My main thing is that we not get the no regs, no ins , no licence tickets because it is obvious that that fine is way out of proportion to the "crime". Little $20 or $50 fines for whatever do not really bother me.
AZ 20 mph law
- Thread starter astring
- Start date
no_worries
New Member
Work for me!
I think the AZ law works fine. We have an extensive network of bike paths (especially here in Scottsdale) that run through parks, lakes, and other public areas. These are not city streets and are filled with joggers, walkers, rollerblader's, children, elderly, etc...
20 miles an hour is faster than a person should be going in these circumstances. So the minute a motorized bicycle goes faster than that it should become a moped and subject to all applicable laws surround motorized vehicles.
I've ridden all over Scottsdale and Tempe and have never been stopped. Personally I trust the AZ law officers to make a judgment call as to my speed and if they say I was going too fast then so be it. It is well worth the privilege of be allowed to use, "...rights-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles." under AZ law.
For those who haven't seen our law I have attached it.
I think the AZ law works fine. We have an extensive network of bike paths (especially here in Scottsdale) that run through parks, lakes, and other public areas. These are not city streets and are filled with joggers, walkers, rollerblader's, children, elderly, etc...
20 miles an hour is faster than a person should be going in these circumstances. So the minute a motorized bicycle goes faster than that it should become a moped and subject to all applicable laws surround motorized vehicles.
I've ridden all over Scottsdale and Tempe and have never been stopped. Personally I trust the AZ law officers to make a judgment call as to my speed and if they say I was going too fast then so be it. It is well worth the privilege of be allowed to use, "...rights-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles." under AZ law.
For those who haven't seen our law I have attached it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scottsdale huh, boy are you in for a surprise. It appears that Scottsdale police are issuing citations for no regs no ins no license plate and other infractions for going 21 or 22 mph (many thousands of dollars of fines and possible jail time). Now here is the kicker, the people being cited were not even going 20, but in court the judge believes the officer. Sounds weird huh? look at the posts from the forumite named Torques. If you lived in Phx you would be ok, but in Scottsdale you will probably run into a big problem.
The reason we need this reform is that we have to make the punishment proportional to the infraction. Currently you will get several thousand dollars of fines for going UNDER 20 mph in Scottsdale.
Last edited by a moderator:
no_worries
New Member
Yep, I've seen Torques postings and am confused by his experiences. I’ve been riding here I Scottsdale for at least 2.5 years and have never been pulled over. Guess we all have different views of the same coin. It will be interesting to see how Torques case comes out though.
Though you are right about more reforms are needed in AZ personally I would like to see state law supersede local authority to ban motorized bikes in their local. I do think speeding tickets on motorized bikes should carry the weight same as with all motorized vehicles in this state. If motorized bikes were only allowed on streets then there may not be a need but as long as we are allowed in parks other places where there are pedestrians then we need strong fines.
I do have some personal feelings about people who are convicted of DUI, if Tourque is willing to get behind the wheel of a car when he is drunk then I don’t want him on anything but a bus. Can you image the damage to a child being hit by a bicycle going 19MPH?
Though you are right about more reforms are needed in AZ personally I would like to see state law supersede local authority to ban motorized bikes in their local. I do think speeding tickets on motorized bikes should carry the weight same as with all motorized vehicles in this state. If motorized bikes were only allowed on streets then there may not be a need but as long as we are allowed in parks other places where there are pedestrians then we need strong fines.
I do have some personal feelings about people who are convicted of DUI, if Tourque is willing to get behind the wheel of a car when he is drunk then I don’t want him on anything but a bus. Can you image the damage to a child being hit by a bicycle going 19MPH?
no_worries
New Member
I understand you point.
Don't get me wrong I do see your point that 'if' a law officer decided; to he could conceivable under current interpretation of AZ 28-2516 slap you with a huge amount of citations and thus fines. Maybe this loophole does require additional legislation and I would be happy to support a serious attempt at legislative change. But not under the banner of or using Torques case as an example I wouldn't touch it, the general public in AZ would laugh that one out of the system.
Don't get me wrong I do see your point that 'if' a law officer decided; to he could conceivable under current interpretation of AZ 28-2516 slap you with a huge amount of citations and thus fines. Maybe this loophole does require additional legislation and I would be happy to support a serious attempt at legislative change. But not under the banner of or using Torques case as an example I wouldn't touch it, the general public in AZ would laugh that one out of the system.
Last edited by a moderator:
stude13
Active Member
i hope sparky isnt on the legislative panel. libertarian thought might suffice. you dont have to give up your rights they are being stripped every day. someday you might look back and say why didnt i put up a fight.
Last edited:
I am not a libertarian, but I am a strong proponent of punishments being proportional to the infraction.
no_worries
New Member
I was a Libertarian for many years when I was younger and fought hard for reduced penalties on victimless crimes. However, now with a few more years of experience I find that rights are only being stripped away because some ‘person’ has abused or taken advantage of the right and hurt other people. It is ashamed that so many of our rights are curtailed but you can’t blame the government only the yahoos who think they can abuse the good people of a society.
It this case I gotta’ agree with Astring, we do need some more laws but at least Arizona has made a good start.
It this case I gotta’ agree with Astring, we do need some more laws but at least Arizona has made a good start.
loquin
Well-Known Member
The entire subject of a fixed "speed limit" on a 'vehicle' which
I would suggest that a viable alternative be the ability for the motorized bike to go uphill without peddling. Define a standard slope and rider weight. Assume for argument, that the slope should approximate the maximum slope you would see on mountain roads. An 8% slope, while greater than the maximum allowable freeway slope, is often seen in hilly or mountainous roads. And, could assume a 180 pound weight for the mythical 'standard' rider.
Any 'motor vehicle' should be able to proceed under its own power on the nation's roads, even when climbing mountain roads.
***
It's also fairly easy to calculate the maximum slope that a given motor, drive-train, and bike should be able to climb unassisted.
For instance. Assuming a Staton chain drive, 'tuned' for a maximum speed on level ground of 30 mph. (18.75 to 1 gearbox reduction, 16t drive sprocket, 16t driven sprocket) Robin - Subaru EHO35 33.5cc motor, bike with 26 inch diameter wheels, 180 pound rider, and 85% efficient drive train, and that Bike + motor + fuel weighs 50 pounds.
Max torque is 1.3 foot-pounds (at the engine) at 5000 RPM
Speed at max torque (5000 RPM) on level terrain is 20.6 mph (assuming no air resistance)
Max torque at the rear wheel: 20.72 foot-pounds @266.7 RPM (assuming 85% efficiency.) The max force is therefore 20.72 foot-pounds/13 inch radius/12 inch per foot , or 19.1 pounds. At 21 MPH, the air resistance should be on the order of 5 pounds, spread out over the riders body. (A bike & rider just isn't very aerodynamic!) Thus, the NET driving force available is about 14 pounds at the engine's maximum torque RPM.
The total weight to be pushed up the hill is 180 + 50, or 230 pounds.
The maximum possible slope that this bike could climb, without peddling, is *approximately the ratio of 14/230, which is a 6.1 percent grade (3.9 degrees.) At this slope, the bike would be right 'at the edge.' Any wind gust, any temporary greater slope would cause it to slow down a bit, which would pull the engine 'off' its max torque peak, which would cause the bike to slow more, pulling the torque down even more... and the bike slows to the point where the motor dies (or the centrifugal clutch will release.) Essentially, once the motor slows down, even a little, it can no longer produce its max torque, starting a downward spiral.
---
* It is actually the tangent(inverse sine(14/230)) However, at angles less than 10 degrees, the sine and tangent calculations yield approximately the same result)
- can be operated with the motor off or disengaged
- can be operated faster with the motor off or disengaged that it can go with the motor on
- which has so little power that going up hills slows it down to a crawl or a stop
- Requires peddling when starting and going up hills
- which goes substantially faster with the wind at your back, and
- substantially slower when driving into the wind
I would suggest that a viable alternative be the ability for the motorized bike to go uphill without peddling. Define a standard slope and rider weight. Assume for argument, that the slope should approximate the maximum slope you would see on mountain roads. An 8% slope, while greater than the maximum allowable freeway slope, is often seen in hilly or mountainous roads. And, could assume a 180 pound weight for the mythical 'standard' rider.
Any 'motor vehicle' should be able to proceed under its own power on the nation's roads, even when climbing mountain roads.
***
It's also fairly easy to calculate the maximum slope that a given motor, drive-train, and bike should be able to climb unassisted.
For instance. Assuming a Staton chain drive, 'tuned' for a maximum speed on level ground of 30 mph. (18.75 to 1 gearbox reduction, 16t drive sprocket, 16t driven sprocket) Robin - Subaru EHO35 33.5cc motor, bike with 26 inch diameter wheels, 180 pound rider, and 85% efficient drive train, and that Bike + motor + fuel weighs 50 pounds.
Max torque is 1.3 foot-pounds (at the engine) at 5000 RPM
Speed at max torque (5000 RPM) on level terrain is 20.6 mph (assuming no air resistance)
Max torque at the rear wheel: 20.72 foot-pounds @266.7 RPM (assuming 85% efficiency.) The max force is therefore 20.72 foot-pounds/13 inch radius/12 inch per foot , or 19.1 pounds. At 21 MPH, the air resistance should be on the order of 5 pounds, spread out over the riders body. (A bike & rider just isn't very aerodynamic!) Thus, the NET driving force available is about 14 pounds at the engine's maximum torque RPM.
The total weight to be pushed up the hill is 180 + 50, or 230 pounds.
The maximum possible slope that this bike could climb, without peddling, is *approximately the ratio of 14/230, which is a 6.1 percent grade (3.9 degrees.) At this slope, the bike would be right 'at the edge.' Any wind gust, any temporary greater slope would cause it to slow down a bit, which would pull the engine 'off' its max torque peak, which would cause the bike to slow more, pulling the torque down even more... and the bike slows to the point where the motor dies (or the centrifugal clutch will release.) Essentially, once the motor slows down, even a little, it can no longer produce its max torque, starting a downward spiral.
---
* It is actually the tangent(inverse sine(14/230)) However, at angles less than 10 degrees, the sine and tangent calculations yield approximately the same result)
Last edited:
no_worries
New Member
Umm, good food for thought!
Interesting ideas Lou, and if I am following what you are saying correctly I wonder how courts would handle verification or at least the perception of verifiability?
I mean to say how is a law officer supposed to know if your motor is off or disengaged when you're rolling down a hill doing 30MPH? My understanding has always been that it is not his job to determine guilt or innocence at the scene of an alleged violation, only to issue the ticket. Then let courts decide the mitigating circumstances by whatever proof I could offer at the time of trial.
Not sure I could prove I had the engine disengaged, just as Torque was unable to prove he wasn't speeding at the time of citation. Like it or not courts will always take an officers word over a citizens and arguing the point will only **** off the judge...I know from personal experience.
It does cause me some thought that by just disengaging or turning off the engine it suddenly becomes a bicycle? I would suspect that as long as it has an engine attached it is not a bicycle, would be nice to have it both ways though.
Also I wonder about wind speed? My truck will go faster or slower depending on strength of wind at my back...isn't it my duty as a driver to stay within the speed limits regardless the amount of gas I am pumping in?
I would really like to be like CA and have a 30mph speed limit for us. However, if I was to work towards that end I would have to insist that we not be allowed on multi-use pathways and are limited to just surface street use.
Interesting ideas Lou, and if I am following what you are saying correctly I wonder how courts would handle verification or at least the perception of verifiability?
I mean to say how is a law officer supposed to know if your motor is off or disengaged when you're rolling down a hill doing 30MPH? My understanding has always been that it is not his job to determine guilt or innocence at the scene of an alleged violation, only to issue the ticket. Then let courts decide the mitigating circumstances by whatever proof I could offer at the time of trial.
Not sure I could prove I had the engine disengaged, just as Torque was unable to prove he wasn't speeding at the time of citation. Like it or not courts will always take an officers word over a citizens and arguing the point will only **** off the judge...I know from personal experience.
It does cause me some thought that by just disengaging or turning off the engine it suddenly becomes a bicycle? I would suspect that as long as it has an engine attached it is not a bicycle, would be nice to have it both ways though.
Also I wonder about wind speed? My truck will go faster or slower depending on strength of wind at my back...isn't it my duty as a driver to stay within the speed limits regardless the amount of gas I am pumping in?
I would really like to be like CA and have a 30mph speed limit for us. However, if I was to work towards that end I would have to insist that we not be allowed on multi-use pathways and are limited to just surface street use.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
