Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 28-812 (2026)

Applicability of traffic laws to bicycle riders

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person riding a bicycle on a roadway or on a shoulder adjoining a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title, except special rules in this article and except provisions of this chapter and chapters 4 and 5 of this title that by their nature can have no application.

B. If a person is found responsible for a civil traffic violation resulting from operating a bicycle:

1. A department or agency of this state may not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person's driver license should be suspended or revoked. A court may not transmit an abstract of the record of the violation to the department of transportation.

2. An insurer may not consider the violation as a moving traffic violation against the person for the purpose of establishing rates for motor vehicle liability insurance or determining the insurability of the person. An insurer may not cancel or refuse to renew an insurance policy because of the violation.

3. A report may not be made under section 28-1559, subsection B.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: State v. Baggett, 306 P.3d 81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Baggett, 306 P.3d 81 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “A.R.S. § 28-812 6 provides that a bicyclist traveling on a roadway has the same rights and duties as the driver of a motor vehicle; it does not discuss the duties and obligations of a bicyclist riding on a sidewalk.”

State of Arizona v. Francisco Flores Huez, Jr., 380 P.3d 103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 28-815, and Tucson City Code (“the Code”) § 5-2 (1953); see also A.R.S. § 28-812. During the ensuing investigation, the officer discovered Huez had outstanding warrants and arrested him.”

Barnes v. City of Tucson, 760 P.2d 566 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “She contends that, since riding a bicycle is not a typical adult activity, it was error ti instruct on negligence per se.”

Maxwell Ex Rel. Maxwell v. Gossett, 612 P.2d 1061 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 10× “A.R.S. § 28-812 Finally, defendants contend that by this statute, A.”

Valenzuela v. Bracamonte, 616 P.2d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d 242 (1964); A.R.S. § 28-812. What is reasonable under the circumstances is a matter for the jury to decide.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.