If overtaking and passing another bicycle , ELECTRIC BICYCLE, OR NON- HUMAN POWERED DEVICE or vehicle proceeding in the same direction.The “within the lane” phrase also remains missing from exception 4; people will attempt to misinterpret that as well.It sounds as though they (the working group) are casting about for another approach (not as yet in the proposal) would codify how sidewalk bicyclists are expected to enter crosswalks, which would moot this issue. Plain language. Do not go straight in a lane marked right-turn-only.Motorists are not looking for bicyclists riding against traffic on the wrong side of the road. O2017.05. We are planning at (finally) getting to bikes once the scooter regulations pass. Very few bike lanes on streets in Maricopa County are designed with the safety of the bicyclist in mind. 5mph is probably unrealistically too slow.Second: In exception 4, where it used to read “another bicycle, …” now reads “another vehcle (sic), bicycle, …”. Wrong way riding is dangerous and against the law.There are new rules for operating bikes and scooters in Tempe. ), others are just suggestions that would streamline the languageThere are a couple of hanging references to Motorized Play Vehicle Def’n of ‘Owner’ and ‘Operator’; the definition (of MPV) has been removed so those references should also be removed, it seems to me. Riding on sidewalks or bicycle lanes. And why is this section needed because I don’t see any other sidewalk prohibitions, except for the as-posted provision in 19-212(A)?It would be cleaner if Tempe code referred to these things, as in ARS, as devices, and not as vehicles. Recent laws passed in other jurisdictions were explored as possible models for Tempe, and the attached ordinance includes some language from a recent California law which is now a model for state and local laws across the country. Here are 9 tips for cycling safely in the Phoenix suburb. Otherwise it’s some pretty big fines, and can even be criminal matter, e.g. runners). If so this section would be moot (and should be deleted).Another obvious glaring example that this section is messed up is Sec. If it’s bicyclists, there are major problems for bicyclists here… 1) sub sec E bans them from riding on any roadway, and 2) it introduce this nebulous term “crossing”. Scooters and bicycles must ride with the flow of traffic, in existing bike lanes and on the street if the speed limit is below 25 mph. Bikes, e-bikes and scooters must ride in the street when the speed limit is 25 mph or below. Is that ok?Cycling, traffic safety, traffic justice, and legal topics; energy, transit and transportion economicsInterestingly apparently section a is intended to (also) apply to pedestrians (e.g. I see this one:BICYCLE MEANS A DEVICE PROPELLED BY HUMAN POWER WHICH ANY PERSON MAY RIDE, HAVING TWO (2) TANDEM WHEELS OR HAVING THREE (3) OR MORE WHEELS IN CONTACT WITH THE GROUND.3. This is something we are still going to look at” ]For one possible way to address the issue see Issue #0, immediately above and what was done by City of Boulder.There seems to be some serious definitional confusion here; I am not sure what a “human powered vehicle operator” is… Here are two definitions from the 6/6 proposal, one of them is pre-existing and apparently now wrong (my emphasis added):UPDATE: it turns out the language in the proposal was borrowed from the, now removed, motorized play vehicle codes (it’s existing 19-24a). 1. If reasonably necessary to avoid conditions, including fixed or moving objects, parked or moving vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, animals or surface hazards.And the following problems remain unchanged:eBicyclists are already limited by speed laws for drivers of vehicles; including going no faster than is reasonable and prudent.