(my apologies for using a name in the public record in BF)


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 defend their lane position 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 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.

... 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.