LAB vrs Strict VC... the Reed Bates issue.

[Doohickie]

Yeah, that's pretty much the Reed rides. You can check his blog as well as Steve A's who is pretty actively following the cases. (There were several tickets issued). I've met Reed, he's a nice enough guy. I think his tickets are as much about his desire to advance cyclist rights as they are about his own cycling behavior. In other words, I think he could have paid some lip service to the police after a stop or two and wouldn't have been bothered further. But he insisted on riding where he felt it was his right and was kind of stubborn about it. I can kind of see his point in doing so. I won't say he was wrong in what he did, but let's just say my style is a little more "go with the flow." That said, I hope his appeals come out favorably for him.

There is quite a bit of activity on Reed's blog lately, including some transcripts of his most recent trial (which he lost).

[John Forester]

...Andy Clarke states at the League of American Bicyclists site that the non-support from the LAB for reed bates legal strategy should be instructive.

i advance that this should be instructive to those that think bicyclists uncompromisingly hanging out in the left tire track of the outside lane on a 65mph multiple lane, divided state highway for tens of miles is sound operating practice.

the Leagues' failure to back this as a riding or legal strategy should be instructive to those convinced that one simple exception in one solitary law ostensibly gives riders the right to operate with premeditated reckless disregard for the rights of other road users.

Bek and Clarke apparently believe that cycling in the area of the left tire track of multi-track vehicles is wrong. Clarke hasn't shown himself on this list, but Bek posted Clarke's statement and agreed with it. We're not discussing where Bates actually cycled; this is a discussion about the statement itself. Therefore, Bek, please explain why following the left tire track is so much more abominable than other locations in the lane.

[dougmc]

]i didn't see that. i thought he was obeying the 'far right as practicable' rule. could you please show me where it reads he was 'in the left tire track?' if he was, he was being reckless, unless he had a good reason, like merging left.

In Texas, one of the cases were "as far right as practicable" does not apply is if the outside lane is less than 14' wide, which covers most roads in Texas.

EDIT: According to the testimony in his trial, the outside lane was 12' wide. If so, then that should be the end of the story -- he followed the law. (Obviously the court did not agree.)

Beyond that, if he's taking the lane, can't he take whatever part of the lane he wants? A car certainly takes the left tire track (it's where their left tires go, after all.)

[genec]

In Texas, one of the cases were "as far right as practicable" does not apply is if the outside lane is less than 14' wide, which covers most roads in Texas.

EDIT: According to the testimony in his trial, the outside lane was 12' wide. If so, then that should be the end of the story -- he followed the law. (Obviously the court did not agree.)

Beyond that, if he's taking the lane, can't he take whatever part of the lane he wants? A car certainly takes the left tire track (it's where their left tires go, after all.)

OK that then begs the question. If the cyclist is taking the lane, does it matter where in the lane he/she is? If it doesn't matter, then why can't another cyclist take the "rest of the lane?"

Of course the counter (motorist) argument to this is that a cyclist is very slow traffic and inevitably will be passed... the further to the right said cyclist is, the easier to pass they are.

[dougmc]

Of course the counter (motorist) argument to this is that a cyclist is very slow traffic and inevitably will be passed... the further to the right said cyclist is, the easier to pass they are.

Easier only if the passing vehicle is going to share the lane with the cyclist.

But the law (and the size of the lane) doesn't really permit that --

545.060. DRIVING ON ROADWAY LANED FOR TRAFFIC.
(a) An operator on a roadway divided into two or more clearly marked lanes for traffic:
(1) shall drive as nearly as practical entirely within a single lane; and
(2) may not move from the lane unless that movement can be made safely.

so they're supposed to stick to one lane -- but Reed's lane was 12' wide, too small to share (unless he was to the very far right, which was not legally required of him, and even so that would likely put the car too close to him for safety, even if the area doesn't have a 3' passing law.)

So if somebody is going to pass him, they should get out of his lane entirely and take the other lane. (Remember, this wasn't a two lane road -- I think it had four.)

As for another cyclist, the law says that two cyclists riding abreast must do so in the same lane -- so it would seem to require it in that case. But that's only for two bicycles, not for a car and a bicycle.

[Chris516]

OK that then begs the question. If the cyclist is taking the lane, does it matter where in the lane he/she is? If it doesn't matter, then why can't another cyclist take the "rest of the lane?"

Of course the counter (motorist) argument to this is that a cyclist is very slow traffic and inevitably will be passed... the further to the right said cyclist is, the easier to pass they are.

In the scenario of two cyclists being in the lane, that is not only dangerous when there is motorized traffic behind the cyclist, in a sense two cyclists 'taking the lane', is actually abusing the right to take the lane.

[dougmc]

In the scenario of two cyclists being in the lane, that is not only dangerous when there is motorized traffic behind the cyclist, in a sense two cyclists 'taking the lane', is actually abusing the right to take the lane.

But it's permitted right there in the law, at least in Texas --

551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY.
...
(c) Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles.

Now, the "may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic" bit has some room for interpretation, and it may be that two cyclists riding abreast should go single file if somebody wants to pass -- but in the case of a four lane road, passing traffic should never squeeze into the lane with the cyclists (just use the other lane!) and so going single file doesn't actually help traffic pass one bit.

Not that Chipseal was riding two abreast, he was just taking the lane by himself. Personally, I don't think it matters where in the lane he was riding, as long as he wasn't at the far left or right (both make it too easy for a car to force him into sharing the lane, making it dangerous but probably not illegal as long as he's entirely in his lane) but others seem to disagree.

[Doohickie]

OK that then begs the question. If the cyclist is taking the lane, does it matter where in the lane he/she is? If it doesn't matter, then why can't another cyclist take the "rest of the lane?"

Bicycles may ride two abreast in a lane in Texas, but no more than that.

Of course the counter (motorist) argument to this is that a cyclist is very slow traffic and inevitably will be passed... the further to the right said cyclist is, the easier to pass they are.

If it is not safe for a car and bicycle to share the lane, the AFRAP does not apply. But it doesn't apply on 12' lanes either, so... whatever. I think the thing that got Reed was that they ended up charging him with obstructing traffic, and not failure to obey AFRAP.

[Doohickie]

Now, the "may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic" bit has some room for interpretation, and it may be that two cyclists riding abreast should go single file if somebody wants to pass -- but in the case of a four lane road, passing traffic should never squeeze into the lane with the cyclists (just use the other lane!) and so going single file doesn't actually help traffic pass one bit.

That's the thing... the may not impede applies to all vehicles, including bicycles and motor vehicles (in another section perhaps, though). Anyway, the definition of impede is not clear. You can compare a bicycle to a piece of farm machinery- if there is room to pass, generally, it's not impeding to take the lane, but it's also common in Texas for slow-moving traffic to move to the shoulder to allow other traffic to pass. I think somewhere along the way this is what they claimed Reed should have done. By any reasonable interpretation of the laws by us here on BF, Reed is innocent, plain & simple. His first trial, though, was a trial by jury (I think Reed or Steve said they felt that was a ploy by the judge who didn't want to hear the case), and a jury in Texas (or most other places in the U.S.) means people who driver or at least ride in motor vehicles, so their view of the law slants a different way.

[dougmc]

That's the thing... the may not impede applies to all vehicles, including bicycles and motor vehicles (in another section perhaps, though). Anyway, the definition of impede is not clear.

Well, the only other place where the word is found that seems similar is this --

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.

(which is another issue that they were beating Chipseal up with, I might add.) However, the "bicycles two abreast" version does not include the "except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law" exclusion. I would argue that such an exclusion needs to apply whether it's explicitly listed or not, but I'm not sure a judge or jury would agree.

Defenses against "impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic" would look at that "and" statement -- you have to both impede the normal movement of traffic and impede the reasonable movement of traffic to be guilty, but neither term is really properly defined, and even so -- a judge or jury may not care about the exact wording of the law, or the instructions given to the jury may not actually include the relevant and accurate law ...

[Doohickie]

To the car-driving public, a bicycle in the right lane could be viewed as impeding traffic if people simply slowed down in the left lane because they were dumbfounded that a bicycle was in the right lane. Yes, the car-driving mentality could be that bad. The point is, in the first trial the judge set Reed up by recommending a jury trial. He knew how drivers would interpret the law.

[earth2pete]

In Texas, one of the cases were "as far right as practicable" does not apply is if the outside lane is less than 14' wide, which covers most roads in Texas.

EDIT: According to the testimony in his trial, the outside lane was 12' wide. If so, then that should be the end of the story -- he followed the law. (Obviously the court did not agree.)

Beyond that, if he's taking the lane, can't he take whatever part of the lane he wants? A car certainly takes the left tire track (it's where their left tires go, after all.)

not my point, but i see yours.

i just thought he was riding in the right tire track. if not, that's his call, i said 'reckless,' but i wasn't there.

still, you're talking to a man who spent his entire commuting spree riding 100 miles/week in Atlanta, mostly in the center of the right lane of a four-lane road, hogging the lane so nobody would try to squeeze past me. had that experience once, that was enough.

even so, i don't think i would have chosen the left tire track unless merging into the left lane, i've had arseclowns pass me on the right if i spent too much time in the left tire track, when the road was wide enough.

anyway, my point was based on personal experience, but my cycling environment may have been quite different. i just wanted an explanation, that's all. not trying to argue or anything.

[Steve A]

Anything about the judge's motivation wrt the jury trial is purely speculation. All I know is that nobody I know that spoke to Reed about the trial beforehand suggested a jury was anything other than a bad idea.

[Steve A]

I saw the video and heard the sworn testimony about what Reed was doing that day. I do not think Bekologist saw or heard either. I do not know if he has attempted to obtain a transcript. I'll take what I have seen and heard over speculation.

[Bekologist]

... I'll take what I have seen and heard over speculation.

you mean you'll take what you've seen and heard about reed, that he was convicted for reckless operation of his vehicle, operating with calculated disregard for the reasonable expectations of other road users?

i am sorry, his 'appeal' if reed mounts one, will not roll in his favor.

Reasonableness pervades texas lane positioning statute for bicyclists. UN-reasonable road use can very well prove to be reckless, as we have seen in Texas.

[John Forester]

you mean you'll take what you've seen and heard about reed, that he was convicted for reckless operation of his vehicle, operating with calculated disregard for the reasonable expectations of other road users?

i am sorry, his 'appeal' if reed mounts one, will not roll in his favor.

Reasonableness pervades texas lane positioning statute for bicyclists. UN-reasonable road use can very well prove to be reckless, as we have seen in Texas.

Yes, indeed, Bek, Reed Bates was convicted of reckless disregard for the property of others, that is, for the reckless disregard for the potential damage to a car whose driver was operating with such criminal negligence that he might hit Bates. That is, Bates was convicted because he might become the victim of someone else's criminal driving.

But Bek has another argument to present also. That is, Reed Bates was operating in a way that criminally negligent motorists would consider unreasonable. There is no traffic law requiring reasonable reasonable behavior by the standards of some people. If there is, Bek, then present it, by statute number and actual wording. Traffic laws make determining guilt or innocence as straightforward as possible, although judgment factors have to be considered. Bates had the right to occupy the lane; that requires no judgment as to lateral position.

Bek seems unable to leave this case alone, because he believes that it demonstrates something wonderful about traffic law. All that it does demonstrate is the use that can be made when superstitious prejudice overturns statute law.

[Bekologist]

Yes, indeed, Bek, Reed Bates was convicted of reckless disregard for the property of others, that is, for the reckless disregard for the potential damage to a car whose driver was operating with such criminal negligence that he might hit Bates. That is, Bates was convicted because he might become the victim of someone else's criminal driving.

Reed was not convicted of reckless disregard for others property, he was convicted for the reckless disregard for the safety of other road users.

. There is no traffic law requiring reasonable reasonable behavior by the standards of some people. If there is, Bek, then present it, by statute number and actual wording.

your bluffs demanding quote of 'statute number' is quite disingenuous, there, John. the 'reasonable person' standard pervades traffic law. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of traffic law doesn't deny the most obvious metric of traffic law.

Aggrandizing denial of the pervasive 'reasonable person' standard of law is very weak on john's part. its a shame.

wiki on 'reasonable person' standard

This standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.

[benjdm]

Reed was not convicted of reckless disregard for others property, he was convicted for the reckless disregard for the safety of other road users.

Please explain how he was a threat to the safety of any other road users. I can't recall drivers being injured by colliding with cyclists.

[John Forester]

Reed was not convicted of reckless disregard for others property, he was convicted for the reckless disregard for the safety of other road users.

your bluffs demanding quote of 'statute number' is quite disingenuous, there, John. the 'reasonable person' standard pervades traffic law. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of traffic law doesn't deny the most obvious metric of traffic law.

Aggrandizing denial of the pervasive 'reasonable person' standard of law is very weak on john's part. its a shame.

I concentrated on the potential damage to the car of the criminally negligent driver who might collide with Bates simply because damage to the car is far more likely than injury to its driver or passenger. The argument is not different in either case and the reckless driving statute applies to damage of both persons and property.

Bek keeps on repeating that the real justification for convicting Bates was the unreasonable nature of his driving. Despite all of Bek's prattling, Bek has never, and now refuses to, define what he means by reasonable or reasonableness. After all, Bates was driving in a lawful way that other drivers are required by law to take account of and act accordingly. How could that be unreasonable? Bek has never demonstrated that.

I write that Bek's standard of reasonableness is nothing more than the motorist-superiority superstition held by some members of the motoring community, and, of course, by Bek himself and his allies in the LAB (since he advances this superstition), regarding bicycle traffic.

[Bekologist]

its in the court of record and the judges decision, that reed was riding in a manner that exhibited premeditated callous disregard for the reasonable expectations of others road users, and rose to the level of reckless driving.

convicted reckless rider. Im' not the one either prodding reed to his unrealistic, inconsiderate lane position. that's his reckless fidget, and one he's paid the price for. lets hope his ill-mannered riding doesn't become some kind of rallying call for confused texas riders about what a 'duty of care' is.

[John Forester]

its in the court of record and the judges decision, that reed was riding in a manner that exhibited premeditated callous disregard for the reasonable expectations of others road users, and rose to the level of reckless driving.

convicted reckless rider. Im' not the one either prodding reed to his unrealistic, inconsiderate lane position. that's his reckless fidget, and one he's paid the price for. lets hope his ill-mannered riding doesn't become some kind of rallying call for confused texas riders about what a 'duty of care' is.

Bek writes as though he were quoting from the judge's opinion, but he may be simply using his own words. Whatever the source, they deserve criticism. "[R]iding in a manner that exhibited premeditated callous disregard for the reasonable expectations of other road users."

I see: when driving across the Texas countryside it is reasonable to expect that one always has a clear lane ahead, and to drive in that manner. And that anyone who expresses the opinion that this is not lawful driving, either by act or word, is callously disregarding this vital Texan expectation.

[Bekologist]

the rulings going to have to go with common sense and jurisprudence. reed, riding, rising to the level of reckless disregard for other road users.

this entire "vc versus.." artifice is counterfeit.

[benjdm]

Reed was not convicted of reckless disregard for others property, he was convicted for the reckless disregard for the safety of other road users.

Please explain how he was a threat to the safety of any other road users. I can't recall drivers being injured by colliding with cyclists.

Still waiting.

[Bekologist]

if you understand duty of care, i need not explain. if you don't, read the judges' transcript.

its very clear there are reasonable and legal ways to operate a bike, and clearly unreasonable ways to operate a bike, rising to the level of reckless disregard for others.

this thread should have been titled "strict VC versus the world"

[benjdm]

if you understand duty of care, i need not explain. if you don't, read the judges' transcript.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care

In tort law, a duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.

Still waiting.