Blog
Picking Your Battles: The League & The Reed Bates Case
We have been following the Reed Bates’ case since pretty much the day the saga began. At the very outset, I called a couple of the people closely involved with Mr. Bates and offered the League’s help; it did appear that the charges were inappropriate, that Bates had a legal right to ride where he was riding, and that the jury that Bates chose to be heard by was incorrectly instructed by the first judge involved. On that basis, we would have been happy to help defend his right to ride on the road.
Our offer to assist was not accepted; instead, he and his advisers chose to assert that not only was Bates legally allowed to ride where he was riding, but that’s where he and everyone else should be riding, even in the presence of a perfectly rideable shoulder. That approach took the issue beyond a strict legal argument as to where one is legally allowed to ride to where one should ride, and a rural Texas courtroom may not be the best place to have that call made on our behalf. As the situation has developed, Bates (and the people advising him) has unfortunately chosen to follow a strategy that our board and legal advisers did not think was in the best interests of all cyclists – from the initial trial by jury preference to a failure to show up for court dates and hearings to the pursuit of a position that is simply not reasonable and could easily backfire.
We have remained in touch with the issue with local Dallas-area advocates, Bike Texas and our board of directors. It is instructive that none of us have chosen to get involved. I think we all regret that the way the case has been played by Bates and his advisers has precluded us from constructively intervening to help him and defend our collective rights to the road.
Andy Clarke
League President
Clarke was appointed to the position of Executive Director in April of 2004 after successfully leading efforts to create, interpret and implement the various transportation programs that are available to improve conditions for bicycling and walking as the League’s State and Local Advocacy Director.
Subscribe
August 19th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Legal maxim: Bad Cases make Bad Law.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Disagreeing with Reed’s opinion that all bicyclists “should” ride in a “perfectly rideable shoulder” is reasonable. Requiring him to pay a ransom in the form of not arguing his opinion in court in order to obtain LAB’s support is not reasonable. What kind of advocacy is that?
I agree with ksteinhoff that “bad cases make bad law”, but why is this a bad case? We now have a judge ruling that bicycle travel in a travel lane instead of a shoulder, despite doing so not being in violation of any statute in the Texas vehicle code, is “reckless driving”. Since this is a lower court ruling, it does create precedent or law.
But I believe the appeal will create precedent, and so, on behalf of all bicyclists, especially all Texas bicyclists, Reed needs everyone’s help to win the appeal, whether he chooses to express his “should” opinion or not.
August 19th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
“[Reed Bates] and his advisers chose to assert that not only was Bates legally allowed to ride where he was riding, but that’s where he and everyone else should be riding.”
This claim has been questioned by some, and characterized as false by some of Reed’s supporters.
August 19th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Having joined LAB just three months ago so I can support Bike Ed, I’m pretty new to this, but I think a strong statement by LAB in the media center about the Texas case and other road rights restrictions (like the one in Colorado) would be in order, without commiting the corporation to a defense strategy it thinks may be fatally flawed. As it is, the result may well affect us all, especially if it results in bad law being made.
I’m not sure how Bike Texas would know much about the case. I didn’t see anyone from that organization at either of the Bates trials. I DO know that our Director, Gail Spann, HAS kept abreast of the situation.
In the final analysis, Andy makes a very important point that the most important principle is how to best defend our collective rights to use the public roads. I would like to hear more about LAB’s approach to this going forward.
August 19th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I’m going to join LAB just so I can vote in the upcoming elections.
August 20th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Bates has definitely been abused by the system, but LAB may be reticent to get sucked into this particular case and jurisdiction for the same reason the French SHOULD HAVE been reticent to be sucked into Dienbienphu: It really hurts to stake all the chips on the wrong battle at the wrong time and place. By contrast to the French, Gen. Giap chose his battles wisely.
I second Steve Averill’s last paragraph.
August 20th, 2010 at 3:19 am
[...] it’s safer to ride in the middle of the lane, it’s still reckless; Andy Clarke explains why the League of American Bicyclists didn’t get involved. What if bike racks could pay for themselves — or maybe even make money? [...]
August 20th, 2010 at 4:04 am
The perfectly good shoulder. LAB has no clue. They support the CPSC in there reflectors are good enough and give out awards to cities who install poorly designed bicycle facilities. The shoulder may be perfectly good if you have 2″ wide tires. The shoulder under the law is not considered part of the road either. The judge is making his decision based on a negative bias toward bicyclists. LAB needs to be less politically correct and more for bicyclists.
August 20th, 2010 at 10:48 am
Re: “perfectly good shoulders”: All the pictures I’ve seen show a continuous rumble strip along the shoulder, something LAB has recently advocated strongly against. Many portions have sand and potholes, see pics at http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2010/03/absolutely-positively-not.html These are all reasons cyclists must have the legal option to avoid shoulders, as they do in Texas and most other states. But that statute is meaningless if a cyclist can now expect to be ticketed for reckless driving if s/he chooses to use the travel lane, FOR WHATEVER REASON.
August 20th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Please read the Cycle Dallas blog for more information. It includes links to photos showing the rumble strips on the “perfectly rideable” shoulder.
http://cycledallas.blogspot.com/2010/08/clearly-unhelpful.html
August 20th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
“Our offer to assist was not accepted; instead, she and her advisers chose to assert that not only was Parks legally allowed to sit where she was sitting, but that’s where she and everyone else should be sitting, even in the presence of a perfectly available seat in the back. That approach took the issue beyond a strict legal argument as to where one is legally allowed to sit to where one should sit, and a Southern courtroom may not be the best place to have that call made on our behalf.”
August 20th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
This is supposed to be a nation of laws. LAB’s original name (the League of American Wheelmen) was doubtlessly chosen to emphasize that. LAB’s decision should have been based on the law.
This cyclist was apparently riding in obedience to the law. Yet this supposed “advocacy” organization does not support this cyclist’s right to ride there. What is more important than defending our right to the road?
It gives me little hope that the League will ever take the next step, which is to work to repeal bad laws, such as the mandatory sidepath law long present in Oregon and recently added in Florida. (“You wanted bike lanes. OK, now you’re not allowed to leave them.”)
It seems to me that the Cyclists’ Touring Club of Britain is consistently more effective in both defending cyclists’ legal rights and in speaking up strongly in favor of those rights.
Which board candidates will make LAB more like the CTC?
August 21st, 2010 at 11:59 am
I appreciate the explanation posted by the LAB. Apparently those close to Reed Bates are stating that this explanation is not true. It is a he said, she said argument.
However, politics aside, we now have a ruling that CAN NOT be left to stand!!! Our rights to the use of the road are in grave jeopardy. If this was the NRA, NAACP, ACLU, defending the rights of their respective groups, they would be going out full bore.
LAB please, whatever the perceptions of what was offered and refused in the past, take a stance now that we have THIS VERDICT and step up and crush this verdict!
August 21st, 2010 at 1:45 pm
There’s two ways to operate a bike in the lane in Texas, with due consideration for other road users, or recklessly with callous premeditated disregard for other road users.
a vehicle operator can operate their vehicle within the lane lines and still be operating in a reckless manner.
A person can attempt to assert their rights but do so in a reckless manner.
Mr. Bates is playing with fire in a paper suit at the corner newsstand. He thumbs his nose at the notion of fair and considerate vehicular cycling. Mr Bates is thumbing his nose at american bicyclists with this specious, reckless assertion of his rights.
August 21st, 2010 at 2:28 pm
There’s two ways to operate a bike in the lane in Texas, with due consideration for other road users, or recklessly with callous premeditated disregard for other road users.
How do your operate a bike in the (12 foot wide) lane on 287 with 60-70 mph traffic “with due consideration for other (70 mph) road users”?
According to the judge, the only non-reckless option was to operate a bike in the rumble-strip separated, debris filled and variable width shoulder.
August 21st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
US 287 is a conventional highway, meaning that bicyclists are not prohibited from riding on the highway and in particular, in the travel lanes. It is not a freeway. Andy Clarke says that bicyclists have a right to ride in the roadway but believes that all bicyclists should ride on what he calls a “perfectly rideable shoulder.” (He fails to mention the rumble strip, debris and deteriorated pavement).
At the same time, Andy accuses Reed Bates of contending that all bicyclists should ride in the travel lane. Not only is that not true, it is also irrelevant. Whether you or I would have ridden through the debris or over the holes in the paved shoulder is not the point. Instead, it is whether Andy and the LAB support Reed Bates in his decision to ride on the roadway.
Rather than turn this into an argument about whether the shoulder was “perfectly rideable” or not, or whether all bicyclists should ride in the roadway, we should instead be focusing on whether we support a bicyclist who chooses to exercise his right to ride on the roadway as the driver of a vehicle.
By not supporting that right, Andy and the LAB have made a mockery of their claim to “protect the rights of cyclists across the nation”. Apparently they mean that they only support the rights of cyclists to stay out of the way of cars.
August 21st, 2010 at 3:35 pm
It appears to me that LAB has chosen their stance for a politically convenient reason. I am sorely disappointing in this decision. I am not sure how I can, with a clear consciousness, continue to support this organization.
August 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I must add my voice to the growing chorus condemning the LAB for not supporting the defense of Reed Bates. Whether Bates was obdurate about asserting that everyone should ride on the roadway or not, is beside the point. Moreover, it appears from Karen Dunham’s post and links, that Bates may not have been adamant about including such extraneous arguments in his defense. The LAB could provide support specific to the charge of reckless driving, cyclist right to the road and obligation of all vehicle operators to reduce speed according to “existing” conditions, etc.
Mike Beck stated in his comment above that “a vehicle operator can operate their vehicle within the lane lines and still be operating in a reckless manner”, but neither Mr. Beck nor the Judge that convicted Reed Bates described how Mr. Bates operated his vehicle within the lane in a reckless manner. It appears that the Court based its rationale for convicting Bates upon Bates presence on the roadway where, according to the Judge, motorist would not “expect” to encounter a cyclist. The Court’s rationale for convicting Bates is contrary to Texas Code Sec. 545.351. (b) (1-2)
August 21st, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Has any prominent bicycling-law attorney offered to take the Reed Bates case or stated on the record their opinion? I’ve emailed several and have not heard back.
There have been a lot of accusations to the effect that LAB and Bike Texas have thrown Mr. Bates under the bus. I’ve been the president (and vice-president, and chair of advocacy) of a statewide bicycling organization (Hawaii Bicycling League) and have a hard time with the accusation that anyone would take this lightly.
Here is a link on the trial at Steve Averill’s site.
http://dfwptp.blogspot.com/2010/08/people-versus-bates.html
I made the statement earlier that this might be walking into a quagmire, regardless of whether Mr. Bates was treated unfairly by the municipal court. I still think so. Not sure I’d go as far as Mike Beck, but can easily see how this could get worse for Texas cyclists rather than better. From what I have heard, there is already a lot of animosity about cyclists on farm roads and other TX roads. I’d be careful not to throw gasoline on a fire in someone else’s state that I don’t fully understand.
Seems this is analogous to the Selz vs. Trotwood, Ohio case in the misuse of a charge, in this case the reckless driving charge, but as Steve Magas has said in some of his commentary on Selz vs. Trotwood, Steve Selz was lucky in that the Selz prosecution was sloppy and the defense was astute. If Reed Bates and his lawyer did not handle the
first case correctly, he could get cooked a second time in Texas and
if he loses at an appellate level, that could be worse than losing in a municipal court, right? That is my concern here, in response to a question Serge Issakov asked me offline.
August 21st, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Followup comment. If this goes to an appeal, we probably have no choice but to win or at worst, ensure minimum damage. AT that point, whether to get involved might be self-evident. Just as a loss in Selz vs. Trotwood, OH, would have been bad news.
Where are our lawyers???
August 21st, 2010 at 9:45 pm
without resorting to a lengthy debate at the LAB blog about vehicular operation of a bicycle when in the presence of faster traffic overtaking at time and place and under the conditions then existing…….
Mr. Bates has stated numerous times at his blog and other public forums that he operates well into the lane, often far to the left of the lane of a multiple lane road like US 287.
I believe a cyclist can operate fully in the lane on a road like US 287 in a considerate vehicular manner, akin to John Franklins’ primary:secondary road lane positioning technique.
I believe, based on Mr Bates public comments, that he operates in defiance of any consideration of other road users, in a politically motivated and reckless manner.
Mr. Bates does not exemplify the virtues of sharing the road; he is not riding in a vehicular manner but in an inconsiderate, reckless and militant, ‘social anarchist’ style. in his attempts to assert his rights he oversteps the bounds involved in operating a vehicle in a competent and considerate manner.
It is not just ones own rights but the rights of others that must be considered when interacting with others. A vehicle operator can operate their vehicle entirely within the lane lines and still do so with premeditated disregard for other road users.
It’s a shame the LAB may have to get involved to protect vehicular cyclists’ rights that Mr. Bates has been callously and unwittingly endangering.
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am
Mike, what Reed wrote in his blogs and elsewhere about positioning is not relevant to this case or LAB’s choice to not involve itself. Please put whatever biases you may have formed from reading all that aside, and try to look at this objectively.
I hope that you agree that what is relevant here is how Reed was positioned when he was cited. To that point, all the evidence, including police testimony and police video, indicates he was riding approximately in the center of a narrow 12 foot lane adjacent to rumble-strip separated shoulder of varying width and quality. This is not disputed by either side.
What would you recommend he do instead? Yes, some cyclists would choose to ride in that shoulder, most others would probably choose to avoid that road altogether (assuming that’s possible for Reed’s destination and time requirements).
But Reed chose to ride within the lane in the only safe manner known, and in complete compliance with every law that governs bicyclist and slow moving vehicle road use. Do you support his right to make this choice? Don’t you want LAB to support this right for all of us? What, exactly, is your objection here?
August 22nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm
why should the league get behind the riding antics of an admitted obstinate and uncompromising bicyclist, and a convicted reckless driver of his bicycle?
the only reason the league should get involved in this aggrandizing and specious, wholly unnecessary ‘road rights’ case is if his wild trajectory in his legal battle looks like it is going to impact bicycists rights in texas or other states.
its a shame this type of case gets masqueraded in front of the bike league as a bonifide legal battle.
this is a result of inflammatory, uncompromising and decidedly UN-vehicular operation that rose to the level of reckless disregard for others.
a cyclist does not, despite its ostensible legality, have the right to uncompromisingly ride left-hand biased along a 65mph road without due consideration for other road users. one does not operate a bicycle in a vacuum, operation of a bike as an obstruction in the roads is rightfully considered reckless driving.
again, it is downright lousy this is the type of joker the LAB might have to help defend, he’s thumbing his nose at fair and considerate bicycling.
It sounds like Texas is in grave need of bike ed classes!
Beck
August 22nd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Beck says, “I believe a cyclist can operate fully in the lane on a road like US 287 in a considerate vehicular manner”
Beck is apparently saying that a bicyclist may ride in the left or middle of a narrow travel lane as long as no one wants to pass, but must immediately move to the ride side of the lane whenever faster traffic approaches from the rear. That view is simply incorrect, both from a legal and from a bicycle advocacy point of view.
The Texas “as far right as practicable laws says:
===
Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless:
…
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
…
===
First, the shoulder is not part of the roadway, and Texas has no mandatory shoulder law. So Mr. Bates was explicitly allowed to ride in the roadway. The highway where Mr. Bates was riding is divided into two 2-lane roadways. The lanes are about 12′ wide. There is no bike lane. So the exception for lanes less than 14′ wide applies and this statute does not apply.
Just as any other driver who was traveling slower than other traffic, Mr. Bates was required to drive in the right-hand lane:
===
Sec. 545.051. DRIVING ON RIGHT SIDE OF ROADWAY.
…
(b) An operator of a vehicle on a roadway moving more slowly than the normal speed of other vehicles at the time and place under the existing conditions shall drive in the right-hand lane available for vehicles, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, unless the operator is:
(1) passing another vehicle; or
(2) preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.
===
There were two travel lanes in the direction that Mr. Bates was riding, so the “or” in the first sentence means that Mr. Bates complied with this law if he was driving in the right-hand of those travel lanes. The requirement to drive “as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway” applies only if there is no right-hand travel lane.
The judge who convicted Mr. Bates of reckless driving agreed that he was riding in compliance with traffic law but still convicted him of reckless driving. By the same logic, the driver of a corn combine traveling 8 mph would also be guilty of reckless driving, but, as a Georgia appeals court found in an impeding traffic case , such a ruling would be tantamount to prohibiting corn combines on public roads, which was clearly not the legislature’s intent.
Now Beck may argue, as Andy Clarke does, that not getting out of the way of faster traffic is “inconsiderate”, but it is clearly not unlawful. To say that bicyclists should always get out of the way the moment faster traffic approaches from behind is tantamount to saying that bicyclists have to compromise their own safety for the convenience of faster drivers. Such a position from a bicycle advocacy organization like LAB is clearly unacceptable.
Beck clearly agrees with Andy Clarke that the rights of bicyclists only extend as far as “the right to get out of the way of cars”.
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Why are all those words being said on my account?
perhaps Bob Shanteau is not familiar with John Franklin’s primary:secondary road positioning advice?
Despite the ostensible legality of operating far left in the lane on a 65mph state highway any time the lane is not 14 feet wide, without consideration of other road users, pragmatic, considerate vehicular cycling technique suggests that type of lane positioning dogmatism is preposterous.
traffic statutes do not operate in a vacuum nor do vehicle operators sharing public roadways. The law ostensibly allowing MR. Bates his militant lane position is not the ONLY law affecting Mr. Bates and his vehicular operation in Texas.
A vehicle operator can operate their vehicle entirely in the lane, and still be found reckless and operating with premeditated disregard for other road users.
Beck
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Mike, if the safe way to pass a cyclist in a substandard width lane is to CHANGE lanes, why does it matter WHERE the cyclist is IN the lane?
What makes it reckless? A safe pass means changing lanes, the cyclist’s position is to be seen by overtaking traffic so that they WILL change lanes without being delayed by the cyclist.
Moving to the right leads to inattentive blindness or reckless (using the term correctly) passes by overtaking motorists attempting to pass inside the lane rather than simply changing to the left hand lane.
What is it about his lane position that is reckless and inconsiderate? What would moving to the right side of the lane accomplish besides moving him further out of the direct view of the overtaking drivers?
Of interest is the fact that you can legally pass on the right in Texas using the shoulder. So Chipseal’s position gives the overtaking drivers 2 options, neither of which leaves him dying on the side of the road.
I keep reading reckless and inconsiderate. I would really like to hear WHAT EXACTLY makes his action either. What exactly would moving right accomplish besides making overtaking drivers feel that they have more right to that lane and if they make a squeeze play between the cyclist and traffic in the left lane and hit him… it’s his own fault for being there. Compared with having to explain just running him down in the middle of the road (much less likely) when he’s directly in front of them.
The idea that potentially reckless motor vehicle drivers mean a cyclist operating within the law should be charged with reckless driving for being somehow inconsiderate?
You believe he can operate in a considerate vehicular manner… what bearing does that have? Your definition is being on the right side of the lane, but WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHERE HE IS IN A SUBSTANDARD WIDTH LANE? What is he giving the motorist in consideration by moving right besides the opportunity to pass him in a more dangerous manner?
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:06 pm
I predicted this outcome. Mr. Bates has a right to use the roadway, but he may not ignore his impact on others and also has an obligation to comply with other laws like the impeding traffic law and the reckless driving law. Lots of comments want to focus only on Mr. Bates’ right to the roadway, but want to ignore his obligation to other users of the roadway under other laws. As the judge said, he has to look at all of the laws, not just on in particular.
In regard to the precedent this case will set, I ride a bike a lot in Texas. This case will not impact me or 99% of other Texas cyclists. All Mr. Bates’ conviction will mean is that in Ellis County, cyclists should ride on the 12 foot wide paved shoulder instead of the 65mph travel lane. Honestly, that is what ever one of us would have done anyway. If you want a fair representation of the shoulder go to Google maps and look at 287 between Ennis and Waxahachie in Texas. Some would have you believe it is an unrideable lane of death. There may be sections that aren’t perfect, but it isn’t the lane of death that some here would have you believe. I hope Mr. Bates will put these problems behind him and get on with his life. This case has cost him enough already.
August 22nd, 2010 at 11:48 pm
Wes, what is his impact on others exactly? How exactly was he impeding traffic when there was another lane next to him going the same direction? I haven’t read anything about a string of cars caught behind him, only a single cop car following him and getting mad that he didn’t pull off the road after a while.
To be guilty of reckless driving you have to do something reckless. WHAT did he do that was reckless? Cut someone off? Follow to closely? Pass in a dangerous manner? Weave unpredictably? No… he rode in a section of the lane that some uneducated motorists bitched about and the police and judge agreed regardless of the law or basic vehicular cycling rules. The motorists were complaining because they felt he was in their way and would have to change lanes or slow down… and that’s just reckless?
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 am
elicit a couple of dozen 911 calls about a bicyclist operating dangerously in the left hand side of a 65mph state highway lane, perhaps?
MR Bates specious lane positioning and ill-thought out legal battle is an attempt to make a mockery of the principles involved in considerate road sharing as a vehicular cyclist.
a competent vehicular cyclist cannot operate without due consideration of other road users. Our road rights do not trump due consideration of others’ road safety.
We have rights AND duties attendant to our operation on the public roads and highways of america.
Share the road, do not hog the road – despite ones’ ostensible legal right to ride at the left side of the lane of 65mph state highways.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:56 am
Mike, still waiting for answers from you to my questions in this post: August 22nd, 2010 at 11:54 am post.
Scott, well said!
Wes, I agree we need “to look at all of the laws, not just one in particular”, but where is the law that “considers his impact on others” and requires him to travel in the shoulder instead of the travel lane? They are making that up out of whole cloth, first with a (discredited in other states) misapplication of the minimum speed law (calling it the impeding law is a misnomer), and with a horrible misapplication of the reckless driving statute. Did you see Keri’s blog about this?
“Reed’s civil rights have been trampled, with the added absurdity of a conviction for reckless driving. Do you know how hard it is to get a citation for reckless driving issued to a motor vehicle driver? Even when reckless drivers cause a crash, the system is stacked so hard against conviction that police go for careless driving instead. There are drivers who are a menace on the roads still driving legally and endangering us all because of this!”
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/08/20/who-will-speak-up-when-they-come-for-you/
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:38 am
What do i recommend Mr. Reed Bates do, Serge?
First off, he should take a LAB bike101 class!
Seriously, Mr. Bates needs to realize he does not operate his bike in a vacuum or in a textbook. Mr. Bates needs to operate his bike with regard for others on the roads.
I would suggest Mr. Bates operate in the Franklin inspired primary:secondary vehicular cycling style within the lane lines of these state highways, despite his legally ostensible claim to the entire lane of 65mph state highways when the lanes are less than 14 feet wide.
Mr. Bates was not convicted for failing to operate his bike on the shoulder, he was convicted of operating with reckless disregard for other road users.
Mr. Bates’ specious ‘road rights’ fight thumbs his nose at the rights and responsibilities of the public traveller.
I suspect Mr. Bates may be an unwitting pawn in a ploy by the LAB-REFORMers to smear the LAB and its integrity, an attempt to smear the league as failing the american bicyclist for not standing by a reckless and militant road hog on a bike.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:17 am
Mike, thank you for answering and clarifying. But I’m still not understanding where you think Reed should have been riding instead of in the center of the lane.
Franklin’s secondary riding position is “about 3 feet to the right of the line of traffic… but not closer than 1.5 feet to the edge of the road” (Cyclecraft, N. American edition, p. 94).
Remember, we’re talking about 12 foot lanes, so going right to left we have:
* Right edge of lane/rumble strip
* Minimum 1.5 foot buffer from edge of road to bicyclist.
* Two foot wide bicyclist
* Minimum 3 feet buffer to the line of traffic.
That leaves 12 – 1.5 – 2 – 3 = 5 1/2 feet of space in the lane for the passing line of 60-70 mph traffic, assuming no buffer space within the lane to the left of that passing traffic.
A Honda Civic can hardly fit in that space, much less a nine foot wide semi.
That’s what you’re recommending? Really?
Besides that, two more questions:
Don’t you agree that on such a road motorists need to know, preferably sooner than later, that they need to encroach into, if not change completely into, the adjacent lane in order to pass? And that riding in the primary riding position (near the center of the lane) telegraphs this information to them sooner and more effectively than riding in the secondary riding position, which arguably looks like you’re inviting them to pass you within the lane?
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:59 am
serge, i think your textbook analysis must make sense to you in front of your computer.
as it was, Mr. Bates was operating well to the left of a 65mph state highway, NOT controlling the lane and moving safely into a secondary lane position as is recommended under the Franklin vehicular cycling style.
Dogmatism and absolutism might make riding a bicycle in front of a computer monitor make sense to you, serge.
Chipseals’ reckless road positioning drama is a FIASCO, Mr. Bates is snubbing his nose of the rights AND DUTIES attendant in public roadway use.
Cyclists do not ride public roads in a vacuum. The laws governing lane positioning are only one small part of the panoply of responsibilities attendant in public roadway use.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:14 am
As an interesting aside, i see this fight, rallying the troops behind FRAP laws that grant cyclists explicit rights in substandard width lanes, is a distinct departure from many in the LAB -REFORM camp that think no bike specific laws are necessary.
Some in the LAB reform camp would prefer to repeal all the ‘discriminatory’ cyclist specific FRAP law.
The irony in all this: without the cyclist specific provisions about substandard width lanes, Mr. Bates would have even less of a defense.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:20 am
Mr. Bates had an obligation under other Texas laws not to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic and not to drive his vehicle in a reckless manner. He also has the legal right in Texas to use the shoulder, as the operator of a bicycle. It is Mr. Bates obligation to comply with all of Texas traffic laws and, when he has the option of using a perfectly rideable shoulder instead of endangering others, then he should exercise his right to operate his bicycle on the shoulder. Mr. Bates’ one-man Critical Mass ride on a 65mph highway with a perfectly usable wide paved shoulder (see Google street view of 287 between Ennis and Waxahachie if you want an unbiased view of the shoulder) does not make him Texas cyclists’ Rosa Parks. Add the terrible facts of this case to the fact that it will be tried in rural Texas courts and this case is a sure fire loser.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am
“Share the road, don’t hog the road”?
Seriously?
There are two narrow lanes in each direction, and a cyclist riding in a straight line within one of them is hogging the road? I always consider that 50/50 sharing, as fair as it gets. Why should I be expected to cede more space than that, when what I’m doing is legal and what I consider the safer option, just because I’m going slower? How does my compromising my safety for their convenience make me “inconsiderate”? Would they do the same for me?
I think the real problem people have with Bates’ behavior is that he was not being properly deferential to overtaking traffic (something that is nowhere a legal requirement). We have drivers making 911 calls, police officers, lawyers, judges, and even some bicycle advocates all trying to find Bates guilty of being reckless by simply riding in a straight line in a legal place on the road, in the rightmost lane as befits slower traffic, with plenty of opportunity for faster traffic to pass safely in the left lane. What’s really being challenged here is the culture of speed, which says that faster traffic owns the roads and tolerates slower users only at the convenience of the faster ones. The only reckless thing Bates has done is dare to challenge that culture. Many people, including many bicycle advocates, would prefer to leave it unchallenged. Sure we can debate (and are debating) the wisdom and strategy of challenging it, but please, let’s at least recognize it for what it is, not try to cloak it in terms like inconsiderate, reckless, or illegal.
- John Brooking, LCI #2512
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:45 am
why, John,
the evidence certainly suggest that Mr. Bates’ militant and deliberate obstructionism on the roads of texas rises to the level of reckless disregard for others.
Mr. Bates snubs his nose at vehicular bicycling. This is not a case of road rights but a case of reckless riding.
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 am
I’m not going to get sucked into a continuing debate, Mike, but I’ll ask once and then leave it alone: How does Bates’ not moving into the shoulder simply because faster traffic was approaching from behind constitute reckless riding? I just don’t get it. I might understand the charge of cultural recklessness, for challenging the culture of speed in a place and in a way not conducive do winning that argument, but how was it physically reckless? He was riding in a straight line in the rightmost lane. What’s physically reckless about that?
The legal responsibilities of any driver being overtaken are limited to not obstructing the pass by speeding up or moving left. There is no legal requirement to move to the right to facilitate the pass. Beyond not speeding up or moving left, the rest of the responsibility for safe passing lies with the overtakER, not the overtakEN. So as long as Bates was not speeeding up or moving left at the time of being overtaken, any other recklessness that occurred must have been on the part of the OVERTAKING driver.
Where do you disagree with this?
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:34 am
P.S. Both Serge and I, and many others, ride on all sorts of roads every day to get around. We are not simply “armchair philosophers” (or the modern equivalent in this context, “computer screen cyclists”).
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:38 am
Mike, you’re the one who suggested “Franklin’s secondary riding position”. If you meant something other than how Franklin defines, please say so.
But even if Reed was 1.5 feet closer to the edge than Franklin recommends, riding at the edge, that still leaves only 10 feet to the left of him, and thus only 7 feet for overtaking traffic assuming a 3 foot buffer between traffic and cyclist, and no buffer in the lane to the left of passing traffic.
And again, you dodged the main questions (last paragraph of post #32).
At least Wes recognizes that the only reasonable alternative to controlling the lane in this situation is to give it up altogether, and ride in the shoulder. What Wes does not recognize is every cyclist’s right, including Reed’s, to not take that option (for whatever reason), even if it inconveniences passing motorists and requires them to change lanes to pass, or, perhaps, slow down!
Like Brooking says, the real problem you all seem to have is that by choosing to ride in the travel lane rather than at it’s edge (Beck) or in the shoulder (Wes), Reed was not being properly deferential to overtaking traffic.
Mike is essentially arguing that even if the law clearly declares a lane to be too narrow to safely share, it’s reckless to not share it never-the-less.
And Wes appears to agree with the police, judge and LAB that the cyclist should not be the one to ultimately decide if a given shoulder is good enough to ride on, but others should be the ones. That is, the cyclist may decide it’s not good enough initially, but he does so at the legal peril that his decision may be overridden by others. This is the situation with bike lanes, of course, but the law actually states that. With respect to shoulders, it’s making up law on the fly.
Such is the sad, sad state of cyclist advocacy.
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:44 am
Nowhere do i suggest Mr Bates yield his right to the lane of the road in question.
Mr. Bates’ fiasco is an affront to the rights and duties attendant in public road use.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“Nowhere do i suggest Mr Bates yield his right to the lane of the road in question.”
Yes, and nowhere do I suggest that you did suggest that Mr Bates yield his right to the lane of the road in question.
About your position I wrote, “Mike is essentially arguing that even if the law clearly declares a lane to be too narrow to safely share, it’s reckless to not share it never-the-less.”
In other words, “even if the law clearly declares a lane to be too narrow to safely share, it’s reckless to use the primary riding (lane controlling) position never-the-less”.
What you are doing is dodging the questions I asked you #32 and #40.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Serge said that Mr. Bates has a right to not opt for the big fat paved shoulder that the great state of Texas installed at considerable expense “even if it inconveniences passing motorists and requires them to change lanes to pass, or, perhaps, slow down!” Actually, that’s not correct. Mr. Bates does have an obligation under both impeding traffic laws and reckless driving laws to take actions to minimize his impact on others. He has an obligation to act as a reasonable person would instead of a one-man Critical Mass protest rider. We all have an obligation to take reasonable steps to try to get along with others on the roadway. It really is just that simple. Mr. Bates elected not to do so and decided to take on the law instead. Not a wise move in Texas.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
My recommendations as to how to operate competently on a 65mph roadway is clear, my condemnation of this masquerade of a roads right case is crystalline.
Mr. Bates, in his admittedly obstructionist style of operating his bicycle far to the left in the lane on state highway 287 rose to the level of recklessness despite his ostensibly legal right to operate far to the left of substandard lanes of traffic.
Bicyclists do not ride our bicycles in lawbooks one statute at a time. Mr. Bates riding style is an insult to the very foundation of vehicular bicycling on the public roads and highways of America.
Mr. Bates makes a mockery of how to operate a bicycle with this petty fiasco, Mr. Bates is ignoring his duties attendant in the use of the public roadways.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Everyone is missing the main point. From
what I have read Reed did not reject any
offer to help. Nor does he believe that
anyone should be forced to ride in the
travel lane. Since this appears to be
just one big misunderstanding is the
offer to help still valid?
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Operate safely right to share the road with faster traffic pretty much sums it up, doesn’t it?
All this talk of reliance on the bicyclist specific FRAP provisions defining substandard lane width really gives a person pause when looking at the gravity of this commitment to cyclist specific FRAP laws.
Y’all should really take a look at what you are using to frame your arguments, its’ rather ironic.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
1. Although Mr. Bates may have the law on his side in the narrow legal sense of lane positioning on a narrow lane (and the Feb. 201 draft AASHTO guidelines support that, see pg. 47), I think Wes has a point that there is no guarantee that this is the only law that might apply.
2. As far as appealing, anyone who has read Steve Magas’ writing on Selz vs. Trotwood, where this sort of situation came up, has to note that Magas was not entirely optimistic in winning that case and has stated that could have easily turned out 2-1 against Selz instead of 2-1 in favor. One would be wise to study the appeals process and the judges on the appellate bench in TX carefully before wading into deeper and murkier water.
3. So what if Bates wins? It wouldn’t entirely surprise me if highly restrictive laws were passed perhaps banning cycling entirely from high speed roads in TX except on shoulders.
As an example of the law of unintended consequences:
http://law-library.rutgers.edu/SSM.html
“The movement to open civil marriage to same-sex couples achieved its first temporary success in 1993 with the decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples would be presumed unconstitutional unless the state could demonstrate that it furthered a compelling state interest. In response to this decision the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to preserve that restriction. A similar court decision in Alaska in 1998 led to an even stronger constitutional amendment, itself defining marriage as between one man and one woman…”
I was in Hawaii and was working that issue. We got beat on that constitutional amendment, 71% to 29% in what is arguably the most liberal state in the Union. As Steve Magas once said to me, having the law on your side on an appeal doesn’t necessarily mean you will win. Or, as our BCNM President, herself a lawyer, recently said, its better to stay out of court because you can’t predict anything.
August 23rd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
It’s one thing to predict an unjust outcome based on presuming the decision will be made in a biased anti-cyclist manner. It’s quite another to defend such a decision as being just. Wes and Mike are definitely doing that, Khal is getting awfully close.
Wes’ preposterous argument, which Khal seems to support, goes so far as to not only ignore the authoritative judicial opinions in Trotwood v Selz and the Georgia case it was based on, but to even disagree with them, as he contends that the minimum speed statute (a.k.a impeding) does and should apply to bicyclists (and, by logical extension, to drivers of all slow-moving vehicles), even when they are traveling as fast as they reasonably can. What kind of advocate disagrees so strongly with a decision that so decisively favors his supposed constituency? More importantly, why?
Khal’s argument that politically even a win on appeal could ultimately backfire IF more restrictive laws are passed by the legislature as a result is, finally, a good point, but I think it’s a big IF and a risk bicyclist advocates can and should take. I recognize that this is a strategic political decision and reasonable people can disagree on which way to go.
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Serge, its not even my or Wes’ words that count, but that of the judicary’s.
Also, there is no more reason to assume Selz would decide this case than there was for Magas to assume the Georgia case would decide Selz. Magas was not entirely confident about the outcome. Each appeal carries its own risks and prior rulings can be overturned–precedents are powerful tools, but not legally binding. That’s all I am saying.
Its fine to advocate that this case be fought tooth and nail and to wonder if the League position is correct, but its also quite reasonable for people to disagree on the risks involved and path forward. As you say, there are both political and legal issue.
Its especially useful for Texan cyclists to weight in, as they will be impacted most directly. The rest of us are to some degree the peanut gallery.
I’d still like to hear from the Mionskes and Magases of the world on this case, and wonder why we have not.
I gotta get some work done….
August 23rd, 2010 at 2:16 pm
The court in Trotwood v. Selz was 2-1 in favor of Mr. Selz. This was an Ohio appeals court. Not exactly the red state of Texas. Additionally, Mr. Selz didn’t have any options. There was no wide rideable shoulder available to him. Had there been, that 2-1 may have gone the other way or maybe even a 3-0 against Mr. Selz. The Trotwood court found that finding Mr. Selz guilty would be tantamount to telling Mr. Selz that he could not use that roadway, clearly against legislative intent. No such outcome will occur if Mr. Bates is found guilty. It just means that he has to move over 10 feet. He still gets to go where he needs to go and the other users of the roadway don’t have to be impeded.
I know some of you want to put as much egg on LAB’s face as you can with this case, but it really is a terrible set of facts to be going to court with and LAB is smart to stay out of it, as is BikeTexas, at least in my opinion.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“The Trotwood court found that finding Mr. Selz guilty would be tantamount to telling Mr. Selz that he could not use that roadway, clearly against legislative intent. No such outcome will occur if Mr. Bates is found guilty.”
Wes, the shoulder is not part of the roadway, so finding Bates in violation of impeding, recklessness, or anything else simply for operating slowly (but about as fast as he reasonably could travel) in the roadway IS “tantamount to telling Mr. Bates that he could not use that roadway”, a finding which is clearly contrary to legislative intent.
“It just means that he has to move over 10 feet.”
Which is OFF the roadway!!!
This isn’t about putting egg on LAB’s face. This is about defending cyclists’ rights to ride in the roadway, especially without having to defend our right to do so.
With Mandatory BL and shoulder laws cyclists are required by law to justify why they are not in the BL or shoulder. You’re arguing it is reasonable and just to require cyclists in Texas to have to justify their decision to ride in the roadway rather than the shoulder, even though Texas has no mandatory shoulder law.
At least if there was a mandatory shoulder law, the citation would be just (given the law), and the focus could be on getting that unjust law repealed. The implication of what you’re saying if that even in a state with a mandatory shoulder law that is repealed, it’s reasonable and just to continue to require cyclists to have to justify their decision to ride in the roadway rather than the shoulder. Bizarre.
August 23rd, 2010 at 3:24 pm
This isn’t a hypothetical conversation about reasonable and just. It is about the reality that Mr. Bates (and every Texas cyclist or other state cyclist with impeding traffic statutes) faces. Mr. Bates is not free to ignore those laws that he doesn’t like. Sure he has a right to the roadway, but he has to exercise that right in a reasonable manner and in accordance with other traffic laws. If Mr. Bates were cited for running a stop sign would we really be having this conversation? Of course not. That is clearly illegal behavior. It is also illegal behavior to impede traffic and to drive with reckless disregard for others. Mr. Bates had a legal and reasonable option available to him that he chose not to use. That’s his right, but in exercising that right he impacted others’ rights and that is illegal in Texas, without regard to what is reasonable and just in anyone’s one-sided opinion.
August 23rd, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Wes, no matter how many times you repeat nonsense, it does not become sense.
Of course Mr. Bates is not free to ignore laws he does not like.
“Sure he has a right to the roadway, but he has to exercise that right in a reasonable manner and in accordance with other traffic laws.”
Exercising a right in a reasonable manner does not mean NOT exercising that right! Riding in the shoulder is riding OFF the roadway, and so is not exercising a right to the roadway. Requiring someone to travel OFF the roadway (in the shoulder) is DENYING his right to travel in the roadway.
In the Trotwood case Selz the court said he had the option to ride further right than he was riding, but the court never-the-less ruled that he could not be found in violation of the minimum speed law. The inapplicability of that law to slow movers in general and bicyclists in particular is absolute, not dependent on roadway/shoulder positioning options. Bates was not in violation of that law, nor any other.
Has there ever been another case in the history of all U.S. law of a cyclist being charged (much less jailed and convicted) for being reckless, simply for riding in the roadway??? The reckless charge is so obviously trumped up it’s very disappointing that you don’t see that.
Bates could not have been in violation of the minimum speed statute because he was on a bicycle. To suggest that a bicyclist riding slowly on a roadway is acting with reckless disregard for the safety of people in 5,000+ lbs motor vehicles is patently absurd, and can only be based on buying in hook line and sinker to the superstitions of the culture of speed. Everything Bates was doing was perfectly reasonable by any legal standard.
Where is the outrage?
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Serge said, “Bates could not have been in violation of the minimum speed statute because he was on a bicycle.” Of course that isn’t what the Ohio court ruled in Selz. Serge wants us all to believe that a bicyclist is automatically exempt from such laws like the impeding traffic laws and the reckless driving laws simply because he is on a bicycle. The Ohio court disagreed with Serge when they found, in a 2-1 decision, that only a cyclist going as fast as they reasonably can is exempt from the impeding traffic statute. However, they never said that “traveling as fast as they reasonably can” is the only limitation that could be applied to a cyclist. Another limitation, which the Ohio court didn’t have to deal with, is the fact that Mr. Selz had nowhere to go laterally in the roadway. Had they had to consider both lateral position and speed as a potential way in which Mr. Selz could have avoided impeding traffic (because one can’t impede traffic without: 1) going slower than other traffic and 2) being positioned laterally in front of the other traffic), then they very well may have convicted Mr. Selz. Certainly there is legal room for they to have done so if they were so inclined. The Ohio court, even though it carries no precedential value in Texas, never exempted any and all cyclists from Ohio’s impeding traffic statute. Even under Selz, a cyclist going so slowly as to intentionally impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic could be convicted of impeding traffic in Ohio. Likewise, a cyclist who refuses to exercise his right to use the 12 foot perfectly rideable shoulder in Texas could also be found to be guilty of impeding traffic because of the impact he or she has on traffic. BTW, I don’t like this outcome, but it is the reality that we face under current Texas law. Maybe someday we will have an impeding traffic statute that only applies to motor vehicles like most states, but today, it applies to all vehicles, which includes bicycles.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:40 pm
Agreed, Wes, but Bates not charged with impeding, he was charged with reckless driving.
So what I hear you and Mike saying is that riding to the left of center in a right-most narrow lane, and not changing your lateral position in any way in response to traffic behind you, is reckless. I still ask, what makes it reckless? I can understand believing it to be rude, and I can understand believing it to be an unwise legal strategy (which an organization may not want to be associated with), but I still don’t understand what is reckless about it in the traffic violation sense. It is not against the law to be rude or unwise.
If you want to criticize Bates as being rude or unwise to justify LAB and others not getting involved, that’s your right to argue, but I don’t understand why you need to agree with this judge’s legal finding of reckless driving in order to do that.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:43 pm
So, Wes is saying that the only way for the driver of a vehicle (or bicycle) who is traveling slower than other traffic and is going at a reasonable speed for that vehicle (or bicycle) not to unlawfully impede faster traffic is to use the shoulder (which is not intended for vehicular travel) and not the roadway (which is)? Outrageous.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
This is not a “battle” that should be purposefully lost due to not fighting the injustice levied on Reed Bates.
In NC we have:
§20_141. Speed restrictions.
(h) No person shall operate a motor vehicle on the highway 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 in compliance with law; provided, this provision shall not apply to farm tractors and other motor vehicles operating at reasonable speeds for the type and nature of such vehicles.
This statute applies to motor vehicles, not bicycle vehicles, and clearly exempts those vehicles that have limited operating speeds due to their design and use.
The existence of a wide shoulder is irrelevant.
The Texas road in question ought to have a sign saying “Slow moving vehicle operators, including bicyclists, may use this highway.” This is similar to I-40, a restricted interstate, in NC that warns of school buses. The Texas road isn’t a restricted freeway.
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Are you guys arguing that Mr. Bates isn’t subject to the Texas statutes regarding impeding traffic or reckless driving just because he is on a bicycle?
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:19 pm
@Wes – No. Bates had the same rights and duties as the driver of any vehicle that was not capable of going faster (such as the corn combine that was the subject of Smith v Lott in Georgia ). Are you saying that a person driving a corn combine on a roadway in Texas can be found guilty of impeding traffic or reckless driving? If so, wouldn’t that be tantamount to prohibiting corn combines from all roadways in the State?
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Yes, Wen, when I wrote “because he was on a bicycle”, I meant “because he was on a bicycle moving about as fast as he reasonably can”. That should go without saying, but I usually say it, this time I did not. Sorry.
But now you’re just being obtuse.
I wrote, “In the Trotwood case the court said [Selz] had the option to ride further right than he was riding, but the court never-the-less ruled that he could not be found in violation of the minimum speed law.
Wes later wrote, “Another limitation, which the Ohio court didn’t have to deal with, is the fact that Mr. Selz had nowhere to go laterally in the roadway.”
That’s factually false. The court ruled that not only did Mr. Selz have elsewhere to go laterally in the roadway, but that had he been cited for not riding FRAP he likely would have been found to be in violation for not riding there instead.
I repeat. The inapplicability of that law to slow movers in general and bicyclists (who are moving as fast as they reasonably can) in particular is absolute, and is not dependent on roadway/shoulder lateral positioning options. If someone is going as fast as they reasonably can, they cannot be in violation of going too slow.
That’s because this statute ONLY regulates speed, by prohibiting “driving so slowly as to impede” when such a slow speed can be reasonably avoided (not whenever and however impeding in general can be reasonably avoided).
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:02 pm
“Are you guys arguing that Mr. Bates isn’t subject to the Texas statutes regarding impeding traffic or reckless driving just because he is on a bicycle?”
No, Bates is not subject to the impeding statutes because he was traveling as fast as he reasonably can. This reasoning is not specific to bicycles. It’s true so often for bicyclists that most states explicitly exclude bicyclists in the statute wording, but Texas does not, so it applies in theory to bicyclists who are impeding others and not traveling as fast as is reasonable.
Bates is not subject to the reckless driving citation because he was doing nothing reckless. That said, I can’t imagine what a cyclist has to do to be legitimately charged with recklessness. It’s hard enough to get motorists cited with violating that statute.
I find it telling that google returns 0 results for the following searches:
“cyclist charged with reckless”
“bicyclist charged with reckless”
In contrast,
“motorcyclist charged with reckless”
returns 1,240 hits
And,
“motorist charged with reckless”
returns 8,090 hits
The idea of citing a bicyclist with being reckless is a stretch no matter, but for simply riding in the roadway? The epitome of a trumped up charge.
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
“Are you guys arguing that Mr. Bates isn’t subject to the Texas statutes regarding impeding traffic or reckless driving just because he is on a bicycle?”
In reference to impeding, I’m saying it’s irrelevant to this discussion because that’s not what he was (ultimately) charged with.
In reference to reckless driving, I’m trying to understand what you (and/or Mike) think was reckless about his behavior.
The Texas reckless driving offense (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.545.htm#545.401) reads: “A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”
So the only thing I can figure you must be claiming is that Bates drove his bicycle in wilful or wanton disregard for the SAFETY of the drivers around him. That’s not the same as wilful or wanton disregard for the CONVENIENCE of the drivers around him. I would also ask if you think the SAFETY of his action for others around him should be affected by whether or not a useable shoulder is present. If so, how? If not, then what difference does it make, and if so, doesn’t that amount to a de-facto bicycle ban on roads without a useable shoulder?
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
(Rereading my post, the last sentence will be less confusing if you take out the last “if so” phrase: “… what difference does it make, and doesn’t that amount to …”)
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:47 pm
I was just going to ask the same question, John, though it’s fair to only ask Wes, as Beck is not arguing that to not be reckless Reed had to have been in the shoulder as Wes is arguing.
Beck’s argument is that Reed should have been riding in “Franklin’s secondary riding position” rather than the “primary riding position”, though he won’t explain how sharing a 12 foot wide lane with 60-70 mph traffic is a good idea.
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 pm
In regard to impeding, Serge seems to be arguing that the only thing the law regulates is speed. Of course that is nonsense. One has to both be going slower than traffic and has to be laterally positioned in front of it to impede traffic. If I ride my bike 2 mph, but I’m on my mountain bike on one of Austin’s beautiful greenbelt trails, I’m not impeding traffic even if I could go faster. Serge continues to argue that the purpose of the impeding traffic statute is to regulate speed, but it is really to prevent people from impeding the progress of others. His position is really quite silly when you think about it.
In regard to reckless driving, I haven’t seen the evidence presented at trial. Perhaps you all have. However, I’m assuming that there was some evidence presented by witnesses at the scene that cars were having to slam on their brakes or swerve to avoid hitting Mr. Bates. At 65 or 70mph, such maneuvers could be dangerous. We don’t have to like it, but under those circumstances, there is plenty of wiggle room for a Texas court to convict.
How many of you guys questioning LAB and BikeTexas’ expert lawyers are yourself lawyers? How many of you have any formal legal training whatsoever? When Andy says that LAB looked at this case and determined that it is best not to pursue it, do you think he is lying to you? Are you guys trained lawyers familiar with Texas law on this subject?
August 24th, 2010 at 2:39 am
look,
this endless rehashing of all our positions on this is meaningless.
Mr. Bates was presumably operating his bicycle far to the left of the lane of US 287, as reported in the 911 calls and as he describes in the public blogosphere about his riding style.
This uncompromising operation far to the left of a lane, of a 65mph multiple lane US highway,
was found to rise to the level of premeditated and reckless disregard for the safety of other road users.
That the traffic lane is of a ‘substandard’ lane width has no standing in this despite the bicyclist specific FRAP provision about narrow lanes many of you flock to for defense of Mr. Bates admittedly “obstructionist” style of bicycling.
a vehicle operator can operate in a traffic lane and do so in a reckless manner.
In defense of the judges position finding Mr. Bates riding style reckless, I see a direct parallel to aggressive driving and lane changes by road ragers in congested conditions. This style of operating a vehicle can rise to the level of reckless driving despite operating in traffic lanes and under the posted speed limit because of the congestion.
-Defending the sanctity of bicyclist specific FRAP provisions, really, guys?
August 24th, 2010 at 11:26 am
“Serge continues to argue that the purpose of the impeding traffic statute is to regulate speed, but it is really to prevent people from impeding the progress of others.”
We’ve exchanged hundreds, probably thousands, of words on this issue alone, Wes, but without even looking I’m sure I’ve never referred to the PURPOSE of the statute, much less said something specific about what it was. Pay attention.
I’ve said the SCOPE of the statute is to regulate speed – particularly the speed of those traveling in the roadway. Of course if you’re not in the roadway where you might impede others the statute does not apply to you, but that’s because you’re not in the roadway. That statute says nothing, nor implies anything, about requiring anyone to leave the road, or to move laterally on the roadway. Leaving the road is not complying with the statute, it’s being in a place where the statute has no application. Bob Mionske is very clear about this in his book, Bicycling & The Law: “The statute prohibiting impeding traffic applies to vehicles that are capable of traveling faster, but which are being operated at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. The statute does not apply to vehicles — including bicyclists — that are traveling as fast as they reasonably can, even if they are otherwise impeding traffic.” (p. 63)
If you want to disagree with traffic cycling legal expert Bob Mionske, take it up with him.
August 24th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Serge, you are discussing a case where there were no legal options for a cyclist to avoid impeding traffic. We can continue to go round and round on this, but the simple fact that there is a big fat wide perfectly rideable shoulder with no intersections for miles that Mr. Bates had the legal right to use, but chose not to despite repeated warnings from law enforcement officers and without regard to how his choices impacted the safety of other users of the roadway. This case has substantially different facts than the 2-1 Selz case in Ohio that Mr. Mionske was discussing and it is being tried in the rural area of a much redder state.
I know that I will never convince you, but the appellate court decision, if Mr. Bates appeals, will speak for itself. I’m just glad that the facts of the Bates’ case are so extreme that this case’s precedential value is so narrow as to never really impact my fellow Texas cyclists.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
We can indeed go round and round on this, saying the same things over and over again, but Wes is definitely right about one thing. In the final analysis its the judge’s words that will decide the case, not the commentary on this blog.
I wish Mr. Bates the best of luck.He will need it.As Steve Magas has said, even in Ohio with better control over the entire case and some research into the background of appellate court judges, the decision could have gone either way. In TX, this is going to be a tough sell.
Anyone know what area of TX the hypothetical appeal would take place in and know anything about the appeals process or judges sitting on the appeals bench? Does the Ellis CO area also include Dallas or any large cosmopolitan city? Country judges or city judges? Reasonable judges or Chief Justice Farm-to-Market? I’m surprised no one has commented on that aspect. As we all should know by now, its not just about the points of law, but the points of view of the judge. That’s why we have such huge fights over who will sit on the US Supreme Court.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
“you are discussing a case where there were no legal options for a cyclist to avoid impeding traffic. ”
No, Wes, I’m discussing the words of a book by a lawyer about cycling and the law from a section about the impeding statute, which explains how that statute does not apply to cyclists moving as fast as they reasonably can IN GENERAL, not just in some specific cases.
Again, it states, “The statute prohibiting impeding traffic applies to vehicles that are capable of traveling faster, but which are being operated at such a slow speed as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. The statute does not apply to vehicles — including bicyclists — that are traveling as fast as they reasonably can, even if they are otherwise impeding traffic.” (p. 63)
The existence of a shoulder has no bearing on the meaning of the statute and its lack of application to someone moving as fast as they reasonably can.
As far as I know, the argument that the Trotwood v Selz/Lott v Smith/Mionske reasoning about what the impeding statute means, and that the interpretation that it does not apply to those moving as fast as they reasonable can is limited to roads without shoulders is your personal theory, and has no basis at all in anything anyone with any legal expertise has ever said or written. Please let me know if I’m wrong about that.
August 24th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
“In the final analysis its the judge’s words that will decide the case, not the commentary on this blog.”
And there is no dispute about that.
My dispute and dismay is with LAB and other supposed advocates who are apparently fine with interpreting the impeding and/or reckless driving statutes in a way that requires cyclists to leave the roadway and ride in the shoulder (or requires them to share narrow lanes per Mike Beck’s interpretation).
I’m dismayed by the lack of outrage for such interpretations and gross misuse of the law to enforce a bias against cyclists having equal driver rights to ride in the roadway, “even [when] they are impeding traffic” (Mionske, p. 63). It’s one thing to see that anti-cyclist bias in the ignorant public at large, but within the cycling community? That’s outrageous too.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
what’s outrageous is this masquerade of a road rights case and the attempted smear of the LAB and other advocacy organizations for failing to support this reckless rider case.
There are several negative trajectories in this fiasco. This case is not simply Mr. Reed Bates rights but an effort to undermine the strength of cyclists existing road rights and further restrict cyclists under the guise of protecting our rights…
The cry by some that have responded here is a cry to furtively restrict cyclists rights under a fraudulent call to preserve them. These efforts are appalling, flagrant, and unconscionable.
It’s easy to see how this strategy of arrogantly flaunting cyclists’ rights could seriously backfire.
The LAB is wise to avoid the Reed Bates fiasco with a 10 foot pole.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I agree with Mike in the final analysis. LAB and BikeTexas are wise to stay out of this case. The very first commenter had it right when they said, “Legal Maxim: Bad cases makes bad law.” This case is bad. Serge wants to continue to argue with me, but in an earlier conversation with me he predicted that Mr. Bates would win at the trial court level with an 80% certainty. I predicted, with a 90% certainty that Mr. Bates would be convicted. You all can figure out for yourself who had a better handle on the law and the rural Texas politics of this case.
I’m not saying that I like the outcome nor am I saying that I am advocating for Mr. Bates to be convicted, but I am looking at the facts, the law, and the reality of the arena in which this case was tried and predicting an unfavorable outcome for Mr. Bates. However, one shouldn’t confuse predicting an outcome with advocating for an outcome. I do wish Mr. Bates’ chances were better, but they aren’t.
August 24th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Wes – You didn’t answer my question, “Are you saying that a person driving a corn combine on a roadway in Texas can be found guilty of impeding traffic or reckless driving?”
If yes, then wouldn’t that be tantamount to prohibiting drivers of corn combines (and thus by extension drivers of all slow moving vehicles, including bicycles) from all roadways in Texas?
If no, then wouldn’t that be tantamount to prohibiting only bicyclists from all roadways in Texas?
Assume that the driver of the corn combine is going at a reasonable speed for a corn combine.
Does the existence of a paved shoulder have anything to do with your answer?
August 24th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Also, I find it troubling that there are a few very vocal anit-LAB and anti-BikeTexas individuals who are trying to make hay with this case and are willing to put Mr. Bates’ best interest aside in an attempt to score a point in their personal holy war.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Bob, Yes, drivers of corn combines could be convicted of impeding traffic, in my opinion, if they elected to drive in the middle of the road such that no traffic traveling in either direction could pass them. See, a corn combine is much wider than a bicycle. If a corn combine could reasonably move over and allow traffic to pass without impeding them, but elected not to because the driver was a jerk just trying to prove a point, then yes, a corn combine could be convicted of impeding traffic, in my opinion. To the second question, no, such a conviction is not tantamount to prohibiting all corn combine drivers from roadways. Just jerks who drive down the middle of the road and intentionally block traffic would be prohibited. Those corn combine drivers who were making a reasonable effort to avoid impeding traffic would be just fine. Bottom line, don’t be a jerk.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Wes – I see that you are assuming the corn combine cannot fit within a single lane. That’s probably correct, but gets away from the point I was trying to make.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the corn combine is narrow enough to fit within a single 12′ lane. How does that change your answer about whether the driver of a corn combine can be found guilty of impeding traffic or reckless driving?
And does your answer depend on whether the highway has a paved shoulder?
August 24th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
The driver of the corn combine is not automatically exempt from Texas’ impeding traffic statute. He/she has to make a reasonable effort to comply with all traffic laws, including the one about impeding traffic. If he/she is unable to avoid impeding traffic because of the conditions then existing on the roadway but has made a good faith effort to try to do so (i.e., is trying to drive Texas friendly with due consideration of others trying to use the roadway at the same time), then he/she will not have a problem sharing Texas’ roadways. If he/she wants to be an @$$, he/she will likely find a Texas lawman on their tail (i.e., don’t be a jerk).
August 24th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Wes – It sounds like what you’re saying is that in order to be “Texas friendly”, the driver of a corn combine is required to get off the roadway whenever faster traffic approaches from behind.
That may indeed be the custom in Texas and is apparently what the citing officers as well as the lower courts in Georgia and Ohio believed in the Smith v Lott and Trotwood v Selz cases, but in both of those cases, higher courts found that requiring the driver of a corn combine or bicycle to leave the roadway is tantamount to prohibiting corn combines and bicycles from the roadway.
Why do you think that a higher Texas court would come to a different conclusion?
Apparently you think that the existence of a paved shoulder makes all the difference. If there were no paved shoulder, would the driver of a corn combine still be guilty of impeding traffic or reckless driving by not getting off the roadway when faster traffic approaches from behind?
August 24th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Bates was not blocking traffic. He was staying within the rightmost lane, as is proper for the driver of a slower vehicle, and overtaking traffic could pass him in the next lane just fine. Making other drivers move over to pass != impeding. It is a “normal and reasonable” movement of traffic. Is it unreasonable when the slower vehicle is a bike?
August 24th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
A couple of points are important here. A corn combine is not a bicycle. A bicycle has the right to drive on the shoulder in Texas. A corn combine does not.
Also, you have to understand that Mr. Selz did not have an improved shoulder available to use, but even in the more liberally minded state of Ohio, it was a close 2-1 case and could have just as easily gone the other way. I do think the existence of a wide rideable shoulder and no legitimate reason not to exercise that right present significant factual differences between Mr. Bates case and Mr. Selz case. More than enough to justify a different outcome, even in a more liberal state like Ohio. Sure the shoulder is not part of the roadway, but it is a big fat perfectly safe rideable shoulder that Mr. Bates had every right to use if he had given any thought to how his decisions impacted others who also have a right to the road.
That’s the legal argument that the Texas prosecutor will make and I think there is plenty of wiggle room for a Texas appellate court to uphold the conviction. The improved shoulder, and Mr. Bates’ right to use it, is the key. Were Mr. Bates to have not had any reasonable alternatives, I would like our chances on appeal.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Bicycles, combines, etc. are supposed to be exempted from “impeding traffic” law as long as we are obeying all other relevant bicycle, combine, etc. statutes, since a bicyclist/combine can only go as fast as a bicyclist/combine can go, as demonstrated in Selz v. Trotwood and the Georgia cases. I would agree that we should be exempted from reckless or careless driving arrests as well as long as we are obeying all bicycle-related laws and no actual dire extenuating circumstances are present that temporarily let a law enforcement officer use discretionary control.
Notwithstanding that statement, my admittedly limited understanding of traffic safety is that there is a general concern with accident risk vs. gross speed mismatch on high speed roads. Bicyclists cannot be exempted from this concern, even if we are exempted from legal sanctions by virtue of us being bicyclists and not 100 HP motor vehicles.
eg
Hauer, Accid. Anal. and Prevention 3. pp. 1-13, 1971.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/journal_of_transportation_and_statistics/volume_07_number_23/html/paper_06/index.html
So I think there will always be this inherent conflict among some traffic managers and law enforcement officers regarding a cyclist taking the lane on a high speed road and having other traffic approaching with a 40 mph or more speed differential, notwithstanding anything we say about optimal lane positioning vs. cyclist visibility or lane sharing vs. position risk. I’m not surprised we should be challenged by others on riding on the shoulder vs. in the lane.
How we manage this challenge is the big deal. Maybe instead of yelling past each other, we ought to understand the underlying perception of conflict and find a resolution, assuming there is one.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
John said, “Bates was not blocking traffic.” That isn’t true. My understanding is that there is sworn testimony from witnesses in Mr. Bates’ trial that contradicts that statement entirely. From http://dfwptp.blogspot.com/2010/08/people-versus-bates.html. “First Witness
The first witness to testify was the 911 dispatcher, Nancy, who works in the Communication Division of the Sheriff’s Office. She indicated that 25 911 calls were made and that she took 15 of them. A CD was requested to be introduced as evidence. The defense objected to this as hearsay, but the CD was admitted as a basis for the initial stop.” “Second Witness
The second witness to testify was the firefighter, Lonnie, who has been a firefighter for 23 years in Ennis. Queried about the conditions, he stated it was “not night and not raining.” Traffic was characterized as normal (medium). In his testimony, he indicated that he saw tail lights coming on “quick” and that he was frightened that a collision would occur shortly. He stated that an 18 wheeler ran up on the cyclist and apparently didn’t see him.”
August 24th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Wes misunderstands much. As to our offline “wager”, he took it out of context. I’ll leave it at that. If you want details, email me.
Wes also shows his lack of understanding when he writes, ” A bicycle has the right to drive on the shoulder in Texas. A corn combine does not.” He’s right about the bicycle, but not about the corn combine. Drivers of corn combines and anyone moving slower than other traffic is allowed in the shoulder by 545.058.
545.058. DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER. (a) An operator
may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled
portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done
safely, but only:
(1) …
…
(5) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/545.058.00.html
It’s true that the bicyclists are allowed in the shoulder all the time, not only “to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass”, but when we’re talking about a high speed road with steady traffic, that distinction is practically moot.
But I’m sure Wes will try to find some other excuse to dodge Bob’s question and point.
August 24th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
Khal wrote, “there is a general concern with accident risk vs. gross speed mismatch on high speed roads. “. Yes. Very true. The concern is real and widespread. However, the real questions is how valid that concern is.
This nation is riddled with rural highways with 11-12 foot wide lanes, no shoulders, 55 mph speed limits and actual speeds of 65 and higher – roads on which it is impossible to pass a cyclist without noticing and adjusting laterally. Roads like this:
http://tinyurl.com/santaysabel
And yet, myriads of cyclists ride countless numbers of miles on such roads with relatively high safety records (especially if you exclude riding at night without lights from the stats).
Khal also wrote: “we ought to understand the underlying perception of conflict and find a resolution, assuming there is one.”
I really think what’s underlying this particular perception of conflict is… nothing (or not enough to worry much about). That is, there is very little to the alleged (and, widely believed to exist) “inherent problem” of “gross speed mismatch on high speed roads.”
If there were, there would be a lot more cyclists killed on narrow high speed rural highways every day. But the baseless perception arguably lies at the heart of anti-cyclist bias.
August 24th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Wes – So you believe that by not exercising his right to use the “big fat perfectly safe rideable shoulder”, Mr. Bates was guilty of impeding traffic and reckless driving, despite the fact that Texas law says that use of an improved shoulder is optional and not mandatory.
If the court was right in finding that Mr. Bates was guilty of reckless driving by not exercising his right to use an improved shoulder, then why didn’t the Texas Legislature make use of an improved shoulder mandatory?
The fact that the Texas Legislature did not make use of an improved shoulder mandatory means that there must be some circumstances in which a bicyclist is justified in not exercising his/her right to use an improved shoulder. What are they?
August 24th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Wes, if not using a clean wide shoulder when riding in the travel lane impedes others is “reckless”, what about not using a shoulder that is made unusable by debris or something? Why would it be any less reckless to ride in the travel lane when doing so impedes others just as much as when the shoulder is clean?
I mean, does it make sense to classify behavior as being “reckless” based on whether there is a viable/better alternative or not? Can you think of any other behavior that is considered to be reckless or not based on the availability of other options to that behavior?
August 24th, 2010 at 10:01 pm
Bob, it is true that the use of the shoulder is option in Texas. What is not option in Texas is whether or not a driver of a vehicle may impede traffic. Every driver of a vehicle in Texas has that obligation to other users of the roadway. Under the Ohio decision, cyclists have to make reasonable effort to not impede traffic by going as fast as they reasonably can. However, the Ohio decision did not say that this was the only thing that a cyclist had to do. Of course Mr. Selz didn’t have the option to move laterally, so really his only option was to pedal faster. Mr. Bates had another option but chose to ignore it despite repeated warnings from police.
Serge, when the shoulder option isn’t available, then lateral movement isn’t possible and I like our chance winning that case.
You guys will never end. Already there is one Texas court who has used the legal reasoning that months ago I predicted would lead to a Reed Bates conviction. I don’t like the outcome, but there is sufficient legal reasoning behind it for it to be upheld on appeal. In regard to the comment about the combine and the bicycle, I really was just pointing out that there are real differences between the two vehicles. Both physically and legally. Serge’s decision to take issue with my comment doesn’t change the outcome, but we all know how Serge likes to argue. He can go on and on just to hear himself talk even when he’s been proven by a Texas court to be wrong.
August 25th, 2010 at 2:26 am
Wes – I didn’t ask you to repeat arguments that you have made many times. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer the questions I actually did ask:
If the court was right in finding that Mr. Bates was guilty of reckless driving by not exercising his right to use an improved shoulder, then why didn’t the Texas Legislature make use of an improved shoulder mandatory?
The fact that the Texas Legislature did not make use of an improved shoulder mandatory means that there must be some circumstances in which a bicyclist is justified in not exercising his/her right to use an improved shoulder. What are they?
August 25th, 2010 at 3:29 am
“the Ohio decision did not say that this was the only thing that a cyclist had to do. ”
Incorrect Both the Georgia and Ohio courts clearly stated that traveling as fast as is reasonably possible means that one cannot be in violation of the impeding statute, period. Therefore, all a cyclist has to do to not be in violation is to go as fast as he reasonably can. Do I have to quote Mionske again? Do still really not understand the fundamental general point about the meaning of the impeding statute from Trotwood v Selz and Lott v Smith, a point that is not dependent on the particular facts of either case, including the lack of a shoulder?
Lateral movement is most certainly possible even when there is no shoulder. One can move laterally anywhere within the lane; that’s 12 feet of lateral space within which movement I’d possible. And the fact that Selz was not in a different lateral position meant that he probably was in violation to the Ohio FRAP law, according to the appellate court. This is another point I keep repeating because you can’t seem to grasp it.
Want to give that question another shot, this time without relying on the absurd premise that lateral movement is not possible when there is no shoulder?
August 25th, 2010 at 10:32 am
a letter to the League, to go out later this morning. wanted you pundits to see it first!
The Negative Trajectory of the Reed Bates case
Mr. Reed Bates was recently tried and convicted for reckless endangerment in Texas for operating his bicycle well into the lane of a multiple laned, 65mph, divided US highway at dusk. His operation of his bike uncompromisingly well into the lane was found to rise to the level of premeditated disregard for the safety of other road users.
The negative trajectory of this case has many tangents, some of which may not be apparent. This specious fight for Mr. Reed Bates road rights shrouds a much more sinister agenda, one the League may not have yet considered. This essay will illustrate the dangers inherent in this case and others that may arise similar to this one.
The interpretation of Texas traffic code by the judge has drawn a lot of debate at internet bike forums and at the league of american bicyclists blog. It seems more of the debate centers on the judgement of the justice and not the judgement of the bicyclist on the day in question.
“As far right as practicable isn’t required in a substandard width lane” goes one of the rote arguments in this case. Pundits of all stripes are declaring Mr. Reed Bates has no obligation to operate free of premeditated reckless disregard for others if the lanes are less that 14 feet wide, that his right to a narrow, substandard width lane is absolute and , because of the provisions of FRAP law, he should not have been prosecuted or convicted of reckless endangerment.
Using cyclist specific FRAP laws to defend Mr. Bates reckless riding is a curious tactic on the part of many that ordinarily are so quick to disparage cyclist FRAP laws.
Why do cyclists ordinarily up in arms about cyclist FRAP laws suddenly flock to use them as defense in what some are painting as a straightforward road rights case? Ostensibly valid, this rabid flocking to cyclist FRAP laws to defend a reckless cyclist shrouds a much more dubious agenda.
Are the LAB-Reformers now defending cyclists specific FRAP laws, and think their protections should be strengthened? Doubtful. The tactics seen in Texas are a calculated and cold attempt to strip cyclists of our rights under the guise of defending them. Some participants are hapless and unaware of their complicity, others are strategically guiding this to a nuclear like implosion of cyclists rights. This is a secretive attempt to erode cyclists rights, not preserve them. By calling into question the operating parameters in Texas cyclists FRAP laws, the defenders of Mr. Reed Bates right to the lane are furtively calling for a repeal of the protections from this law.
That the League has officially come out against cyclist specific frap laws is staggering. This rejection of the very laws that protect our rights to the travelled way need to be preserved, lest cyclists be forced into much more tenuous legal ground if ever forced to take the lane absent the cyclist specific frap provision found in many state traffic codes.
How would the repeal of cyclist specific FRAP laws lead to the further restriction on cyclists? A basic paraphrase the operating requirements found in general SMV-FRAP laws versus cyclist specific FRAP laws:
Cyclists on one lane and unlaned roadways would be required by statutory construction to operate as far to the right as is practicable with many less explicit provisions for full lane use, and would ostensibly be allowed to operate in any position in the outside lane of a multiple lane road. Indeed, some of the rationale behind the repeal of cyclist FRAP laws is this would allow cyclists to uncompromisingly take the lane on any and all multiple lane roadways.
Would it? Very doubtful. Despite the statutory construction of many states’ SMV-FRAP laws ostensibly allowing this, cyclists would soon be found, under laws like CVC 21654, that slow moving vehicles should operate in the left hand lane, OR (if narrow) as far right as practicable. Laws would soon be changed to reflect this, and cyclist would then be required to operate under general smv laws as far to the right as practicable on all roads, without explicit provisions about debris, substandard width lanes and other explicit provisions found in many states’ cyclist specific FRAP laws.
… In effect, cyclists would soon be driven to operate as far right as practicable on any and all roads, without cyclists explicit protections embodied in many states that allow cyclists to control substandard width lanes. The League must seriously consider the gravity in condemning cyclist specific frap laws. Cyclist specific FRAP laws are all the supporters of Reed Bates have to go on, and they are usually eagerly intent on defeating these laws.
The irony in this flocking to a law ordinarily disparaged is staggering, the repercussions potentially quite damaging to cyclists rights, the trajectories hazardous – This is a hapless fight on the part of some, and sinister and deliberate effort from others to restrict our rights under dubious fights to protect them. The league must guide their future strategies carefully, lest a wildly careening fight for the right of substandard width lanes lead to a restriction of our use of the public roads. This is a potential negative trajectory from the Reed Bates case, and the League must assiduously guard our cyclist specific rights to the road- just not to defend reckless riders like Mr. Bates.
Proceed with caution.
Sincerely,
Mike Beck
August 25th, 2010 at 11:12 am
minor edit:
substitute ‘right’ for ‘left’ in third from last paragraph, and add (if VEHICLE is narrow) to same paragraph.
to read:
“Would it? Very doubtful. Despite the statutory construction of many states’ SMV-FRAP laws ostensibly allowing this, cyclists would soon be found, under laws like CVC 21654, that slow moving vehicles should operate in the RIGHT hand lane, OR (if a narrow vehicle) as far right as practicable. Laws would soon be changed to reflect this, and cyclist would then be required to operate under general smv laws as far to the right as practicable on all roads, without explicit provisions about debris, substandard width lanes and other explicit provisions found in many states’ cyclist specific FRAP laws.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:16 am
I think the letter needs some editing, Mike, both for brevity and clarity, but by all means, have your say. (Do you really mean “…under laws like CVC 21654, that slow moving vehicles should operate in the left hand lane…” I know of no law that puts slow to the left of fast in traffic)
I have some comments and then give up on this. Believe me, I am not trying to have the last word.
1. First, for the record. I strongly disagree that Bates was behaving recklessly or even carelessly. As I said on my own blog, I think this prosecution is a hideous overreach. Bates, in my non-expert opinion, was not breaking any laws. The reckless charge is based entirely on the cop’s and judge’s judgment while flying in the face of clearly established written code–that’s why some lawyers have told me privately that the Bates case is strong on points of law but weak on being in rural TX, having an unsympathetic victim, and having been bungled via a jury trial of rural Texans. Bates was operating within the specific laws specifying how bicyclists should operate their vehicles.
http://transport.tamu.edu/bicycles/statelaw.aspx
I’m not sure how other laws trump this but am willing to learn, which is why I wish a lawyer or prosecutor would chime in here rather than all the usual suspects. For example, if cyclists are not expected to keep up with other traffic in the above code, how could going slower than other vehicles suddenly become a crime? Just because others get uncomfortable?
My concern is there is something called an “ex post facto” prosecution, to wit, creating a crime that did not exist at the time an act was committed. Clearly, if Bates was operating within the written law, he could not have been operating recklessly unless we modify the provision to say “…The person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane, or it is too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side– UNLESS A COP SAYS OTHERWISE”.
Sure, there is always police discretion but that’s generally confined to emergency situations. We can’t have cops writing law on the fly.
2.I will still caution Serge, Bob, and others of the “beware of what you wish for” situation. In my opinion (and yes, opinions are like…we all have one and they all smell the same) there is the very real worry that the Texas Legislature, seeing that the existing law allows cyclists to take a substandard width lane as Bates did on any highway (I did not see any exemption for high speed roads or divided highways), will amend the bicycling statutes explicitly putting cyclists on the shoulder or allowing a traffic engineer to restrict cyclists to the shoulder on any road so designated by the Traffic Engineer based on his judgment of speed or other road conditions. That is my concern. If Bates and his cheering section wants to push the envelope, that is certainly their right and Reed Bates certainly has a right to think he has been screwed. But…we could get smacked down by TX in a way that takes away any discretion we have as cyclists and gives it to a rural TX traffic engineer that may think we should get the *** off the road. There have been several places (Black Hawk, CO, etc.) where cyclists have been banned from some or all roads, or where such ordinances are being discussed. I don’t want to see any more of them.
I see no good news here. I see the League’s critics willing to play chicken with the law, and the League and its legal advisors having decided, based on the case history so far, that this case has gone beyond problematic to a non-starter.
No one is well served by this mess. Bates spent weeks in jail and the rest of the cycling community has to hope, as Wes does, that this case simply “disappears” so no one else gets any bright ideas. If we want a test case, I suggest that we do as the NAACP did in the fifties and choose our victim and strategy more wisely. Rosa Parks was a credible victim. One cyclist-attorney I spoke to said Reed Bates is not.
3. As I said before, TX cyclists need to stand and be counted on this one and get to the front of the line. They have to live with this mess more than the rest of us do. And do me a favor. If you guys ever get the bright idea to establish test cases in New Mexico, please take the advice of BikeABQ and BCNM. They have a better sense of the landscape than you do.
August 25th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Edit: 1. “First, for the record. I strongly disagree that Bates was behaving according to the legal definition of recklessly or even carelessly.”
(Obviously we can all have our own opinion. What counts is the law.)
August 25th, 2010 at 11:54 am
points taken, Kahl.
I will trim it down a bit, and i did to forget to mention those most obvious negative trajectories, that mandatory shoulder laws or restrictions from higher speed roads could more broadly put into affect.
Thanks!
I think I’ve said enough on this issue, everyone, keep the rubber side down, and pushing the pedals to the people!
Beck
August 25th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
“The tactics seen in Texas are a calculated and cold attempt to strip cyclists of our rights under the guise of defending them. Some participants are hapless and unaware of their complicity, others are strategically guiding this to a nuclear like implosion of cyclists rights. This is a secretive attempt to erode cyclists rights, not preserve them.”
Groundless character attack and conspiracy theory.
I share Khal’s concern, and some of yours and Wes’, of the potential unintended consequences, and I certainly must defer to Wes’ knowledge of local politics, but I can tell you no one, but NO ONE, takes as their goal the INTENTIONAL undermining of cyclists’ rights. That’s just a ridiculous assertion.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
(Mike, had I seen your last note before I posted mine, I may not have posted, but there it is now. I too have no strong desire to continue this debate in this venue, and wish everyone the best personally.)
August 25th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:319
August 25th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Khal said: “I will still caution Serge, Bob, and others of the “beware of what you wish for” situation. In my opinion there is the very real worry that the Texas Legislature, seeing that the existing law allows cyclists to take a substandard width lane as Bates did on any highway will amend the bicycling statutes explicitly putting cyclists on the shoulder or allowing a traffic engineer to restrict cyclists to the shoulder … we could get smacked down by TX in a way that takes away any discretion we have as cyclists and gives it to a rural TX traffic engineer that may think we should get the *** off the road.”
We have already lost our discretion if a cyclist can be JAILED for failing to use a shoulder.
And LAB is apparently okay with that.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:25 am
“We have already lost our discretion if a cyclist can be JAILED for failing to use a shoulder.”
Your statement may be a case of the Hasty Generalisation Fallacy. I’m not convinced this case outcome can be used to infer the universe (nor is Wes). But it would have been better if Bates had been acquitted or if a strong appeal was possible.
August 27th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
I haven’t seen the transcript or all of the evidence against Mr. Bates, but if he was improperly jailed, let’s not cry a river for him. When he wins his civil suit against the city for false imprisonment he’ll be richer than all of us. Given that he hasn’t pursued such a course of action, I have to assume that his lawyers advised him that he didn’t have a case, particularly now that he’s been convicted in the criminal case, twice.
The thing that irks me the most about this case is how Mr. Bates and his advisers have pursued this terrible case and caused the court to make bad law for the rest of Texas’ cyclists. Thanks to Mr. Bates and his myopic advisers, there is now case law in Texas that can be used to accuse REASONABLE Texas’ cyclists of impeding traffic or reckless driving. When some ant-bike cop and prosecutor decides to go after a cyclist acting in a more REASONABLE manner than Mr. Bates chose to act, there is now case law in Texas to support that charge and we are going to have to go to court to try to prove that we were REASONABLE and our facts are different than Mr. Bates’ facts so we should be acquitted. In their myopic attempt to “protect cyclists’ rights” in Texas, they have made it worse and they are surprised that we don’t throw them a parade for taking a crap case to trial to cause crap case law to be made. I have to conclude that either: 1) Mr. Bates and his myopic advisers are too ignorant to be able to have seen this coming or 2) they knew exactly what they were doing and weakened the rights of Texas’ cyclists on purpose to score a few points in their holy war against LAB and BikeTexas. Either way, please forgive me if I don’t thank them.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
Wes, at comment 27 you said “In regard to the precedent this case will set, I ride a bike a lot in Texas. This case will not impact me or 99% of other Texas cyclists. All Mr. Bates’ conviction will mean is that in Ellis County, cyclists should ride on the 12 foot wide paved shoulder instead of the 65mph travel lane. Honestly, that is what ever[y] one of us would have done anyway.”
In comment 101, you now say “Thanks to Mr. Bates and his myopic advisers, there is now case law in Texas that can be used to accuse REASONABLE Texas’ cyclists of impeding traffic or reckless driving.”
What changed?
In any case, now that this outcome affects reasonable Texas cyclists, what will LAB and BikeTexas do?
August 27th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
I think the case law that will come out of this case will make it easier for Texas law enforcement officers who happen to have a bias against cyclists, assuming that they find out about this case, to use it to justify ticketing more moderate Texas cyclists. Those cyclists will now have to go to court to defend themselves and try to prove that the facts that led to their charges are different than the one-man-critical-mass tactics of Mr. Bates. I think, for the most part, they will be able to overcome that obstacle given a fairly reasonable judge (which I think most are in Texas). However, just having to go to court is a burden. For the less savvy, it will be a big burden.
The reason LAB and BikeTexas are wise to not step in is to not make this case any more high profile than it already is. As you probably know by now, it is my opinion that Mr. Bates’ conviction will be upheld even if it is appealed. The very first poster under number 1 said, “Bad Cases make Bad Law.” That’s true and this is a terrible case that has already resulted in bad law. Jumping on a sinking ship isn’t going to make it float. The best thing for Texas cycling is for this case to disappear such that as few LEOs as possible find out about it. Only Mr. Bates can make that happen. If he doesn’t, he will just further erode Texas cyclists’ rights, but the ship is going down either way.
August 27th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
In re-reading Andy Clarke’s blog post, I am struck by several glaring omissions:
1) He fails to say whether he believes that “protecting the rights of cyclists” extends to protecting the rights of cyclists to ride on the ROADWAY, instead of only on the shoulder, which is part of the HIGHWAY.
2) He says thinks the facts in the Reed Bates case do not warrant intervention by LAB, but he fails to answer the obvious question, “WHAT FACTS WOULD WARRANT INTERVENTION BY LAB?”
3) He fails to say what LAB’s PLANS are for PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF CYCLISTS in Texas or anywhere else.
4) He fails to say why he presented an INCORRECT SET OF FACTS to LAB’s Board and legal advisers.
On that last point, even after commenters here pointed out the errors in Andy’s blog post, he has not acknowledged those errors. That leaves us wondering what the LAB Board and their legal advisers would have said had they been presented with the correct facts surrounding the Reed Bates case.
So, as just an ordinary member of LAB, I am left with an empty feeling – a feeling that Andy is not telling us the whole story and that the LAB, as it is currently structured, is not really in the business of “protecting the rights of cyclists”.
August 28th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Why should the league defend an admitted road hog, an self professed social anarchist admittedly proud to obstruct traffic, and a now convicted reckless rider?
Astonishing too -the LAB reformers already have this Reed Bates morass stinking up their website.
August 28th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
In response to Wes’ post 101
I am having problems with the concept of a reasonable cyclist would not ride like Reed but this case will make it more difficult for a reasonable cyclist who rides like Reed.
It seems to me we are all dancing around the elephant in the room. Ether agree (at least in principle) that riding on shoulders on high speed roadways is preferred/required or support Reed.
I will strongly assert for the good of all cyclists some statement that offers some sympathy for Reed while not condoning his actions entirely would be beneficial.
Options include:
* Make a statement how rumble strips complicated the movement from roadway to shoulder.
* If TDOT is reluctant to sweep shoulders, put pressure on them to do so.
* If TDOT is reluctant to keep shoulders in good repair, put pressure on them to do so.
Find something to spin this positively so the particulars in this case can die a graceful death.
P.S. I will note that Maryland requires cyclists to ride on shoulders on roads over 50mph, it also requires all roads (not interstate) to have a bikeable shoulder with speeds over 50mph. (Something to think about if you want to contain the damage.)
August 29th, 2010 at 10:44 am
In response to Barry’s question above, this case will make it easier for an anti-cyclist LEO to cite Texas cyclists for riding in the roadway, even when there is no shoulder. If you followed the Reed Bates case much at all, you will realize that law enforcement fumbled with what to charge Reed with. They no longer have to do that in Texas, thanks to Reed Bates and his advisers decision to push this terrible case. So, when a more reasonable cyclist rides in the roadway on a high speed roadway without a shoulder option and impedes traffic, the anti-cyclist LEO now has a new hammer. That more reasonable Texas cyclist will now have to go to trial and try to explain how he/she is different from the Reed Bates form of impeding traffic.
As a leader in the Texas cycling community, on behalf of Texas cyclists everywhere, please allow me to request that you not further erode our rights by supporting this terrible case. I repeat, poster 1 said, and I agree, bad cases make bad law. That has already happened in this case. Please don’t make it any worse. Thanks.
August 31st, 2010 at 7:05 pm
In response to the Wes Robinson statement “As a leader in the Texas cycling community, on behalf of Texas cyclists everywhere, please allow me to request that you not further erode our rights by supporting this terrible case. I repeat, poster 1 said, and I agree, bad cases make bad law. That has already happened in this case. Please don’t make it any worse.”
Requesting inactivity in this appeal on the behalf of cyclists in Texas is not in the best interest of cyclists and certainly not a course of action that one would expect from ” A Leader in the Texas cycling community”.
Like it or not there is an opportunity here to uphold the rights of cyclist to use the roadway, right now, with this case.
I do not always agree where cyclists ride on streets but to do nothing will end in a defeat for cyclists rights in Texas whereas a cohesive defense of the appeal may protect those rights.
Unfortunately the “leader” has already laid down his arms, accepted the loss of rights for you and is asking for your support to do the same.
Like the case or person or not, Texas has an opportunity here and all cyclists must help to fight this case. The outcome will not get any worse as the conviction has been read, so every effort must be used to overturn and restore those rights. Fire your “Leader” because he is asking you to give up your rights as cyclists.
Let him bury his head in the sand, you don’t have to. Everyone else should fight this until the end.
September 1st, 2010 at 2:53 pm
in #88 Wes wrote: “Under the Ohio decision, cyclists have to make reasonable effort to not impede traffic by going as fast as they reasonably can. However, the Ohio decision did not say that this was the only thing that a cyclist had to do. Of course Mr. Selz didn’t have the option to move laterally, so really his only option was to pedal faster. Mr. Bates had another option but chose to ignore it despite repeated warnings from police.”
This is incorrect. Selz had the option to move further right, just like Bates had that option to move further right. The option was not identical, Bates could have theoretically moved across the rumble strip into a shoulder of varying quality and width, while Selz could only move closer to the curb, but both had the option to move right, and the Selz appeals court was aware of this. Selz’ attorney, Steve Magas, writes: “the City now argued [in brief to appeals court] that it was Mr. Selz’s position on the roadway as described by the officer, in combination with his “slow speed,” that made the conviction reasonable. This was quite a change from the “get off the road if you can’t do 45mph” attitude the City had taken at trial.”
http://ohiobikelawyer.com/bike-law-101/2010/09/the-selz-case-revisited/
September 1st, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Serge, thanks for posting the link to Steve Magas’ discussion of Selz vs. Trotwood. Its excellent reading, even for those of us who have followed the Selz case for ten years. For those new to the game, its required reading!
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:06 am
I’ve been swamped and haven’t been keeping up as closely on this case, or this controversy inside the case, as I should I suppose.
In Ohio, I handled the Selz case. Case came out 10 yrs ago. Steve was either riding in the middle of the lane or the right, depending on whether you believe the cop or Steve. I suppose there was some sort of “shoulder” he “could have” ridden on. There were five lanes – 2 each way, one turn lane in the middle.
The appellate court found that the key factor was that Steve was going at a speed which, FOR A CYCLIST, was appropriate. Steve fit the definition of “traffic” under Ohio law. Steve was permitted to ride on the road and the 2-1 court of appeals decision made it clear it wasn’t going to allow Steve to be banned from riding on State Route 49 just because some folks, i.e., the judge and prosecutor, thought it was not safe.
The roads are PUBLIC WAYS and in most states people have the right to use the public ways in a variety of ways. Some are faster than others. Slow moving vehicles include bicycles, farm equipment and, in Ohio, Amish buggies. Faster traffic is MANDATED to accommodate slower traffic. In Ohio, bicycle operators are either allowed to use to use the roadway, or they are not. There’s no rule that says “use the road, but if it’s too dangerous, or the cars are going too fast, use the shoulder.”
I represented Tony Patrick this year. Tony is the guy who tussled verbally with a deputy who told him, and his riding partner, to “Get off the F-ing Road”. Tony chose to banter with the officer and told the officer, quite correctly, that he had just as much right to use the road as the officer… didn’t go down well.
Deputy said Tony and his buddy were riding two abreast and “impeding traffic.” He tried to run them off the road with his cruiser, stopped in traffic almost had the kid nail him from behind and then zoomed ahead and Tony ended up tussling with the cop before he was Tasered by a 2nd cop. The “charge” was “Riding a Bicycle on the Roadway.”
Tony beat the criminal charges – including felony charges. The judge issued an interesting decision. He said under Ohio law two riders HAVE THE RIGHT to ride two abreast. They SHOULD, but DO NOT HAVE TO move to a single file line. The court said they were not doing anything wrong so the actions of the officer were not “lawful.” The distinction is between what is a RIGHT versus what they SHOULD do.
The point is that people who allow themselves to get shoved into an envelope by police, or even courts, end up with rights that..well… fit into an envelope. Civil rights cases are not filled with people who caved in and didn’t push the envelope…
I don’t know enough about TX law to comment on this case. I guess on a first impression level I don’t see how you can do something that is LEGAL and be found “RECKLESS.” Under Ohio law, reckless is defined in a way that would imply that acting LEGALLY is a defense to a claim of recklessness.
Are cyclists REQUIRED to use a “shoulder” in TX? If a shoulder is next to a road do cyclists need to use it? If not, then what’s the rub? Are we arguing what is “legal” over what is “nice” or “preferred?” In Tony’s case, he probably should have pulled over and not ignored the cop’s order to “pull over.” In general, cyclists riding two abreast SHOULD go to single file but under State v. Patrick, they are clearly not required to do so and cannot be ticketed for “impeding traffic” if they do.
Anyway, that’s the first of my two cents…
Steve Magas
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:20 am
Thanks Steve. I don’t understand why LAB, Wes and others think the Bates is a “bad case”. By what measure is a case like the Tony Patrick case, who “chose to banter” with the officer, any better?
If anything, the blatant mistreatment of Bates – including over 2 weeks in jail (!) makes this case a good case, I would think.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:37 am
To me, the punishment doesn’t fit the “crime.” I can understand why some might balk at supporting Reed’s behavior, but to me you have to stand up and SCREAM that jail time was ridiculous. In MANY hit/run cases involving the death or maiming of a cyclist, the motorist gets NO time in jail. In cases where people physically attack other people, there is no jail time. I don’t understand why the jail time was so excessive, but I also haven’t had time to read through all of these comments, let alone read about the case itself in any great detail.
In Ohio, right now, Michael Hart has been in jail since JULY 21 for TALKING TO government officials. He is charged with “Intimidation” and “unlawful restraint.” He was complaining to a county commissioner about the lack of enforcement of the DOG LAWS in the county. He remains jailed today. Agree or not with Michael’s aggressive and verbally confrontational tactics, he has spent more than 30 days locked up and is awaiting a hearing in OCTOBER for TALKING to someone…
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Steve, thanks for commenting here. I have been hoping and praying for someone with professional expertise to weigh in directly on this case.
To me, Bates was screwed by the process regardless of whether he mishandled the situation with the cops or not. Jail time for riding a bike???
As I asked earlier and never have understood, how can one be convicted of reckless driving when one is operating legally within the WRITTEN LAW (not someone cop’s or judge’s paternalistic interpretation) and not convicted of any other serious set of traffic law violations (speeding, unsafe passing, loss of control, exhibition of speed, etc.). It seems that from what I read here, on the TAMU site, and on Steve Avirell’s site that regardless of what someone thinks of Bate’s riding behavior or comportment with the cops, he didn’t break the law.
The question I have raised from the start is not about whether Bates should have been acquitted of these charges, but whether the case, both on its merits and on the basis of how the case has been handled so far, is strong enough to have the cycling community rally behind it and take it to appeal. As is clear from your writing on the Selz case and its appeal, an appeals court appearance is a strategic decision that has potentially disastrous consequences if lost and powerful consequences if won. That’s the rub.One wants justice and doesn’t want to dig a deeper hole for cyclists. Sometimes the honest answer is a bitter pill.What consequences to the cycling community exist if this case stands, vs. if an appeal is lost?
By the way, is the ACLU taking the Hart case?
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
I think it should be clarified that Reed was stuck in jail for a couple of weeks before anyone interested found out about it. Much of that time was in another county, where they were waiting for Ellis County to act on the warrant. At the reckless driving trial, the judge merely sentenced him to time already served and applied five of the days as credit against court costs.
September 3rd, 2010 at 9:34 am
Back when I lived in Hawaii, a woman triathlete on a fast downhill flagrantly blew a marked school crossing with kids and a school crossing guard in it. She hit and dragged a kid tens of feet causing serious injury. She was cited, there was an investigation, and she was charged with a traffic crime, I think a felony (reckless driving causing great bodily harm or something like that). I think she was convicted. Even given all that, she didn’t rot in jail for two weeks while the system clunked forward. In that case, it would have been a richly deserved stay in the Greybar Hotel.
Now THAT’S an example of Reckless Driving.
September 3rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Wes wrote above, ” this case will make it easier for an anti-cyclist LEO to cite Texas cyclists for riding in the roadway, even when there is no shoulder.”
If so, as has been pointed out by someone more clever than me, all that means is that the type of case Wes and the LAB allege to want to have as a “good” case should occur sooner rather than later.
Except to those to whom retaining cyclist roadway rights is not a high priority, and for whom cyclist-motorist segregation is a higher priority, there is no downside to supporting Reed Bates.
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:48 pm
I think Mr. Bates’ conviction will be upheld on appeal. I’ll go ahead and state that for the record again and, in a year when the appeal is over, you guys can all give me crap if I am wrong. When Serge said above that Mr. Bates would have had to move over the rumble stip to take a position on the shoulder, please know that isn’t the case. Where Mr. Bates was ticketed, there was no rumble strip. You can go to the Google street view that I already provided to see that for yourself.
On the issue of what this case may mean going forward, as mentioned above, I think Mr. Bates’ conviction will be upheld. However, even if it is overturned, this could be a case of winning the battle, but losing the war. Khal makes a good point about above about the possibility that the legislature might step in to “correct” the law to prevent such an unreasonable outcome. Also, legislative concerns are not the only ones that we need to consider. LAB has already been contacted by senior officials at the Federal Highway Administration who have caught wind of the Bates case in Texas. In response to the case, they are wondering if perhaps the time is right to establish rules about the kind of roads cyclists should be on and those that they shouldn’t so please don’t think that legislative concerns are the only ones that we need to worry about.
The bottom line is that I think the curious case of Reed Bates will hurt us in the long run. Either the conviction will be upheld and the case of first impression for Texas will be set or it will be overturned and we will face a bigger threat in the long run. Of course, that’s just my personal opinion. Time will tell, but I”m not willing to risk so much on this case given its ugly facts.
September 3rd, 2010 at 5:44 pm
The “kind of roads cyclists should be on and those they shouldn’t be on” is already established.
What’s not established is your commitment, and LAB’s commitment, to make sure we retain our right to cycle on the kinds of roads we currently have the right to travel on (any road that is not an actual freeway).
September 3rd, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Wes said, “LAB has already been contacted by senior officials at the Federal Highway Administration … they are wondering if perhaps the time is right to establish rules about the kind of roads cyclists should be on and those that they shouldn’t”
First, it would be nice of LAB to provide the details on WHO at FHWA contacted LAB and what LAB’s response was. If LAB were truly devoted to protecting the rights of its members to ride on the roads, it would already have provided that information to its membership. That LAB has not shows it to be devoted to someone other than its own members (the bicycle manufacturers and the governments who provide most of its funding, perhaps?).
Second, the Federal government does not have the power to establish rules of the road. That is part of the police power that the US Constitution leaves to the States.
Wes and the LAB are just trying to scare us, all the while holding back information that we need to decide for ourselves.
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Wes said: “LAB has already been contacted by senior officials at the Federal Highway Administration who have caught wind of the Bates case in Texas. In response to the case, they are wondering if perhaps the time is right to establish rules about the kind of roads cyclists should be on and those that they shouldn’t”
And what was LAB’s response? I assume it was consistent with LAB’s Equity Statement?
(If you Google “bikeleague equity statement” it’s the first result):
“Equality — The equal legal status and equal treatment of cyclists in traffic law. All US states must adopt fair, equitable and uniform traffic laws, that are “vehicle-neutral” to the greatest extent possible. Cyclists’ ability to access to all destinations must be protected. State and local laws that discriminate against cyclists, or restrict their right to travel, or reduce their relative safety, must be repealed.”
September 3rd, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Wes said: “the legislature might step in to ‘correct’ the law to prevent such an unreasonable outcome”
In other words, enact a mandatory shoulder use law. Isn’t that exactly what you want?
Of course, that would be a violation of LAB’s equity statement, so LAB would have to oppose such a law, the same way they’re opposing the “mandatory dismounting law” in Black Hawk, CO.
September 5th, 2010 at 11:02 am
http://www.wright.edu/~jeffrey.hiles/essays/listening/home.html
While looking for something else I can across this interesting essay from1996 on the whole facilities debate… good reading…
Steve Magas
September 6th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
this Reed Bates fiasco has nothing to do with fabricated ‘cyclist-segregation’,
Reed Bates reckless rider conviction is a result of his uncompromising riding style affecting the safety of other road users.
Have the respondents to this blog post read Reed Bates blog posts from 2009?
is there ANYONE in the league, any LCI or that thinks bicyclists should operate uncompromisingly in the left hand tire track for 80 miles on a 70 mph road? or simply operate uncompromisingly in the left tire track?
Is this LEFT TIRE TRACK ALWAYS’ ideology espoused by Mr. Bates part of the LAB-REFORM cirriculum and the standards of road sharing cyclists should establish for ourselves? left tire track as default should be the new standard??
We do not ride dogma in a lawbook, we ride bicycles in traffic.
to illustrate the extremely ludicrous ideological fervor of Mr. Bates, some quotes from his 2009 blog…..
“Yes, (motorists passing on the right) caught me by surprise when I first began riding exclusively in the left tire track. It is surprisingly common. I inspire such overtakes about every week. They are most common on state highways when a shoulder is present, but like you I’ve had a number of them off in the grass as well.” Reed Bates 4/29/2009
“I will be upsetting motorists who have a “freeway expectation” on Highway 85. This will be especially pronounced if developed shoulders are present, as it appears to be the case on parts of the trip. I expect to be honked at, shouted at, and passed on the right…..
…..
So what do you, dear reader, think will happen in the eighty miles of traveling in the left tire track?” Mr. Reed Bates, 4/20/2009
Mr. Bates opinion of proposed vulnerable user laws below.
“If the wrongheaded “vulnerable user” law gets passed here in Texas, ….(a) vehicle will be in violation of it if he passes me in either direction while I am riding in my normal lane position.
….. If I am centered in my lane, or as I normally position myself, in the left tire track, this vehicle cannot overtake me lawfully, and it could be argued, he would break the law if he passes me going the other way!” Mr. Reed Bates, 4/25/2009
The picture abundantly portrayed by Mr. Bates himself at his blog is a man obsessed with obtuse dogmatism masquerading as sensible judgement. Mr. Bates seems far from a competent or even rational bicyclist.
I suspect Mr. Reed Bates is fully cognizant that his uncompromising use of the left tire track of high speed, multiple lane highways would lead to this showdown and the very real possibility of greater restrictions on cyclists, not a precedent setting case affirming cyclists rights in texas.
I have suspicions that there are some masquerading within the bicycling community that have NO INTEREST in furthering cyclists rights, but a desire to restrict bicyclists. Mr. Reed Bates may very well be that type of fella.
There is no good outcome of this case, Bicyclists need to share the road safely and in a considerate manner or mandatory use laws may come down upon entire states as a result of the uncompromising actions of a few. A look to Florida shows this is a very real possibility.
I strongly caution those defending Mr. Bates on principle. Recognize that the uncompromising dogmatism as exhibited by Mr. Bates is demonstrably hazardous to cyclists legal protection. beware those ostensibly fighting for cyclists rights, some may be hellbent on restricting bicyclists.
September 7th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Mike Beck says “…Bicyclists need to share the road safely and in a considerate manner or mandatory use laws may come down upon entire states as a result of the uncompromising actions of a few…”
Well, yeah. Exactly. At least in TX and Florida.
There is the narrow reading of law which says that Reed Bates didn’t break any of the laws on the books, so he should not have been convicted of anything. The case should have been handled better and he should have been acquitted.
There is then the broad view, i.e., if Mr. Bates was insisting on legally riding in the left tire track of a substandard width right lane on a 70 mph road, I am sure the TX Legislature can fix that problem right away. Those who verge on behaving like the Vehicular Taliban might want to remember that laws are passed by legislatures and legislatures are elected by people. I seriously doubt that cyclists can swing elections in TX. Or in most places. That is Wes Robinson’s point, I presume.
We have to find ways to promote vehicular cycling while not burning our bridges. We have to respect where we are. If anyone thinks that Mr. Bates being jailed is going to result in a torrent of political action akin to watching blacks being hit with water cannon or mauled by police dogs, they are nuts. I don’t think Mr. Bate’s tactics were wise nor do they make him a sympathetic victim.
To mangle an old USMC phrase, why is common sense such an uncommon virtue?
September 7th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I’m stymied why cyclists that enjoy and flock to the protections afforded to cyclists in substandard width lanes would so callously endanger them!
Vehicle neutral laws are not the way to perpetuate cyclists rights to the road. my essay earlier illustrates why smv-frap laws would becomes frap for narrow vehicles on any road, single lane or multiple lane, without the safety provisions in bike specific frap laws.
Operation in any lane position of a multiple lane roadway of any type without expectations of road sharing by bicyclists is not sound traffic engineering nor would it be supported by state highway agencies, the FHWA or legislators. This type of specious position about bicyclists right to the road should not be fought for by the LA.
bicyclists need legal protections to be able to take the lane for our safety, bicyclists also should not be defaulting in the left tire track of a right hand lane of 70mph highways.
September 7th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
edit, “this type of specious position should not be fought for by the LAB”
my apologies
September 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
and a correction, although i hope most participating in this thread already get it….
“operation in any lane position of the right hand lane of a multiple lane roadway of any type without expectations of road sharing by bicyclists is not sound traffic engineering nor would it be supported by state highway agencies, the FHWA or legislators”
again, my apologies for the lack of proofreading!
September 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Khal wrote, “I don’t think Mr. Bate’s tactics were wise nor do they make him a sympathetic victim.”
What exactly are these “tactics”, besides riding a bicycle legally in the roadway?
September 9th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
really, serge? how obtuse.
September 10th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Mike wrote, “operation in any lane position of the right hand lane of a multiple lane roadway of any type without expectations of road sharing by bicyclists ”
Operation in the right hand lane (regardless of lateral position within the lane) of a multiple lane roadway IS road sharing. That’s why it’s called the SLOW lane.
September 30th, 2010 at 7:31 am
I think it’s disgusting that the league has failed to do anything to defend one of its members in court, simply because LAB officials disagree with the defendant’s opinion regarding safe cycling. This is not how LAB should work. There are bound to be disagreements among members, but it’s the duty of the league to defend ALL members.
November 18th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Any News? I cannot find any posted notice that Reed Bates aka “ChipSeal” has actually filed an appeal, or at least filed the requisite “notice of appeal within 30 days of the sentence date”?
June 21st, 2011 at 2:30 pm
I’m a retired atty here in OK with a bike shoppe and have done some pro bono work on behalf of bicycling/bicyclists here in OK
As to Ian Cooper’s note I was not aware that Bates was a member of Bike Texas or LAB
I have followed the Bates case and have no problem with Andy Clarke/LAB reluctance to expend resources on a beneficiary what probably would listen to any competent advise/service that might be forthcoming
Chuck Davis
LAB #51398516
June 21st, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Make that wouldn’t listen to