Comments on: Picking Your Battles: The League & The Reed Bates Case

By: chuck Davis

chuck Davis — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:35:43 +0000

Make that wouldn’t listen to

By: chuck Davis

chuck Davis — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:30:22 +0000

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

By: Kenneth Rhodes

Kenneth Rhodes — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 00:33:43 +0000

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”?

By: Ian Cooper

Ian Cooper — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:31:31 +0000

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.

By: Serge Issakov

Serge Issakov — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:20:14 +0000

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.

By: mike beck

mike beck — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 20:20:10 +0000

really, serge? how obtuse.

By: Serge Issakov

Serge Issakov — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:25:47 +0000

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?

By: mike beck

mike beck — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:14:49 +0000

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!

By: mike beck

mike beck — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:11:02 +0000

edit, “this type of specious position should not be fought for by the LAB”

my apologies

By: mike beck

mike beck — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:09:13 +0000

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.