Originally Posted by
jeichelberg87
OTOH, I am happy you are able to continue typing; OTOH, I wish you would simply type a letter to your attorney or local police department and not ask for opinions as to who is right or wrong in this instance.
I believe you acted like a complete and utter moron for riding your bicycle on a sidewalk. Not only that, you were riding your bicycle against the traffic. Not only that, you probably did not even dismount your bicycle to cross the street.
Once you get on your bicycle, you are no longer a pedestrian. You have a lot of nerve thinking you are a pedestrian.
If you do not want to ride your bicycle in the street, then you should: A) get a mountain bike, or; B) Stop riding altogether before you get killed.
I'm writing on this forum for opinions because I, frankly, value the opinions and views of the cycling community over city officials who have MUCH more things to worry about than cycling rights. That's not to say that city officials aren't willing and capable of assisting me here, but given the fact that I don't intend to press this matter further than a simple online discussion, I just simply don't find it worthwhile. I'm not writing my lawyer, because I'm not going to sue. I'm not writing the police department for the same reason.
Originally Posted by
jeichelberg87
How is it you have a broad view and she does not?
So, were you riding instead of walking?
No, you are a pedestriacyclist. In another post you write this, just for the edification of the readership:
"could it be safe to also reason that I would have the same rights as a pedestrian?"
So you do not care about the rights of cyclists.
Pedestriacyclist? I kind of see what you mean here. I don't prefer to ride on sidewalks. If a bike lane is there, then I ride on the bike lane. In most cases even, if a bike lane isn't there, then I'll ride on the lane. And if I feel there's enough room, then I'll ride within 3 or so feet of the shoulder so other cars can pass. This is legal in Arizona. The situation I was in was different. Accusing me of not caring about the rights of cyclists is unfounded, and a matter I don't care to debate.
Originally Posted by
Craptacular8
Interesting. In the town I bike commute in, the sidewalk IS the bike path throughout much of the community, and to cross the highway overpasses and stay within the pedestrian "cage" doing so is going to put you going against traffic at least half the time. Bicyclists are of course to yield to actual pedestrians on the sidewalk. It is a 40 mph 4 lane street with no bike lanes for the majority of my commute. I have yet to see a cyclist in the street there, though the route is fairly heavily used by cyclists....on the sidewalk.
That's an interesting situation. What is the pedestrian cage though? Is that the highway pedestrian overpass?
Originally Posted by
jfowler85
A cursory Google search reveals AZ vehicle code s. 28-904 which states
"A person shall not drive a vehicle on a sidewalk area except on a permanent or duly authorized temporary driveway." (emphasis added)
This begs the question, is a bicycle a vehicle in this context then? s. 28-201, definitions, states:
32. "Motor vehicle":
(a) Means either:
(i) A self-propelled vehicle. (emphasis added - a bicycle is not self-propelled)
...
56. "Vehicle" means a device in, on or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway, excluding devices moved by human power... (emphasis added)
---
So, it appears that, according to verbiage within the state code, the OP was actually in the right, as it is vehicles which are prohibited from riding on the sidewalk. Bicycles are not considered vehicles by the state of AZ, ergo bicycles are not prohibited from using sidewalks and conceivably crosswalks.
In my current city, the only explicit language about bicycles riding on sidewalks is in reference to a defined downtown district.
Precisely. State law varies, a la the varying opinions here.