Comments on: ChipSeal’s Defense

By: Joe Bramblett

Joe Bramblett — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:27:46 +0000

You're ignoring the fact that the transportation code specifies exceptions to “as far right as practicable” for any outside lane less than 14 feet wide and any outside lane not wide enough for a bicycle and a car to travel safely side by side. TC551.103(a)(4)

If it's not wide enough to share safely, then riding at the edge only encourages them to try to share it unsafely.

By: Victory Motorcycles

Victory Motorcycles — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:43:51 +0000

Mostly Motorists face no penalties for hitting bicyclists infect motorists are in the clearly at fault. This is happen because of lazy police and there is lack of justice experienced by cyclists comes not just from the police, but also from motorists and the media. This shows that most people have against cyclists.

By: Emperorcezar

Emperorcezar — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 12:35:26 +0000

People always blaming the victim.

By: The Daily Globe | Portland, OR » Blog Archive » The Monday Roundup

Sat, 27 Mar 2010 06:33:35 +0000

[...] and jailed for riding his bicycle in the center of the road rather than on the shoulder, has been tried and convicted. He’s appealing the [...]

By: Is it time for a cyclists’ legal defense fund? « BikingInLA

Is it time for a cyclists’ legal defense fund? « BikingInLA — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:38:26 +0000

[...] the Texas rider who has been cited, arrested and convicted for impeding traffic even though drivers could easily pass using the other lane, and now faces trial in another jurisdiction for the crime of riding on the [...]

By: steve_a_dfw

steve_a_dfw — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:51:56 +0000

Since I was not in the jury room while the jury deliberated, I can only speculate why they found him guilty. I think there were multiple reasons. First, the defense attempted to explain a complex area of the law in a complex manner that was not instantly understandable to motorist jurors that didn't want to be there in the first place. Second, the traffic videos, including one presented by the defense, didn't help, because the cyclist looked like a tiny spot, much as the moon looks like a tiny spot in a photo taken with a normal lens. Third, and perhaps most important, the defense never pointed out that the statute he was prosecuted under really shouldn't apply in the first place because “Sec. 551.101. RIGHTS AND DUTIES. (a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless: …(2) a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.” A person riding a bicycle cannot, by nature, ride close to 65mph, so he cannot reasonably be expected to have a duty to do so any more than any driver is expected to maintain a high speed while preparing to make a left turn from the same road. Even so, he could have been prosecuted properly had there been a posted minimum speed, or a designated bicycle lane, niether of which was the case. Nowhere in the law is there a DUTY or OBLIGATION for the cyclist to ride on a shoulder. What's more, he had no duty to ride anywhere in particular in a lane less than 14 feet wide. Whether his riding was smart, or courteous might be debatable. He was not hauled into jail for being dumb or discourteous. He was hauled in and is being prosecuted because he did not ride on a shoulder when one was present, despite there being no legal basis for such a requirement. As the officer testified, he decided to “make contact” with the defendant when a shoulder appeard and the defendant continued to ride in the roadway.

The section of the law he was prosecuted under was: Sec. 545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law.

By: Slo Joe Recumbo

Slo Joe Recumbo — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:50:04 +0000

Steve… since there is no transcript can you summarize the reason the jury reached a guilty verdict? I've read everything about this and do not see what the citation was. For example, for what section of the law was he prosecuted?

By: Anon Y Mous

Anon Y Mous — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:45:15 +0000

Anthony P, take the time to read the Texas law which (I apologize for not having it exactly) is pretty much like other states and says sometjhing like “…as far to the right of the road as is safely possible.” The “safely possible” is what Chip disagrees with. He doesn't think it's safe to ride or move to the far right of the roadway but prefers to “take the lane”. Apparently, “safely” is subjective and the jurors disagreed with his interpretation (my guess here).

In my opinion, he could have prevented all this by riding about 1 to 2 feet from the right edge. Cars would still give him plenty of room, except for that minority who will come as close to you as possible no matter where a cyclist rides.

By: Anon Y Mous

Anon Y Mous — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:40:30 +0000

As I understand it, Chip chooses to ride in the “center” of the traffic lane, which may be his legal right, but it might not be the “right” thing to do in all cases. I may be wrong, but I also believe if he's being approached by a car he chooses not to move to the right of the roadway, but to continue to “take the lane”. Yes, sometimes taking the lane is the best thing to do. But you know what? Sometimes it's not.

From information I also understand Chip likes to take the left side of the lane. While I will defend Chip's right to bike in the road, I also disagree with the way he conducts himself. There's nothing wrong with every now and then “giving up the lane”. Some might consider it an unselfish act and that's not a bad thing.

By: bike eagle

bike eagle — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 22:23:11 +0000

I just sent this email to the city of Ennis:

As a road cyclist and Texan (although not in Ennis), I am writing to express my dismay with the city of Ennis' treatment of Mr. Reed Bates, a local cyclist who seems to have been unfairly subjected to prosecution by the city of Ennis. While I am only privy to the details of the case as they are being reported online, it appears to me as though Mr. Bates was operating his bicycle legally on the roadway.

As a result of this incident, the national and even international cycling community is literally laughing at the attitude of Texas cities, holding us up as an example to be ridiculed. Bicycle tourism is becoming an increasingly important part of many states' revenues, bringing in significant sums to states which embrace the activity, (such as Florida and California), in the form of increased hotel and airline bookings, bicycle rentals, restaurants, campgrounds, etc. Unfortunately though, the city of Ennis treatment of Mr. Bates appears to be damaging Texas' reputation as a welcoming venue for cyclists and other tourists.

As a fellow Texan, I urge the city of Ennis to adopt a different attitude. In fact, I think it would go a long way with potential tourists if the city of Ennis began promoting itself as a bicyle-friendly community - a complete about-face from its current reputation. A couple of suggestions I would make would be organizing an annual century ride (like the "Hotter Than Hell" ride in Wichita Falls), and the installation of a network of posted bicycle trails and paths, like the city of Folsom, CA has done:

http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/parks_n_recreatio...

While I am not an Ennis resident, and my opinion is therefore not as relevant as that of the local citizens, I am a Texan, cyclist, bicycle tourist, and work in the travel industry. I don't know if this letter will matter much to anyone in Ennis government, but I felt compelled to at least try to help improve a situation that seems to have become detrimental to everyone involved. Thanks for your time.

Respectfully,

By: Eliot Landrum

Eliot Landrum — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:49:45 +0000

Like we've stated on the website:

"On this stretch on Hwy 287, there are 4 total travel lanes, a lack of consistent shoulders, and a high number of intersections/turning movements. Reed does not own a car and travels everywhere by bicycle in a law-abiding way."

Reed is not being a jerk. He is using his bike to *live*. This isn't fun and games or recreational.

By: stuart

stuart — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:00:27 +0000

I don't know if Reed was being a jerk or not but this conviction sets a very scary precedent that could affect everyone who rides a bike in Texas. Some shoulders are probably safe to ride in while others certainly are not. Texas law leaves that decision up to the individual cyclist but this conviction was made in contradiction to this law.

Unfortunately, sometimes we need “jerks” like Reed Bates to stand up for the rights that benefit us all.