewalk.

Apparently the bicyclist believes (passionately) that he is in the
right, and that the driver of the automobile is supposed to yield to
the bicyclist crossing the exit path of the automobile.

If anyone is aware of the laws the Phoenix area, would you please
help? Possibly a url or ???

Many thanks in advance for your help.

James

"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" wrote
in message . com...

So, to me, even if the cyclist was acting legally, he's still an idiot
waiting to be killed.

I agree with Mike. It is inherently unsafe to be riding the wrong way on the
sidewalk. This behavior is only excusable for children using their bikes as
toys under adult supervision; or cyclists at extremely low rate of speeds,
i.e., at a walking pace, or perhaps "Fred Flintstoning" along. When I come
out of the transit station downtown, I scootle in this fashion for a half
block to get to the street, for example.

Then again, I've spent some time recently in Phoenix, my impression is that
the city seems to suffer from an extremely car-centric design and behavior,
and totally clueless cyclists. You just want to knock everyone's heads
together and put some sense in their brains.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
Email me the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)

But is a cyclist on the sidewalk a *pedestrian* that must be yielded
to?

A good hair splitting queston. In my opinion, no.

The cyclist wouldn't have been on the sidewalk in the first place,
it was illegal.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------
in.edu__________

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 23:40:25 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" wrote:
Regardless of the actual rule of law, the bicyclist was operating his
"vehicle" in an extremely unsafe manner for one reason- lack of predictable
behaviour. It is not the norm to expect a cyclist coming towards you at
high speed from the "wrong" direction on a sidewalk. Darwin comes into play
here; any cyclist that thinks doing so is a good idea is likely to come upon
many potential collisions.

Additionally, this is all at a blind corner (that's the impression
that I got, anyway).
--
Rick Onanian