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

"Luigi de Guzman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:08:49 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:

The whole Phoenix code, in searchable form, is he

http://livepublish.municode.com/2/lp...tmain-nf-hitli
st.htm&2.0
(this specific link is the result of a search on "sidewalk")

Oh, and my previous post may have been a bit snippy.

I certainly agree with those who point out that, legal or not, it is
imprudent for a bicyclist to ride on the sidewalk in the "wrong"
direction
at a high rate of speed.

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?

Phoenix code sounds more like your second meaning, as least as I interpret
this part:

"Whenever any person is riding a bicycle upon a sidewalk he shall yield the
right-of-way to any pedestrian.


(Code 1962, § 37-25.05) "

"Claire Petersky" wrote:

"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.

One of my regular routes includes a short section where I can avoid
crossing a busy four lane road twice (and that in a VERY odd and
confusing intersection). I sometimes take the option of taking the
sidewalk for the width of the intersection (about 100 yards/meters),
but I keep in mind that I am riding in a manner that will prevent many
people from seeing me (approaching most traffic from the wrong side).
I yield to anything and everything when I'm doing this, and keep my
speed down to the point where I can stop "no matter what".

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.

First, banging on car hoods, now "knocking heads". ;-) Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Phoenix is a large city, and isn't as bad as most I've lived in (in
terms of cycling anyway). The east valley (Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale,
Gilbert) actually has quite a workable system of bike facilities
including wide, clearly marked dedicated bike lanes (not "paths") on
about half the major roads. And FWIW, the motorists (in the Phoenix
east valley) seem to be more cognizant of cyclists - but apparently
agree with Claire on the "cluelessness" of the cyclists, as most will
act as if they expect me to run stop signs / traffic lights, etc. -
and are as a result almost annoyingly acommodating. Most, that is -
there are jerks here as well.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

"Eric S. Sande" writes:

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.

Whether it is legal or not varies from place to place. In the town
I live in, you can ride a bicycle on the sidewalks everywhere except
for two small business districts. On a few streets, you can use
the sidewalk, but are required to ride in the same direction as
traffic (according to posted signs.)

In this town, many of the streets where you can ride a bicycle on the
sidewalk are residential streets with little traffic, with the
sidewalk usage consisting primarily of small children riding up and
down the sidewalk in front of their homes, without ever crossing an
intersection.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 04:28:20 -0800, 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???

Typically, sidewalk riding is covered by city statutes, although there is
some general stuff statewide. I get error messages at the links to the
Arizona laws, unfortunately. You might have better luck; others have
posted the URLs. Typically central business districts prevent riding on
sidewalks, but smaller towns and suburban areas don't. It is, however, a
bad idea to ride on a sidewalk. There are exceptions, but they are rare.

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.

Others have assumed that the vehicle was sitting still, blocking the
sidewalk. You make it seem as if you, I mean, the vehicle, was crossing
the sidewalk.

If the vehicle was stationary, then the cyclist, as in any traffic
situation, is obligated to not hit it. Blocking a lane may be obstructing
right-of-way, but there is not much you, I mean, the driver, can do about
yielding right-of-way at that point. If the sidewalk was clear when you
entered it, you have a right to proceed safely across. If that means you
have to stop, the safe crossing of the intersection outweighs the blocking
of the lane.

If the car was moving, then the driver has an obligation to not hit
pedestrians. They would have right-of-way in these circumstances,
I*believe. But a cyclist should be treated as a vehicle, and is in most
states. As such, what was mentioned earlier about smaller road/larger
road may or may not apply, since you are talking about a driveway versus a
sidewalk, and it is debatable which is "larger".

Frankly, any cyclist riding on a sidewalk has to be an idiot to not worry
about each and every driveway. That is one reason why it is a bad idea to
ride on a sidewalk in the first place. They are, much of the time,
as dangerous as wrong-way cyclists on streets, as your scenerio described.
Move the rider to the street, closest to the sidewalk, and he becomes a
wrong-way rider. That is perhaps the most dangerous place to ride, for
the reasons you mention. You can't see him, you have to look the other
way to watch for traffic, and the rider suddenly appears under your tire.

Good luck convincing the guy.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand mathematics.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 16:53:44 -0500, Luigi de Guzman
wrote in message
:

SMIDSY?
"sorry, mate I didn't see you?"

Correct.

In any event, Guy, the cyclist was counterflow and moving fast on the
footpath. Nobody looks for anything there. A few of these SMIDSY
incidents and I was a confirmed vehicular cyclist.

No arguments there - but consider the relative likelihood of (a) a
cyclist failing to see a stationary car and T-boning it and (b) a car
driver failing to see a cyclist and moving into its path. On balance
of probabilities (b) gets it every time, being the basis of a fair
proportion of bike crashes.

Moral: don't ride on the footway.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:19:58 +0100, Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
wrote in message
:

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.

Unless, for example, the bike rams you because you move into its path
having failed to see it.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Mark Hickey" wrote in message
...
"Claire Petersky" wrote:

"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.

One of my regular routes includes a short section where I can avoid
crossing a busy four lane road twice (and that in a VERY odd and
confusing intersection). I sometimes take the option of taking the
sidewalk for the width of the intersection (about 100 yards/meters),
but I keep in mind that I am riding in a manner that will prevent many
people from seeing me (approaching most traffic from the wrong side).
I yield to anything and everything when I'm doing this, and keep my
speed down to the point where I can stop "no matter what".

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.

First, banging on car hoods, now "knocking heads". ;-) Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Phoenix is a large city, and isn't as bad as most I've lived in (in
terms of cycling anyway). The east valley (Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale,
Gilbert) actually has quite a workable system of bike facilities
including wide, clearly marked dedicated bike lanes (not "paths") on
about half the major roads. And FWIW, the motorists (in the Phoenix
east valley) seem to be more cognizant of cyclists - but apparently
agree with Claire on the "cluelessness" of the cyclists, as most will
act as if they expect me to run stop signs / traffic lights, etc. -
and are as a result almost annoyingly acommodating. Most, that is -
there are jerks here as well.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame


I'm in Tempe. The city puts bike lanes on low traffic side streets where
they're not need tthem to begin with. The majority of the major roads do not
have bike lanes and has traffic speeds of 45 - 55MPH except during
'rush' hour.

If I was just out for a joy ride, then yes, there are bike routes I can
travel.
But I use a bicycle as a means of transportation to actually go to places.
Currently I get at least 2 persistant car honkers and about 1 person yelling
out their window per mile.

The city puts up signs that say ' Bicycle Friendly Community', but that
certainly
doesn't refer to the people.

"Bobby" wrote:

"Mark Hickey" wrote

Phoenix is a large city, and isn't as bad as most I've lived in (in
terms of cycling anyway). The east valley (Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale,
Gilbert) actually has quite a workable system of bike facilities
including wide, clearly marked dedicated bike lanes (not "paths") on
about half the major roads. And FWIW, the motorists (in the Phoenix
east valley) seem to be more cognizant of cyclists - but apparently
agree with Claire on the "cluelessness" of the cyclists, as most will
act as if they expect me to run stop signs / traffic lights, etc. -
and are as a result almost annoyingly acommodating. Most, that is -
there are jerks here as well.

I'm in Tempe. The city puts bike lanes on low traffic side streets where
they're not need tthem to begin with. The majority of the major roads do not
have bike lanes and has traffic speeds of 45 - 55MPH except during
'rush' hour.

OK, I say "about half" and you say "the majority do not"...

If I was just out for a joy ride, then yes, there are bike routes I can
travel.
But I use a bicycle as a means of transportation to actually go to places.

I do too - to the tune of 5-7,000 miles per year. The majority of it
is on bike lanes. I guess you must live in a part of the Tempe I've
never ridden in (though I didn't realize there were any).

Currently I get at least 2 persistant car honkers and about 1 person yelling
out their window per mile.

Now I KNOW you are riding in a part of Tempe I've never ridden in. I
can't remember the last time this happened to me. I'd say this
happens to me once every four to six months.

The city puts up signs that say ' Bicycle Friendly Community', but that
certainly
doesn't refer to the people.

Same planet, different world.

If the rest of you would like to find how the Phoenix area compares to
where YOU live in terms of planning for bicycles, check out their
excellent online document at:
http://www.mcdot.maricopa.gov/bicycl...n/bikeplan.PDF

If you'd like to see how "sparse" the bike lanes/paths/routes are
check out the map on page 22 (the dark lines are all bike
lanes/paths/routes").

I've lived in a lot of places, and other than Beijing, the Phoenix
east valley has the best bike facilities. I'm sure there are some out
there that are better... but considering the cost of building the bike
lanes (averages well over $100K per mile), I'm surprised there are as
many as there are.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 22:08:49 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:

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

I walk about eight blocks each way in downtown DC. The ones that block
open sight intersections, especially crosswalks, irritate me. OTOH,
alleys opening into places like Q street, I let it go - better they
block the sidewalk for a moment than get killed entering the
intersection blind.

I borrowed a car from my brother long ago - some long hooded Ford from
my brother (some Torino deriviative - Elite maybe?). I was coming out
of an alley in downtown Wichita and found it literally impossible to
see traffic without putting the front of the car into the roadway (by
a small bit). Was rather glad to get back to my Fiat 124.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 00:19:58 +0100, Dalibor Bauernfrajnd
wrote:

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.

That would probably be the first decider - even if riding on the
sidewalk is illegal. If the bicycle is in the grill, it would be on
the motorist to prove whether or not the cyclist was moving too fast
to be avoided; cyclist wedged in door, the cyclist starts at the
disadvantage.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...