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

[progunner]

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

[Joel]

just the bike specific stuff- http://azbikeclub.r.m6.net/bikelaw.html

check it with the actual law-
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/title28.htm

It's my understanding that in arizona bicycling on the sidewalk is not
against the law, as a bicycle is not considered a vehicle in that state.
although, operating at a speed faster than the normal users of a
sidewalk could be considered reckless driving on the part of the cyclist.

hope this makes things somewhat blurry...

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 ???
>
> Many thanks in advance for your help.
>
> James

[Luigi de Guzman]

So it looks like you were driving and got into a heated discussion
with that sidewalk cyclist.

For whatever it's worth, I learned rights-of-way and yields with a
simple rule of thumb: traffic on the smaller road always yields to
traffic on a larger road, except where signs or signals say otherwise.

When riding a bicycle on a path or sidewalk, I always consider the
path or sidewalk the smaller road, and therefore am compelled to yield
to traffic on regular roads and highways as well as wider paths that
intersect the path that I'm on (such as driveways and the supermarket
entrance that you describe).

Since the sidewalk or parallel cycle path is *always* the narrower
road for the purposes of determing right-of-way, you can see why it's
such a pain to ride on the sidewalk. At speeds faster than your
average walker or runner (easily attainable by a cyclist, whatever his
condition!), it places the cyclist in a very awkward legal situation:
does he stop at every intersection and driveway, or does he ignore
cross-traffic and ride blithely on? The former is very sound, so far
as the law goes, and quite safe--but inconvenient. You might as well
walk. The latter is convenient but, as you saw, hazardous, as it sets
a cyclist up for all sorts of inevitable confrontations.

This is why I ride in the roadway. If traffic won't yield to me, it
will definitely yield to the car behind me, or the truck behind him,
or the bus behind that.

The cyclist riding wrong-way and on the sidewalk was therefore
probably in the wrong, and operating under the fatal misapprehension
that all traffic should yield to him in whatever circumstance. Had he
collided with your car and done actual damage, you'd probably have a
good case on your hands.

Get on your bike and try it sometime in a quiet neighborhood. You'd
be surprised.

-Luigi

[Bill Z.]

(progunner) writes:


> 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 ???

Laws regarding use of bicycles on sidewalk vary from state to state,
with some states allowing local jurisdictions to regulate the use of
a sidewalk by bicycles. Regardless of the laws regarding that,
however, there is a general obligation to operate a vehicle at a
safe speed, and laws in every state reflect that.

From your description, the bicyclist would have been riding at a speed
unsafe for the conditions (I presume the car was moving very slowly
towards the road as the driver tried to get a better view of traffic.)
I've seen bicyclists (usually teenagers too young to drive) go very
fast on a sidewalk and shoot out into an intersection, with buildings
or other obstructions blocking the view for a driver on a cross
street. With the bicyclist riding against the flow of traffic, the
driver can have well under a second to react, which is far too short
to have any chance of avoiding a collision.

BTW, riding against the flow of traffic on a sidewalk has been
shown to be about 4 times more dangerous than riding on the
road in the same direction as traffic, even with most bicyclists
riding at what would seem to be a reasonable speed.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:21:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message >:

>Laws regarding use of bicycles on sidewalk vary from state to state,
>with some states allowing local jurisdictions to regulate the use of
>a sidewalk by bicycles.

Or maybe the guy is trying to blame the cyclist for a SMIDSY...

--
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

[Bubba@FL]

Hi,
You should contact the Arizona State Department of Transportation. They
would be able to give you an accurate answer to your question about bikes on
sidewalks. Also, contact the City of Pheonix about any local ordinances
governing bikes.

In my state, Florida, riding on sidewalks is allowed but you must give way
to pedestrians. But, in the city I live in there is a local ordinance
prohibiting riding (you can walk them) bicycles on sidewalks in the downtown
district.

As for accident, if that same scenario happened here I would say the cyclist
is at fault for hitting the stationary vehicle.
Here's a couple links to get you in the right direction. Take care -
www.dot.state.az.us
www.ci.phoenix.az.us


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
>

[Luigi de Guzman]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:40:16 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 19:21:09 GMT, (Bill Z.)
>wrote in message >:
>
>>Laws regarding use of bicycles on sidewalk vary from state to state,
>>with some states allowing local jurisdictions to regulate the use of
>>a sidewalk by bicycles.
>
>Or maybe the guy is trying to blame the cyclist for a SMIDSY...

OK, I'll bite.

SMIDSY?

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

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.

-Luigi

[Mike Kruger]

"Luigi de Guzman" > wrote in message
...
>
> For whatever it's worth, I learned rights-of-way and yields with a
> simple rule of thumb: traffic on the smaller road always yields to
> traffic on a larger road, except where signs or signals say otherwise.
>
> When riding a bicycle on a path or sidewalk, I always consider the
> path or sidewalk the smaller road, and therefore am compelled to yield
> to traffic on regular roads and highways as well as wider paths that
> intersect the path that I'm on (such as driveways and the supermarket
> entrance that you describe).
>
That's might be a good rule for survival, but as law it's all wet.
Let's suppose we have a through street with a sidewalk, and several side
streets with stop signs.
Let's suppose we have a pedestrian walking straight, using the sidewalk on
the through street.
A pedestrian on the sidewalk has the right of way over vehicles on the side
streets.
They have to stop for him.
That same pedestrian also has the right of way over traffic turning off the
through street across his path.
The traffic has to wait until he has crossed the street.

What's true for the pedestrian is true for any legal user of the sidewalk
(jogger, baby carriage, wheelchair, Segway, in-line skater, bicyclist,
marching jazz band).

What the original poster was talking about is a legitimate problem from both
sides. The vehicle driver often can't see whether traffic is coming without
pulling far enough forward to block the sidewalk. However, this blocks the
sidewalk from other users who, in fact, have the right of way. This is
particularly irritating when there's no way for the pedestrian to walk
behind the vehicle safely.

Courtesy is the best rule in these circumstances, but shouldn't obscure the
basic principle that it is not legal for a vehicle to block a sidewalk.

[Mike Kruger]

The whole Phoenix code, in searchable form, is here:
http://livepublish.municode.com/2/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=altmain-nf-hitlist.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.

[Luigi de Guzman]

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

>The whole Phoenix code, in searchable form, is here:
>http://livepublish.municode.com/2/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=altmain-nf-hitlist.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?

-Luigi

[Eric S. Sande]

>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"------------------

[Robert Haston]

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

[Dalibor Bauernfrajnd]

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

[Luigi de Guzman]

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

[Matt O'Toole]

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.

[Bill Z.]

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

[Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles]

> 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

[Claire Petersky]

"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 re: the new Tiferet CD (http://www.tiferet.net)

[Eric S. Sande]

>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"------------------

[Rick Onanian]

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

[Mike Kruger]

"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 here:
>
>http://livepublish.municode.com/2/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=altmain-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) "

[Mark Hickey]

"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

[Bill Z.]

"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

[David L. Johnson]

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.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

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

[Bobby]

"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.

[Mark Hickey]

"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/bicycle/BikePlan/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

[Curtis L. Russell]

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...

[Curtis L. Russell]

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...