\documentclass[letterpaper]{article}
% letter, article, report

% Potential Motion Paperwork:
% Motion for discovery
% Request a rehearing
% Request ability to respond to Appellee's Memo
% Request oral argument

%DOT recommends merging closer into the lane

%city attorney thing about "use the lane if you want 3 feet"
%

\usepackage{setspace}
\doublespacing

%\pagestyle{empty}
%\signature{Justin Pryzby}
\begin{document}

\begin{center}

\begin{Huge}
The 48\textsuperscript{th} State of Arizona
\end{Huge}

\begin{large}
Flagstaff Justice Court				\\
200 N. San Francisco St.			\\
Flagstaff, AZ  86001				\\
% Plaintiff, Appellee
\end{large}

\begin{huge}
	vs.					\\
Justin Pryzby					\\
\end{huge}

\begin{large}
Defendant-Appellant				\\
15 W Cedar \#B					\\
Flagstaff, AZ  86001    			\\
\end{large}

\vspace{24pt}

\begin{huge}
TR2009-6000		\\
%\vspace{12pt}
Appellant's Memorandum	\\
\today			\\
\end{huge}

\vspace{36pt}
\begin{small}
\begin{quote}
... right of way is not to be measured in fractions of an inch nor
tested by split seconds. He is entitled not to just as much space as
his body, clothes and buttons require, but to as much as will afford
him a safe passage.
\end{quote}
\end{small}

In loving memory of Matt Kelly and Joshua Pete.

\newpage
\end{center}

\section{Introduction}

\subsection{Background}
On July 17, 2009, the appellant Justin Pryzby rode his bicycle
Eastbound on Butler Avenue in Flagstaff, AZ and was cited by
Sheriff's Officer Isbell for violation of Arizona Revised Statute
28-704A ``Speed Impeding Traffic''.  On December 1, 2009, the Justice
Court in case TR2009-6000 upheld the citation and found him
``responsible.''  For the purpose of appeal, evidence is presented
supporting multiple arguments that the citation should not be upheld,
% and in fact thrown out the window.
and the
% inferior
judgement reversed.  The Court is asked to review these facts for
legal error.

\section{Statement of Facts}

\subsection{Conventions}
Timestamps are given by footnote and are relative to the beginnings
of the two audio recordings of trial court proceedings on December 1,
2009.  Timestamps prefixed with \textbf{1:} are offsets from 08:39;
those prefixed with \textbf{2:} are offsets from 09:09.
% TODO: Transcript of relevant sections is provided as Appendix ..

% with citations.

\subsection{Identification of Evidence}

\begin{enumerate}
\item
Exhibits One, Two and Three \footnote{1:7m55s} are photographs taken
by the defendant and show the condition of the roadway visible to
Westbound\footnote{Note that this is the opposite of my direction of
travel while cited} traffic.  A sign warns vehicular operators that
the bicycle lane is closed, and that drivers should expect bicycle
riders to use the lane normally used for motorized
traffic\footnote{1:11m10s, 1:12m50s
%closing arg: 2:19m40s
}.  Exhibit two shows that the sign is
erected in the light-colored cement gutter.  Exhibit Three
shows the abrasions affecting the asphalt to its right edge, including
the entirety of the bicycle lane.

% This was disputed by the officer in trial court.

\item
Exhibit four\footnote{1:17m45s}, titled ``Share the Road: Walking and
Biking in Downtown Flagstaff: What You Need to Know'', is distributed
by ``Safe Routes''.

\item
% "New frontiers" thing
Exhibit five\footnote{1:18m40s}, titled ``Notice to Users of Public Routes
and Rights of Way,'' includes quotations from text which can be found
at \cite{streetsmarts}.  It reads, in part\footnote{2:1m45s},
\begin{quote}
\dots on a multilane road with narrow lanes and no shoulder or bike
path, ride in the middle of the right lane.
\end{quote}

\item
Exhibit six\footnote{2:2m30s} titled ``Share the Road 2008'', is
distributed by the Tuscon DOT.

\item
Exhibit seven\footnote{2:4m45s}, titled ``Arizona Bicycling Street
Smarts'', is endorsed by the State's DOT.  Exhibit four quotes
sections of exhibit seven.  Full text of exhibit seven is available
at \cite{streetsmarts}.  The most relevant sections are repeated,
apparently inspired by a broad interpretation of the rights granted by
ARS 28-812:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\begin{quote}
\dots other traffic must occasionally slow and follow [a bicycle
rider]\footnote{2:6m50s}.
\end{quote}

% 2:8m0s: .. slow down for you sometimes.
% 2:8m45s middle of the right lane
\item 
\begin{quote}On a road with two or more narrow lanes in your
direction, like many city streets, you should ride in the middle of
the right lane \textbf{at all times}\footnote{2:7m20s}.
\end{quote}

\item
\begin{quote}
Generally, the usable width of the road begins where you can ride
without increased risk of falls, \textbf{jolts}, or blowouts.  The
road may have a gravel shoulder, its edge may be covered with sand or
trash, or \textbf{the pavement may be broken.}  \textbf{Don't ride
there.} \footnote{2:9m0s, 2:5m20s}
\end{quote}

\end{enumerate}

\item Isbell agreed\footnote{2:15:10} that the condition of the
bicycle lane was comparable in both directions.

\item Isbell stated\footnote{2:15m15s} that the abrasions were present
for the entire length of the Butler Avenue.

\item Isbell claimed multiple times that the bicycle lane was clearly
marked.  However exhibit three shows no bicycle lane at all, clear or
otherwise.

%\item The officer claimed various times\footnote{1:5m10s, 1:5m30s,
%2:12m30s, 2:13m10s, 2:14m05s, 2:17m00s, 2:22m40s}, that my safety
%would have been enhanced by riding somewhere else.

\item Isbell agreed\footnote{2:5m20s} that the section of Butler
Avenue normally marked as a bicycle lane had ``bumps'' in it ``while
being resurfaced''.

\item Isbell and Judge Nichols came into apparent
agreement\footnote{2:15m40s, 2:16m20s, 2:22m30s} that there was
sufficient room to ride between the sidewalk and the right-edge of the
abraded asphalt.  This was an argument suggested after the defendant's
testimony, at such time as he had no chance to present rebuttal.

\item The State's DOT ``further advocates that bicyclists have the
right to operate in a legal manner on all roadways open to public
travel, with the exception of fully controlled-access highways.''
\cite{adot-right}.

\item The ``Bicycle Compatibility Index'' document\cite{fwha-gutter},
distributed by the Federal Highway Administration, not only excludes
the gutter from the measured width of a bicycle lane, but also
recognizes the effect of the ``seam'' between the gutter and the
asphalt.  0.3 metres are subtracted from the lane width giving the
effective width of the bicycle lane.  The American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials
recommends\cite{aashto-gutter} to exclude the width of the gutter.

% TODO: clarity

\end{enumerate}

%This interpretation is supported by literature from the DOT of the
%State\footnote{1:5m15s, 2:9m0s, 2:9m36s}.

\section{Argument}
% with statutes, case law.

\subsection{Background}

Arizona Revised Statute (ARS) 28-601\#28 includes a broad definition
of traffic, including not only common motor vehicles, but also
``pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, vehicles and other
conveyances either singly or together while using a highway for
purposes of travel.''

ARS 28-704-A reads:
\begin{quote}
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to
impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except
when either of the following applies:\dots
\end{quote}

ARS 28-815 conditionally requires a bicycle to be operated ``as close
as practicable to the right-hand curb''.  ``practicable'' means
``sustainably'', ``safely'' and ``for the long term.''  Compare with
the advice of the State's DOT to conditionally ride in the middle of
the lane.  Clearly, it's possible to ride a two-foot wide bicycle
further to the right than the middle of the lane.  However, for
reasons of visibility, maneuverability, and (importantly) to
discourage a driver from attempting to pass in an insufficiently-wide
lane rather than merging to the left, the suggestion is to ride in the
middle of the lane, since other traffic can easily and more safely
pass on the left.

ARS 28-815 includes four exceptions to its requirements, two of which
are:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[3.] If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed
or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians,
animals or surface hazards.
\item[4.] If the lane in which the person is operating the bicycle is
too narrow for a bicycle and a vehicle to travel safely side by side
\textbf{within the lane}.
\end{enumerate}

ARS 28-735-A requires the operator of a vehicle when passing a bicycle
rider to leave a clearance of three feet.  ARS 28-735-C recognizes the
distinction between a passable and non-passable lane reserved for
bicycle riding.

ARS 28-332-A reads:
% XXX: need local DOT rules...
\begin{quote}
The exclusive control and jurisdiction over state highways, state
routes, state owned airports and all state owned transportation
systems or modes are vested in the department of transportation.
\end{quote}

It is safest to ride bicycle in a straight, predictable line,
alongside other traffic, where visibility and maneuverability are
maximized\cite{streetsmarts}.  Traffic is less likely to expect a
bicycle travelling outside the path of other traffic lanes.  This is
one justification given by the city police department for discouraging
operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk.  In the language of ARS 28-815,
riding in a section of the roadway outside the expected vehicular
travel path is not ``practicable.''

% assumption of risk argument, Mionske p27: had I ridden in the
% abrasion, the State could have argued that I was at fault for an
% accident.

\subsection{DOT-Endorsed Justification for Lane Position: Jolts}

Literature endorsed by the State's DOT conditionally instructs a
bicycle operator to ride in the middle of the right lane.

Since Butler Avenue normally has a bicycle lane, the traffic lanes on
aren't intended to be wide enough to be safely shared (with three feet
of passing clearance as required by ARS 28-735) between a motor
vehicle and bicycle.  In this situation, ARS 28-815 includes an
exception from the requirement that a bicycle be operated ``as far the
the right as practicable.''  The advice widely and commonly given to
bicycle operators (including by the DOT) in this situation is to ride
in the middle of the lane.

Signs erected in the construction zone demonstrate that the State's
DOT recognizes, acknowledges, and accepts that the condition of the
bicycle lane was not suitable for riding\footnote{1:11m10s, 2:19m40s}.
Isbell agreed that the section normally marked as a bicycle lane was
``bumpy.'' Literature endorsed by the State's Department of
Transportation allows that \textit{even an increased risk} of jolts is
sufficient to justify operation of a bicycle further from the right of
the lane than is otherwise required by ARS 28-815.  The DOT-endorsed
literature also instructs bicycle riders to avoid riding in broken
pavement.  My path of travel
% XXX: cite something
was immediately to the left of the outside edge of the abrasions,
roughly in the center of the original (pre-construction) width of the
right-hand lane, no further inside the lane than would allow me to
travel in a predictable and straight line ride without ``increased
risk of jolts.''  The court is considered to be in error for requiring
the defendant to ride not only in a bumpy road, as there was somewhere
between one and two non-degraded lanes.  The court is also held to be
in error for ruling that the defendant's actions are inconsistent with
statute, despite the very clear instruction of the State's DOT, to
``take the lane'' any time a second lane exists in the same direction.

\subsection{Availability of an Alternate Route is No Argument Against a Given Route}
\subsubsection*{Or, the ``Can Ride in the Gutter'' argument}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

One conclusion introduced by Isbell and the judge was the possibility
of riding to the \textbf{right} of the section formerly-marked as a
bicycle lane.  It's unclear whether the judge references a section of
asphalt between the cement curb and the right edge of the abrasions,
or the cement gutter strip connected to the curb itself.

In exhibit two, the legs of a sign are visible on the gutter strip.
Clearly, the State's DOT doesn't intend for a rider of a bicycle to
travel \textbf{over} the legs.  The content of the sign makes it clear
that a bicycle rider is intended to ride in the traffic lane.

However, the feasibility of riding on the cement strip is irrelevant.
Butler Avenue normally includes a bicycle lane.  It was not annotated
as being closed.  I chose to ride on Butler, during such time as the
section which normally includes a bicycle lane was ``bumpy,'' and it
was \textbf{certain} that a bicycle operated there would be subject to
jolts caused by the surface hazard..

It is irrelevant whether an alternate route existed, or if agents of
the State have some preference that I ride in one place or some other.
The only relevant legal question is whether I was allowed to ride in
the road, in the context of a completely abraded bicycle lane.

The DOT does not instruct to take a different route, nor to ride
somewhere to the right of a normal path of travel.  The DOT
instruction, from literature and on-site signs, is to ride further
into the same lane used by other vehicles.  The court is considered to
have errored in its judgement, both in consideration of an alternate
route at all, as well as the specifics of the alternate route it
proposed.

\subsection{Legislative Intent to Avoid Exclusion of
	Intrinsically-Slower Vehicles}

The mere existence of ARS 28-815 implies that riding a bicycle at a
speed lower than the maximum speed limit is not prohibited, but
instead anticipated, expected and allowed.  To avoid inconsistency
with the definition of traffic, ARS 28-704A should not be interpreted
such as to unconditionally exclude from the highway a slower mechanism
of travel, unless a minimum speed limit is posted.  Neither
pedestrians, animals, nor bicycles are likely to travel at a speed of
30MPH with any degree of consistently.  It's not unreasonable for a
vehicle's driver to reduce its speed in consideration of another
vehicle until such time as the 2\textsuperscript{nd} vehicle can be
safely passed.

Although not binding, the court may wish to consider a case tried in
Ohio, \textit{City of Trotwood v. Steven Selz}\cite{selz},
% and the Georgia case
which is very similar to the case at hand:
\begin{enumerate}
\item In both cases, the defendant was cited for impeding traffic.
The Trotwood ordinance differs from the Arizona statute only in
insignificant ways.  Both appear to be derived from the same article
of Uniform Vehicular Code (11-805).
\item In both cases, the defendant was travelling on a road with
multiple lanes in each direction.
\item In both cases, the other relevant traffic regulations are
comparable.  In particular, the definition of ``traffic'' differs only
in minor ways, with both definitions being derived
% inspired by
from UVC 1-207.
\end{enumerate}

The Ohio case differs most notably in that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Selz is charged with a misdemeanor, rather than a traffic
violation.
\item A bicycle is considered a vehicle in Ohio, whereas in Arizona a
bicycle is excluded from that classification.  However, a bicycle
rider is ``granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the
duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle\dots'' (ARS 28-812).
\item In \textit{Selz}, road construction was not an issue.  Here,
it is agreed that Butler Avenue was undergoing road maintenance.  The
major consequence was deterioration of the bicycle lane (which did not
exist in the Ohio case).
\end{enumerate}

The intermediate conclusions drawn by the Ohio
defense\cite{selz-brief} hold true in Arizona:
\begin{enumerate}
\item It is not forbidden to ride a bicycle on the road; and,
\item Statutes regulating bicycle operation exist (ARS 28-812 -
28-817), recognizing the reality that that roadways are used for
cycling.
\item The State's code specifically allows for a bicycle to travel
more slowly than other traffic (28-815):
\begin{quote}
A person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed
of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then
existing shall ride as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or
edge of the roadway, except under any of the following
situations\dots
\end{quote}
\end{enumerate}

The Arizona Revised Statutes include four articles regarding vehicular
operation at slow speed (28-701E, 28-704A, 28-721B, 28-815A).
Apparently, it is allowed to ride a bicycle at ``less than the normal
speed of traffic'' (28-815A), so long as operation is not ``at such a
slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of
traffic\dots'' (28-704A).

%The existence of both ARS 28-704C and 28-721B seems to conditionally
%allow for traffic

The Ohio court concluded that ``impeding traffic'' is to be
interpreted as ``deliberately travelling at a reduced speed'', rather
than ``travelling below the maximum speed limit''.  Indeed, many
things might cause other traffic to slow, but are commonly accepted
and not considered ``impeding'', including: left turns, pulling a
heavy load, driving at some a speed other than ``the maximum speed
limit plus grace margin'' and operation of a farm/construction
vehicle, plows or other vehicles the primary purpose of which isn't
transportation.

Selz was initially found guilty, a verdict overturned during appeal.
After the appeal verdict, the corresponding Ohio State Statute (not
city ordinance) was amended to clarify its intended interpretation
such as to avoid exclusion of intrinsically slower vehicles from the
roadway.  The Justice court is considered to be in error as its
judgement, whether deliberate or not, effectively excludes
non-motorized vehicles from the State's roadway, in contradiction with
legislative intent.

%\subsection{Interpretation of ARS 28-704A in the Context of ARS 28-815}
%
%% In trial court, much time was spent in discussion of the defendant's
%% placement within the lane.
%
%% The defendant is not cited for violation of this statute, so cannot
%% be found responsible for such.
%It would seem clear that bicycle riders are allowed travel at normal
%speeds for bicycle riders when travelling in a dedicated lane, without
%being considered ``impeding traffic.''  Similarly, in the absence of a
%bicycle lane, a bicycle rider is permitted to ride the bicycle on that
%roadway, unless it is closed to bicycles.

%It would seem clear from the existence of one DOT sign, and its
%placement, that the State's DOT itself did not consider use of the
%bicycle lane to constitute viable, feasible or ``practicable'' lane
%placement.  It's only to be expected that a substantial and invasive
%maintenance operation justifies the statutory exception.

%It is agreed that the road was under construction, and that the
%degradation of the asphalt continued for the entire length of the
%roadway.  Exhibits one and two demonstrate that the State's DOT
%intended for a West-bound bicycle rider to use the roadway and not to
%ride in the abrasions.  Since it was also agreed that the condition of
%the bicycle lane in both directions was comparable, the absence of a
%corresponding sign visible to East-bound traffic is assumed to be an
%oversight of the DOT.  It would seem that this is precisely the type
%of situation in which ``other traffic must occasionally slow and
%follow''.

% In the absence of a separate (usable) lane, a bicycle rider
%is allowed to occupy the other lanes, and even ``take the lane'' if
%the lane is not sufficiently-wide to share with a vehicle
%\textbf{within the lane} (ARS 28-815-A4).

\subsection{Applicability of ARS 28-704A}
It's questionable whether 704A even applies to bicycles, since it uses
the phrase ``motor vehicle.''  Substituting the definition of
\begin{em}vehicle\end{em} from ARS 28-101, article 704A applies to:
\textbf{motorized devices} ``in, on or by which a person or property
is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway\dots''.  It
applies only to devices which have a motor.

Although not binding to the courts, an Opinion of the Attorney
General from 2000\cite{azag} is notable.  At one point, it reads:
\begin{quote}
ARS 28-704(A), expressly applies only to motor vehicles, which
does not include bicycles.
\end{quote}
The attorney general considered 28-815 to be a special case of 28-704,
borrowing from the State's 1980 Supreme Court statement in Maxwell vs.
Gosett: ``We agree that this section generally applies the same
traffic laws to riders of bicycles as it does to drivers of motor
vehicles.'' The court continued by considering bicycles to be excluded
from the prohibition of driving on the sidewalk.  So,
``generally'' means ``typically'' and not ``always, in every case.''

If the Supreme Court statement was interpreted to mean ``in every
case'', bicycles would be subject to additional requirements
inconsistent with common practice and statutory language: seat belts
(28-909), mufflers (955), safety glass (959), windshield wipers (957),
fuel tank caps (965), horn (954), mirrors (956), license plate (02354)
\dots.

28-812 imposes on a bicycle rider the requirements of Title 28,
Chapters 3, 4 and 5.  Of six-hundred total articles in those chapters,
sixty-five use the phrase ``motor vehicle'' and one-hundred ninety
use the word ``vehicle'' (including 25 ``definitions'').  Apparently,
the legislature intends most traffic laws to apply to any vehicle (or
bicycle) independent of its use of a motor.

Under ARS 28-812, bicycle riders are subject to the requirements of
\textbf{generic} vehicles (and vehicles with properties matched by the
particular bicycle).  The trial court is considered to be in error for
upholding a citation respecting a non-motorized bicycle under a
statute specific to ``motorized devices.''

%Also, the AG only includes one exception in the list of reasons why
%the requirements of 704 may still apply to a bicycle rider, whereas
%815 lists four exceptions.  There's no apparent codified reason to
%include 28-815 A4 but not include 28-815 A 1-3.  For example,
%28-814A2 says that a bicycle rider need not ride as far to the right
%as practicable if preparing for a left turn.  Since left turns by
%any traffic may impeded other traffic, it would seem unjustified to
%say that a bicycle rider making a left turn (but not riding in a
%narrow lane) is subject to the requirements of 704 (may not impede
%traffic).

% The condition of Butler Avenue fell solidly into the exceptional
% ``surface hazards'' category and the recommendation of the State's
% DOT to avoid such conditions is clearly applicable.

%\begin{enumerate}
%\end{enumerate}

%\subsection{}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%Officer Isbell recorded the defendant's speed as 5MPH.  During the
%trial court hearing, he reported a speed of 10MPH.  The defendant is
%an avid cyclist, and estimation of his own speed is 15-20MPH.
%
%Seven days after the citation was issued, the defendant rode to the
%Grand Canyon while carrying five litres of water, food, extra tools, a
%tent, sleeping bag and pad, returning to Flagstaff the following day,
%at an average sustained rate of 11.5MPH.  Any degree to which the the
%defendant traveled more slowly during the 2 miles to his workplace
%without camping gear as he travelled 70 miles on mountainous terrain
%to the Grand Canyon was likely due to traffic lights on adjacent
%intersections.

% A 2\textsuperscript{nd} Eastbound traffic lane allowed traffic % to
% continue ..

%\subsection{Lane Placement and Construction}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%The defendant argues that the effect of construction on the road was
%sufficient to invoke the ``surface hazards'' exception of ARS 28-815,
%thusly allowing him fuller use of the lane.

%\subsection{Availability of an Alternate Route is No Argument Against a Given Route}
%\subsubsection*{Or, the ``Can Ride on the Cement'' Argument}

\section{Conclusion}
%red lights
%construction
%rush hour stop-and-go

While considering the facts, it's important to avoid confusion of the
strawman ``safety'' argument repeated by Isbell with the only truly
relevant issue: whether the defendant's actions are inconsistent with
ARS 28-704A.  If there is a statute requiring safe behavior, then an
officer can cite people for it.  However, the defendant is not cited
for a ``safety violation,'' and cannot be found responsible for such.
Due process does not entitle-law enforcement agents to impose their
own standards
% enforce
of perceived safety, but rather requires enforcement of a well-defined
and agreed-upon code of rules.

Occupation of the center of a lane is ``cyclist body language,'' a
tactic endorsed by this State's DOT, allowing a bicycle operator to
discourage a driver from passing unsafely.  The cyclist's lane
placement is not inherenly unsafe: the degree to which the cyclist is
in any increased danger isn't caused by the cyclist himself, but most
probably an impatient vehicle operator.  As a mechanism for enhancing
the cyclist's safety, law enforcement functions should enforce
established and vetted-for rules such as ARS 28-735.

The situation at hand involves a bicycle lane effectively if not
formally closed due to abraded asphalt.  In the context of a road with
multiple lanes, consistent interpretation of the requirements of ARS
28-704A and 28-815A should not consider a bicycle rider to be
``impeding traffic'' while riding less far to the right curb due to
``surface hazards''
% imposed
experienced during construction.

The State's DOT seems to have specifically intended, during the course
of construction, for a bicycle rider to use the motor-vehicle traffic
lane.  Indeed, a bicycle rider is encouraged by the DOT to avoid
sections of a roadway over which they will be jolted.  In this case,
the abrasions were comparable to a rumble strip \textbf{designed} to
cause discomfort and \textbf{jolt} a driver who has veered out of the
lane. ARS 28-815 includes an exception to its requirement, which
reads: ``\dots if reasonably necessary to avoid conditions,
including\dots surface hazards.''
%% invocation of the .. exception is ever justified,
It's only to be expected that a substantial and moderately invasive
maintenance operation justifies such alternate use.

%If conditions of the ``surface hazards'' clause is ever to be
%satisfied, advertised road construction will be the first and
%clearest reason.

The legislature allows many implements of locomotion, all classified
as traffic, including those which do not travel at the city's typical
maximum speed limit.  In the case that no \textbf{minimum} speed limit
is emplaced, the law should not prefer one form of transportation over
another.  Not is it the due-process of law-enforcement or the
judiciary to impose on their citizens ad-hoc and uncodified travel
paths.

Parallel courts have overturned cases similar in essence.  The State's
legislature and DOT both acknowledge and anticipate that a bicycle
will not necessarily travel at the speed of other traffic, yet allow
the possibility of riding in-lane.

ARS 27-704A applies ``expressly'' to motor vehicles.  The Maxwell
decision quoted by the Attorney General expresses the legislature's
intent that most traffic laws are agnostic to the specifics of a
vehicle's implementation, but the decision does not subject bicycle
riders to the restrictions placed on every variety of vehicle.

The trial court is considered to have found the defendant
``responsible'' despite that his action are consistent with statutory
requirements and the best practices advertised by DOT.  In this case,
rejection of the citation and reversal of the trial ruling are
justified.

\appendix
\newpage
\singlespacing
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\bibitem{ars28-101} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00101.htm
\bibitem{ars28-701} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00701.htm
\bibitem{ars28-704} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00704.htm
\bibitem{ars28-721} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00721.htm
\bibitem{ars28-735} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00735.htm
\bibitem{ars28-812} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00812.htm
\bibitem{ars28-815} http://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00815.htm

\bibitem{selz} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Rt2Road.htm
\bibitem{selz-brief} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Brief.htm
\bibitem{selz-trial-transcript} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Trial\_{}Transcript.htm
\bibitem{selz-verdict} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Verdict.htm
\bibitem{selz-appellate-brief} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Appellate\_{}Brief.htm
\bibitem{selz-motion-oral} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Motion\_{}Oral.htm
\bibitem{selz-trotwood-brief} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Trotwood\_{}Brief.htm
\bibitem{selz-appeal-decision} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Appeal\_{}Decision.htm
\bibitem{selz-appeal-explanation} http://www.ohiobike.org/selz/Selz\_{}Appeal\_{}Explanation.htm

\bibitem{streetsmarts} Exhibit seven (2:2m45s).  Street Smarts.
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm
http://www.azbikeped.org/chapter2a.htm.
http://www.azbikeped.org/azbss.htm
\bibitem{azag} http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2000/I00-002.html

\bibitem{adot-right} http://www.azbikeped.org/images/MGT01-2\%20Bike\%20Policy.pdf
\bibitem{fwha-gutter} http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/docs/bci.pdf
\bibitem{aashto-gutter} http://www.sccrtc.org/bikes/AASHTO\_{}1999\_{}BikeBook.pdf

\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}

% bicycle .. depend on physical condition, strength, 

\begin{quote}

OH: (A) No person shall stop or operate a vehicle at such a slow speed
as to impede or block the normal and reasonable flow of traffic,
except when stopping or reduced speed is necessary for safe operation
or to comply with the law\dots

UVC: (A) No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as
to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when
reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or compliance with the
law\dots

AZ: (A) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as
to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic
except when either of the following applies: 1. Reduced speed is
necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law\dots

\end{quote}

%% bicycle.tex

% It would seem clear that a bicycle travelling in either direction
% should be permitted (by ARS 28-812) to use the \textbf{roadway}.

%and not a thin
%strip of cement outside the normal path of travel.
%ARS 28-815 also uses the phrase \textbf{roadway}, and its language
%doesn't imply that, in case of poor conditions, the cyclist should use
%the anything but the same road, further to the left and inside of the
%lane.

\subsection{ARS 28-704A is inapplicable}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

ARS 28-101\#57 defines \begin{em}vehicle\end{em}, and excludes ``\dots
devices moved by human power''.  A bicycle rider, by ARS 28-812, is
``\dots granted rights and subject to duties'' of a driver of a
vehicle.  So, statutes regarding vehicles can apply (indirectly) to
bicycles.

For example, ARS 28-776B is specific to a ``driver of a funeral escort
vehicle or military escort vehicle''.  It doesn't apply to my bicycle,
since it is not a military or funeral escort vehicle.

ARS 28-704, for which I am cited, has 3 sections: Section A is
specific to motor vehicles, Section B allows ``minimum speed limits''
(of which none exist on Butler Avenue) to be declared, and Section C
is specific to 2-lane highways, which does not include Butler Avenue
at its intersection with San Francisco St..

% Bus,
% combination of vehicles, foreign vehicle, livery vehicle
% farm tractor, golf cart, limousine, school bus, semitrailer,
% trailer, truck, truck tractor, school bus

It doesn't apply to me for the same reason that a (hypothetical)
statute involving ``devices with 17 windows'' doesn't apply: my
bicycle is neither a device with 17 windows nor a device with a
motor.

This interpretation is supported by ARS 28-815, which begins: ``A
person riding a bicycle on a roadway at less than the normal speed of
traffic \dots''.
% suggests, shows
Its mere existence implies that riding a bicycle at such speeds is not
prohibited, but instead anticipated, expected and, in fact, allowed.

% % license(?) insurance
% \end{enumerate}

\subsection{Availability of an Alternate Route is No Argument Against a Given Route}
\subsubsection*{Or, the ``Can Ride on the Cement'' argument}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

%While riding, the distance between the centerline of my bicycle to the
%outside of my foot is about 7 inches.  Riding on the section of cement
%too near to the asphalt is unsafe, since the transition is likely to
%be uneven, and have substantial negative effect on steering, breaking
%and (again) mental ability to focus on surroundings.  Leaving 3 inches
%of steering tolerance, it would be reasonably possible to ride on a
%cement section not less than 13 inches wide.  3 inches between the
%left of the wheel and the right edge of the asphalt, and another 3
%inches between the right pedal and the curb.
%
%blah blah blah
% XXX: evidence

%It's similarly possible that there existed a more optimal path from my
%house on Phoenix St. to my workplace on East 66 which also avoided the
%train which was at that point blocking the crossing at San Francisco
%St.  Both are irrelevant.

% 
% It's unclear if there's any reason why no corresponding sign was
% erected in the lane travelling to the East.
% 
% ARS 28-815, which applies to bicycles, but for which I am \textbf{not}
% cited, lists ``surface hazards'' as a legitimate and sufficient reason
% for not riding as far to the right as otherwise
% required\footnote{1:14m55s, 1:15m10s}.  Nowhere does State law
% categorize bicycle riders as ``2\textsuperscript{nd}-class citizens'';
% we are, rather, equals of any other vehicle operator under the eyes of
% the law, per ARS 28-812.  In the case where no dedicated bicycle lane
% is available, although it is conceivably both possible and allowed to
% ride in a section of deteriorated asphalt, it is not required.  Use of
% the same sections of travel lane used by other vehicular traffic lane
% is allowed and, in fact, suggested.
% 
% Eastbound Butler Avenue was undergoing advertised construction, with 
% % at least
% the bicycle lane effectively, if not formally, closed due to abraded
% asphalt, readily comparable to a rumble strip \textbf{designed} to
% cause disconfort and jolt a driver who has veered out of the lane.
% The condition of Butler Avenue fell solidly into the exceptional
% ``surface hazards'' category and the recommendation of the State's DOT
% to avoid such conditions is clearly applicable.
% 
% quintessentially prototypical 
% 
% % \begin{em}we are traffic\end{em}.
% % We are not required to ride in little strips of asphalt with marginal
% % clearance from the curb.
% % In fact, for visibility reasons, the city of Tucson literature
% % encourages, in the absence of a bicycle lane, riding in the right or
% % center section of the normal traffic lane.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Safety Argument - Strawman}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% 2:14m05s: "safety violation, also, compared to statute violation"
Various times\footnote{1:5m10s, 1:5m30s, 2:12m30s, 2:13m10s, 2:14m05s,
2:17m00s, 2:22m40s},
the officer claims that it would have been safer for me to ride
somewhere else.  However, judgement of relative safety is not in
question, but rather strict legal requirements of the statute for
which I am cited: ARS 28-704A.  At one point, the officer himself
recognizes the duality of his claim\footnote{14m10s}, referencing a
``safety violation compared with statute violation''.

Even if it was feasible and/or safer to ride in the concrete section,
the \textbf{possibility} is irrelevant.  ARS 28-812 grants a cyclist
``all of the rights of \dots a driver of a vehicle''.  A driver of a
vehicle isn't required to accept inferior conditions; if a roadway
isn't closed, but some section is impassable, but another section is
more easily traversed, a driver can be expected to use the more
passable section.  So too for a rider of a bicycle.

% interpretation, as does the existence of signs in the opposite
% direction\footnote{1:11m19s, 1:12m50s}.

Even considering the officer's safety concerns, it's important to
realize that more experienced cyclists widely and commonly prefer to
ride in the road over riding in a separate lane or path for reasons of
increased visibility and safety.
Personal experience indicates that many motorists take their ability

to pass a cyclist as an unconditional
% fundamental
and axiomatic truth, with a disregard for safety.  The DOT-endorsed
% \footnote{}
suggestion to ``take the lane'' allows the cyclist to make the
consequences of the motorists judgement more immediately obvious.  The
motorist's decision to pass implicates the safety of multiple parties:
the motorist themself, the cyclist, any oncoming traffic in the
opposite lane, and even another vehicle in the same lane travelling in
the opposite direction, passing a vehicle in the opposite lane.  ARS
28-735 specifies that a motorist passing a bicycle must allow three
feet of clearance between the vehicle and the bicycle.  A cyclist who
deliberately occupies the center of the lane makes it clear to the
following motorist that his judgement in passing will necessarily
implicate any traffic in the adjascent lane, and the motorist will be
discouraged from attempting to pass the cyclist unless the left lane
is empty.

Motorists often become irritated by the presence of a slower vehicle
(or bicycle).  However, drivers' impatience is hardly a reason for a
confident cyclist to ride anywhere with decreased visibility and
safety.
% Rather than investing time and resources demanding enforcement of a
% 2\textsuperscript{dn}-class role for cyclists, one with decreased
% safety, resources of law enforcement functions is spent with
% considerably more effectiveness enforcing real written rules.

% It is precisely for the reason of safety that .. 
% ARS 28-815 (the bicycle variant of the slow-speed rule) requires 
% riding as ``close as practicable'' to the road's right edge.  This
% statute exempts 

% It is not considered practicable to ride 

%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\section{x}
%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%Again, the officer claims greater safety riding elsewhere.  However
%(having had the experience of riding in rumble strips as well as on
%short sections of the formerly-abraded stretch of Butler
%\footnote{1:18m45s}), riding on the abraded section was not only
%unpleasant but actually unsafe.  Again the officer's judgement is not
%in question.  Documentation distributed by the DOT and various Arizona
%cities not only allows but actually supports my claim.

%we're not required to ride on a tiny strip of cement a singular inch
%from the curb.  Rather we are specifically allowed to occupy the
%traditional traffic lane.

\section{Conclusion}

Rejection of the citation and reversal of the trial ruling is
supported by multiple independent arguments.

The only relevant section of the statute for which I'm cited is
specific to \textbf{motor} vehicles.  Whereas bicycle riders are
subject to the requirements of a \textbf{generic} vehicle, they are
not subject to every requirement referencing any variety of vehicle.

\subsubsection*{With sincerity,}
\vspace{24pt}
Justin Pryzby

\singlespacing

\end{document}

% => Maxwell v. Gossett, 126 Ariz. 98-100, 612 P.2d at 1061-10642 (1980)
% 28-704(A), A.R.S., expressly applies only to motor vehicles, which
% does not include bicycles.
% => City of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 139 Ariz. 175, 178, 677 P.2d 1283, 1286 (1984)

% TODO: annotated statutes

%This interpretation is supported by literature from the DOT of the
%State\footnote{1:5m15s, 2:9m0s, 2:9m36s}.