Unfortunately the vote was 3 for and 5 against. You can read the details at AZBikeLaw.com.

11 Responses to “Bikes Safe Yield Act Fails”
  1. Alex says:

    I was not in support of this bill.

    Why all the attention/publicity about this one and not HB2546 which in my review has far more important changes?
    http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/hb2546p.htm

  2. PO says:

    Because Tucson PD are targeting cyclists, with 4 points and 200 dollar fines for not unclipping at empty stop signs.

  3. Tom says:

    Eric Post’s comments over at AZBikeLaw sum up why this bill is meaningful. Especially points 8 and 12, but all his points are valid.

  4. Alex says:

    Yeah I know these 12 points and I either disagree with them or believe they are not a relevant argument. I also think that if there is an local enforcement problem (per POs post) then that should be addressed, instead of radically changing the entire state law – stop means cessation of movement and should not require foot down. I’d be fine with a clarification to the law of what stop means.

  5. PO says:

    Wasn’t what that bill was trying to do? Define a stop, which just turned into yielding. One example I would like to point in the bicycle and pedestrian world there are no stop signs only yield signs with a line demarcation. Only when a motor vehicle is in the mix they start to include stop signs. Look no further than the Cross Cut Canal at McDowell area yield signs galore even at a four way intersection on the MUP. You can try to make a banana into an orange but it will still taste like a banana. And currently if I am a supposed to follow motor vehicle code and be treated “the same” then why by law am I forced to use a bike lane which no other vehicles can use? This is just the tip of the different but equal iceberg.

  6. Alex says:

    No this bill was not defining or clarifying what a stop is, it was eliminating the requirement for bicycles to have to stop at a stop sign. Very different.
    Yes, bicycle only routes may often use yield signs, that is a good use for them and they mean yield.
    There are also many stop signs which can and should be change to yield for all vehicles.
    You are not supposed to follow motor vehicle code, you are supposed to follow vehicle code – an important but subtle difference.
    You are not forced or required to use a bike lane, there are many exceptions. You only need to move to the bike lane if there is no immediate faster same direction traffic present and the lane is clear of debris and supports the direction you are traveling and there are not conditions with moving or fixed objects that make it unsafe to do so.

  7. PO says:

    Yes I am suppose to follow vehicle code, but the bicycle is not a vehicle, a bicycle is a device. We want to include every one into the motor vehicle code so we call it vehicle code and the append devices, horses, and people to these laws. These non vheicles came before the motor vehicle.

    The law defined a stop as when a right of way was present or established. A yield under the current law has a defined stop.

    There is a law in place which exempts a motorist from any penalties when a nearby bike lane is present and the bike rider is not in the bike lane.. If what you state is correct then why do we need this law?
    Secondly the speed limit is an unreachable and an unsafe speed for a bicycle to ever accomplish. So how could the cyclist ever be expected to go with the flow of traffic when the speed limit or traffic is above 15mph? Again we follow the “same law”, but in reality we are treated differently with laws which are bias or address certain needs of the devices or application used.

    lastly people who are opposed to this law, have solutions of nothing, or spend money and conduct studies to see if you we can reduce the stop signs. Both of these things don’t address what this law was intended to do. Fix the problem by defining a stop and spend very little money while doing so in the near future.

  8. Alex says:

    (This is good discussion, but is it better for the forums?)

    You note:
    “There is a law in place which exempts a motorist from any penalties when a nearby bike lane is present and the bike rider is not in the bike lane.. If what you state is correct then why do we need this law?”
    You are very right, this law should be changed. The HB2546 bill I posted the link to in my first post here removes that exemption. It is partly why I feel it is a more important bill than the ‘Yield’ one, exactly the point I was raising – why has ‘yield’ gotten attention and not HB2546?

    There are many times when I and many others are NOT cycling “at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing” Only when a faster vehicle approaches from behind do I need to by law move right (with exceptions)
    But you again bring up a good point. The ‘cyclist ride to the right’ law is also unnecessary. This is already covered by ARS 28-721 applicable for drivers of all vehicles.

    The AZ law defines a cyclist as a driver of a vehicle. Simple.

    A simple no-cost solution to the problem is for cyclists to stop at stop signs. If there is over-reaching and biased enforcement of the stop law, advocates need to insist on correcting this – stop laws should be equally enforced for all types of vehicles and it should be clarified that a stop does not require a foot down.
    Certain intersections should have stop signs changed to yield. Yes this costs $, but it fixes the root cause of the issues instead of applying a wide reaching bandaid to change what a STOP sign means depending on what type of vehicle one is driving.
    STOP is is a fundamental rule. If you want to envision the trouble this may cause take a 4-way stop for example. Currently there are clear rules in place for order of crossing the intersection. Change that for bicycles only to yield and you’ve change the sequencing by vehicle type – confusing all drivers as to who should proceed first. For example a cyclist and motorist are approaching where the motorist would get there a bit first. So does the cyclist not need to stop as the motorist will be stopping anyway and therefore the cyclist only needs to slow? As a cyclist in such a situation I am certainly going to stop for my safety. But now the motorist may be expecting me to yield and would not be taking their turn to proceed. Total confusion which it not what is needed for predictable and safe driving.

  9. PO says:

    great can do but I am leaving out of town burning daylight. I already bicycled the route so I am acting lazy :) So I will just copy paste this sometime next Wed.
    acyclist

  10. PO says:

    You can now head to the forums. I cycled really hard and got home early.
    http://www.biketempe.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=59

  11. [...] working to pass an Idaho stop law in Arizona. The bill, called the Arizona Bikes Safe Yield Act, failed in 2010, but Rep. Patterson plans to try again in [...]

  12.  
Leave a Reply