UAPD to follow up with enforcement of their own

Sorry, I just saw this reply and I would have answered yesterday. With the Governors Office of Highway Safety grant that TPD got for this special enforcement, through about September 10th they had issued 742 citations for a variety of motorist, pedestrian, and cyclist traffic infractions. This is approximate because it's from a working database from TPD. They'll have a more full report probably by mid October. Of the 742 citations, approximately 75 or 10.1% were for stop sign violations by bicyclists. I say approximately because there were 81 total stop sign violations but this includes motorists. So I'm probably mistaken about the 75 number and it may actually be lower in terms of stop violations by cyclists. Of the bicycle citations, stop sign violations accounted for 15% of the total. Another 294 were for riding on the sidewalk, 75 for riding without lights, 36 for riding wrong way, and a few others for miscellaneous items. Most stop citations were at 4th Ave and University, with some at 6th Ave and University, 9th Street and 4th Ave, University and Park, and Treat and 3rd. They also issued a number of warnings. In witnessing the enforcement work at 4th and University, the officers were not pulling over cyclists who slowed and yielded. They were pulling over cyclists who pedalled through the intersection at speeds of about 10 mph and above. As we know, enforcing stop intersections such as 3rd and Treat is like shooting fish in a barrel. For local/local intersections, wherever possible, it would be great to construct neighborhood traffic circles with yield signs. Crash data have shown a 94% to 100% reduction in crashes at such intersections. I worked with the city traffic engineer to have two circles on 7th Ave built with yield signs about 9 years ago and so gradually a few traffic circles are now being built with yields or being converted to yields. As much as it's possible to make such intersections "self enforcing" the better--then TPD can focus on more serious crash concerns and it also reduces the negative public perception on cyclists rolling stop signs. At the next BAC meeting the second Wednesday of the month, TPD should be able to provide a summary of their education and enforcement work. The BAC and members of the public can make recommendations as to future projects such as this.

Yeah, one would certainly think so - unfortunately, this campus specifically and all of Tucson to a lesser extent, is chock-full of oblivious cyclists who blow off the stops without noticing or even caring about any potential cross-traffic; the automatic selfish assumption is that every one else will stop for them. A $200 ticket is the cheapest lesson they'll get from that behavior until they've been trained out of it. And as already mentioned, it's an extremely poor PR choice for a group of folks who claim to want to be accepted as a legitimate part of traffic, to refuse to accept the responsibilities of being a legitimate part of traffic. The whole "treat stops as yields" thing would also work just dandy for car drivers if they too would just give a damn and pay attention, but they don't either; and in the absence of common sense, legislation must cover the lowest common denominator. That applies to us too.

A bicycle rider has a MUCH greater view of the stop situation, so very much more than a car. In an automobile or truck, one is inside of a metal/plastic box with limited visibility in the best of situations. The ability to hear anything is severely impaired by radios, CD's, having the windows up, air conditioning running, etc... so given that a auto weighs 4000+ lbs, you can't see out of it, and you can't hear, a strict requirement for a complete stop makes a lot of sense.... but on a bicycle, we can see all around without windshield posts and blind spots, we can hear ( unless we have our headphones on, which probably should be illegal ), so the notion of requiring a complete stop is an apples solution for an oranges problem.

Cyclists are not required to put a foot down when stopping, only to stop forward motion and to not proceed until safe. That being said, we've worked with TPD and UAPD to provide some flexibility when they are doing stop enforcement. We've suggested that since the de facto policy for citing drivers for speeding is at 11 mph over the speed limit (except in school zones; the're very strict there on both motorists and bicyclists for good reason), then could they provide some allowance for cyclists who do a pretty good job of stopping/yielding, especially at local street intersections that have little traffic. We know through traffic crash review that speeding by drivers is by far a greater contributor to severe injury and deaths than is a cyclist rolling slowly through a stop sign at a local street intersection. So based on this comparison of how they enforce speeding vs. enforcing cyclists at stops, we've made some progress with police providing some flexibility. There will of course be some officers who enforce to the letter of the law but hopefully most will provide a bit of allowance on this issue. Matt Zoll

I made the mistake of ride across campus at class change one day. Never again it is total chaos.

Bicycles go slow enough and have the braking power to stop quickly. They also have a very low power motor (the rider) that gets trashed by lots of starting and stopping. The law should be re-written so cyclists are allowed to treat a stop sign like a yield sign. There's no getting around it, it's critical that you slow down enough so you CAN stop if you have to. Some cyclists don't even do that and they are the real problem. I see comments posted here that are simply not true. In all the decades I've been riding, I could count on one hand the number of times I've seen riders who came to a complete stop at 3rd and Treat and put their foot down then looked both ways. That's what the law requires. The only place that cyclists routinely make a complete stop is at major streets and then it's just when there are cars whizzing by. This is really a fruitless discussion. Cyclists will not change their behavior overall. One or two who get a ticket may change for a short time, but even they will relapse. Since there are relatively few accidents with cyclists running stop signs now, it's not justified to force cyclists to stop.

CLOSE CAMPUS TO MOTOR TRAFFIC.

If they are pushing enforcement on cyclists they need to go after pedestrians too. The University area is extremely hazardous in that pedestrians constantly jump into the bikeway/roadway without looking/listening or paying attention to anything but their phones.

I think all cyclists should follow traffic laws, all of them. I am glad to see UAPD enforce this. I do hope they do it equally to cars and bikes. The student who rolled through the stop sign who said she did it in a hurry, that is unacceptable. That is the same excuse drivers use. The more we follow the laws the better relationship we will have with them. I go out of my way to interact with people at work, out and about who complain about bikes. Their number one complaint is the braking of traffic laws and cyclists putting themselves in danger. If we want to be treated like "Traffic" then we must act like it. I would also like to see some sort of annual registration fee for bikes. Small mind you, but then that money used for bike lanes and other improvements. Cars have use fees for roads, why shouldn't we?