Thoughts About Reed Bates
Reed Bates (aka ChipSeal) has been not only cited, but arrested, jailed and convicted for cycling in the center of the right lane on a four-lane highway. The highway has an intermittent 8-foot shoulder with rumble strips (and evidently some significant debris, too).
Many of Reed’s fellow cyclists are criticizing him for not using the paved shoulder, even though Texas law does not require it, and also permits cyclists full use of a lane that is too narrow to share.
If Reed was riding on a roadway with a shared use path next to it in a state that has a mandatory sidepath law, many, if not most of you would support him, even though some of you might prefer to ride on the path. Most non-cyclists however, would not understand why he wasn’t using the “bike path” because riding on the road is “so dangerous.”
If he was riding on a roadway with a narrow paved shoulder or bike lane that was full of debris and was staying out of that shoulder or bike lane, once again, many or most of you would support him, even though you might use the shoulder or bike lane. Most non-cyclists however, would not understand why he wasn’t using the “bike path” because riding on the road is “so dangerous.”
If he was riding on a roadway without a paved shoulder, bike lane or sidepath and controlling the lane, many or most of you would support him, even though you might hug the edge. Most non-cyclists however, would not understand why he was on the road at all, because riding on the road is “so dangerous.”
From the sound of how the Ennis police and Ellis County sheriff’s departments are behaving, I think they could have just as easily cited, jailed and convicted Reed for any of those types of circumstances, because they believe — in spite of a complete lack of evidence — that roadway cycling is dangerous and causes delay and chaos on our roads.
When I was pulled over for controlling a narrow lane in the City of Orlando, I heard the same kind of absurd and ignorant arguments from the cop who pulled me over. Fortunately, there was no bike lane or paved shoulder present, and I was able to talk my way out of it. Last week an off-duty sheriff’s deputy told me to get on the sidewalk. Many will say, “Well that’s different,” but it’s really not; all of these police actions stem from the same bogus belief, not from their understanding of the law.
The real problem we face is not so much how our laws are written, but what people believe about cycling. When we cyclists criticize Reed for cycling in the way he does, we are reinforcing the belief that roadway cycling is dangerous, and therefor irresponsible.
******************
A note about impeding traffic. I looked up the traffic counts for the road Reed’s been using at the Texas Department of Transportation website. It gets about 18,000 cars per day; rather low for a four-lane highway. Reed’s first arrest happened at about 2:30 p.m., which is well “off-peak.” Using standard traffic planning estimates, I’d guess the road was seeing roughly 3 to 4 cars per minute per lane, or one car passing ever 15 to 20 seconds. How can one possibly think changing lanes to pass a cyclist is any sort of problem in such a situation? By comparison, the street I ride to work during rush hour is a 3-lane one-way. Each lane sees about 12 to 13 cars per minute, or one every 5 seconds (of course they actually come in platoons). But even with much heavier traffic, motorists rarely have to wait more than a few seconds to pass me, and most don’t have to wait at all; they see me early and change lanes.
Posted in Culture, Politics, Traffic Law, Transportation Cycling
30. March 2010 at 8:02 pm :
Well put, as usual, Mighk, especially this:
“When we cyclists criticize Reed for cycling in the way he does, we are reinforcing the belief that roadway cycling is dangerous, and therefor irresponsible.”
I do disagree about one point, though.
“How can one possibly think changing lanes to pass a cyclist is any sort of problem in such a situation? ”
Whether we like it or not, most people believe that large discrepancies in speed is inherently problematic and should be avoided when reasonably possibly, and this is why “driving so slow as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic” is considered a minimum speed violation. In particular, 15 mph travel when others are going 65+ or even 30 is likely to be considered “driving too slow” regardless of the mode of travel used. Trying to argue this persuasively, especially with non-cyclists, that “it’s not a problem” is, I think, futile, and a tack far too risky in terms of losing credibility to even attempt.
The justification for riding in this manner is simply this: one cannot be in violation of going “too slow” when traveling at or near the fastest reasonably possible (a.k.a The Selz Defense), which Reed Bates clearly was doing. That’s where the focus needs to be, and arguing that other traffic was light and there was another lane to use for passing detracts from that focus.
31. March 2010 at 7:54 am :
Serge: I think you’re right about the speed issue if we’re looking at this problem through the dominant mental construct of roadway use, but not if we look at it objectively. I assume you saw the video Keri & I did out on CR 535 in Orange County.
http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2010/02/05/mythbusters-on-highway-535/
CR 535 has an AADT of 20,000 cars per day; Hwy 287 in Ellis County has 18,000. We were out there in mid-afternoon, off-peak. Being close to Disney and with more traffic signals, CR 535 probably has tighter platooning. Even so, not one driver had to wait to get around me, and most changed lanes more than a couple hundred feet back.
I think the speed differential issue is different for bicyclists and slow-moving motorists. Drivers assume bicyclists are traveling slowly, and assume their fellow motorists are moving at speeds close to their own. Having an expectation that the car ahead of you is going at about your speed can lead to reduced attention. That’s probably why transit buses get rear-ended so often; it’s certainly not because they’re inconspicuous!
31. March 2010 at 7:56 am :
BTW, if we’d been out on CR 535 during a Disney shift change, you probably wouldn’t have seen me on the roadway. ;^)
31. March 2010 at 12:22 pm :
I agree with all that you say, Mighk, it’s just that judges and jurors who have not driven bikes in traffic, and probably have no experience driving any kind of slow moving vehicle, are not going to be objective. Even experienced cyclists who ride in the stay-out-of-the-way manner cannot be objective about this. They just don’t get it. That’s how they can think that changing lanes to pass a cyclist in such a situation might be a problem.
31. March 2010 at 1:38 pm :
Yes, it’s difficult to keep the legal arguments separated from the social and technical ones. I’ve been focused more on the social arguments of late.
31. March 2010 at 1:50 pm :
I ride on TX roadways all the time. They are no more dangerous on a bicycle than being in a car or on a motorcycle. I invite you to come ride with Reed. You may agree with everything he says, and in most cases I do; however his execution of his opinion is where my difficulty lies. You may change your opinion when you ride with Reed; I know mine did.
31. March 2010 at 2:02 pm :
Your assessment of Reed’s cycling strategy may be accurate, Brad. As you said: you’ve biked with him; I haven’t. But does one’s personal difference of opinion on cycling justify legal over-reaction (or outright disregard for the law) on the part of law enforcement or the courts?
Why do most law enforcement officers and agencies ignore motorists who exceed the posted speed by a few miles per hour? It’s clearly illegal; no complicated interpretation is necessary.
So why is Reed punished for the way he rides when there is at least some reasonable disagreement as to the legality?
Bias.
31. March 2010 at 2:20 pm :
My only opinion is that he has somehow offended the officers by trying to teach them a lesson(or something unrelated?) and they are simply returning the favor.
31. March 2010 at 2:35 pm :
In the stop by an Orlando police officer mentioned above in my post, I had a polite counter argument for each of his charges and claims. He stormed off, fuming and quite offended, saying, “I guess you’re just one of those people who doesn’t care about others.”
I don’t think that was my fault.
A similar case happened in St. Petersburg, FL some years ago. A petite, slow, middle-aged woman was controlling the narrow lane on a lightly-traveled four-lane collector. I’m told that somehow or other the police officers got their feelings hurt when she explained her understanding of the law and safe cycling practices. (I rode with her one day. She was a polite and unremarkable rider aside from her willingness to control the lane.)
I didn’t know cops were so fragile.
31. March 2010 at 4:30 pm :
First things first, the term “cops” is slang and as I read it, disrespectful. (this comes from living with an step dad officer,whom I didn’t like or respect 25 years ago). They have a tough job, one that I would not do.
However, I ask you to consider it in their shoes: No one likes to be wrong. EVERYONE an officer encounters will argue with them and try to teach them the law, some with words, some with fists and some with guns. They never know how it’s going to come at them or if it will be their last argument on earth. We take for granted and don’t often understand that putting a uniform on endangers their life far more than us swinging a leg over a bicycle and sharing a lane with a car.
The best approach I’ve found isn’t to tell them the law, cite it from a book or print out, rather than have them take the time to explain it to you by showing you the statutes they are citing. A friendly smile and approach is often all that is needed to open a dialogue. Most often, a conversation of two adults find out that someone or both(quite often) were mistaken.
Judgment call: This may or may not be appropriate on the side of a road where motorists are buzzing along at 80mph; which I suspect is why the first arrest was made. (YMMV)
31. March 2010 at 5:48 pm :
What I understand from those who saw the dashcam video is that Reed was very courteous to the officers.
No one likes to be wrong.
The best way to avoid the embarrassment of being wrong is to not assert your rightness when you aren’t really familiar with a subject. Most officers are not familiar with the traffic statutes governing bicycles.
One of the things we’re trying to get across with the FBA LE Toolkit is the idea that if you see a cyclist riding assertively in the middle of the lane, that cyclist might, in fact, know more about the law than you. The officer has a 2-inch-thick statute book that pertains to things he might never see, the bicyclist has a self interest to learn the page and a half that pertains to him.
I don’t recommend being argumentative with an officer. But Brad’s strategy only works if the officer has and reads the whole statute. What happens (in most accounts I’ve read) is the officer reads the “keep near the curb” part and stops with a stronger belief he was right. Then is pressed and reads the left turns and hazards part and stops, he’s still right and the cyclist is annoying him. Then is pressed and reads substandard lane and doesn’t know what that means, so it means nothing. And he’s now even more invested in being right. I know TX statute actually does specify 14ft, FL doesn’t. In any case, an officer who has insecurity about being wrong is going to have his back up just by being pressed to read the whole statute.
Hell hath no fury like authority with its back up.
Reed is not only challenging their authority, he’s challenging an orthodoxy. It took the Catholic church more than 3 centuries to pardon Galileo for trying to tell them the earth isn’t at the center of the universe.
31. March 2010 at 6:39 pm :
Reed may very well have been polite that day. What about the days before? Other incidents? Lots of room to speculate. I choose to believe there is far more to this story than makes it to the blogs. I will never know the whole story, nor will the majority of us reading this.
Something we don’t take into account is the entire traffic code. Regardless of what the bicycle statutes say, if an officer instructs a person to do something traffic related, one can be arrested or cited for not complying with an officer’s instructions. They do have the authority to redirect traffic as necessary and have the authority to make a safety judgment call.
As most laws, they are written for some interpretation, thus making them enforceable for far wider scenarios. Sec. 551.103.3 and 4 leaves quite a bit of room for interpretation by all parties. What is safe? That’s a judgment call. Some aircraft pilots can operate within inches of other planes at the speed of sound…Nascar drivers are comfortable rubbing mirrors. Runners can run shoulder to shoulder, pro cyclists ride touching hips at times, etc…
For example: 3′ was put up for vote as a safe passing margin. My car is 6′ wide at the widest point (mirrors or tires), bicycle is 1.5″ wide, that’s 7.5′. +3′ = 10.5′ Mathematically, there’s room for my car and a bicycle to fit within an 11′ wide lane. Would I feel safe doing that in a car or bicycle without knowing the other party? no… Is it legal? More interpretation. Read 545.054.
31. March 2010 at 7:57 pm :
brad, as a rider with more than my share of police traffic stops, I can tell you that I have always tried to be polite and calm, in order to keep things from going wrong for the wrong reasons. One of the later stops, I mumbled to the officer, “… and I thought Daytona cops were smarter…” which was misinterpreted. Luckily, nothing went too far wrong, as I was later told to not be a smart-ass, but no citation was written. It’s tough to be civil in the face of incompetence, and tougher when it continues unceasingly.
With respect to your bike, I respectfully suggest that you need more than 18 inches in order to operate safely. I’ve measured a couple vehicles at seven feet wide at the tires as well, SUVs mostly.
You make a good point about knowing who the other party is, since generally I would trust no other driver to pass me closely in a safe manner. Some states increase the passing clearance as speed limit increases on the roadway.
A trained safe cyclist does not have to have a passing-clearance law in order to ride safely, especially since these laws are virtually unenforceable and in my opinion, not enforced anywhere.
You query who is to determine “safe” and I suggest that the person in the position of greater risk is the one to make that determination. I like your references, because they point to trained and skilled participants. That would certainly apply to Reed and to myself and to Mighk and Keri, and perhaps even yourself, if you’ve taken any safe-cycling courses.
So many other aspects of road riding combined with lane positioning have to apply to a rider’s approach to the road. I do my best to operate in a consistent and predictable manner, which has to make things easier for other road users. It’s a pretty big picture and all the little points have to work.
Arresting someone for riding a bike is absurd.
1. April 2010 at 8:43 am :
Expanding on Fred’s comment about cyclist operating space: AASHTO puts the bicyclist operating space at 40 inches. 30 inches for the cyclist from elbow to elbow, plus 5 inches on each side for wobble. Add a minimum of three feet for safe passing and we are up to 6 feet 4 inches. Add a 7-foot wide pick-up or SUV and we’re up to 13 feet 4 inches. Add the maximum vehicle width of 102 inches (which doesn’t include mirrors) and we’re up to 14 feet 10 inches.
1. April 2010 at 9:29 am :
30″ seems excessive but not unreasonable for the average cyclists. Mighk: I agree with these numbers being pretty minimum for a safe distance. However, again as we all are too aware, it’s a matter of perspective. Some will want more space, some will be comfortable with less. When driving around in NYC, most cyclists were comfortable rubbing hips to mirrors with my rental… However, motorists were generally paying attention and comfortable with driving that tight.
Fred: I agree, arresting a cyclist is absurd. This is why I’m convinced something more is at play here.
1. April 2010 at 10:58 am :
I wonder how common arrests are for infractions by motorists in Texas. Most traffic violations are non-criminal offenses in Florida. Reed’s charges have all been for violations that are non-criminal in Florida.
1. April 2010 at 11:16 am :
I read somewhere (sorry I can’t recall where) that the police justified the arrest out of concern for the safety for Reed Bates and others, because they were convinced that riding a bicycle in the roadway was unsafe to him and others, and that he would continue doing it if he was not arrested.
1. April 2010 at 1:22 pm :
If that were indeed the rationale, it is of course based on assumptions and not on experience or observations. In a less biased approach they would have observed Reed’s riding and motorist reactions for a while instead of immediately stopping him. No doubt the numerous 911 calls from uninformed motorists affected their assumptions.
When I was stopped by an OPD officer it was because a motorist had complained. The sense I got from the officer was that that was the primary reason. I was in plain sight of the officer for a while before the motorist pulled up alongside him and complained; only then did the officer “see” a problem.
3. April 2010 at 2:54 pm :
Brad,
Your comments about initiating a friendly dialogue with a smile vs. citing the text of the law may work if you have police or courts that know and respect the law and you don’t mind allowing time for extended dialogues. This may even work where you are (or may not).
This is not the experience I see locally. While most of the local police know to allow a bicycle in the middle of a 10′ lane with parking on both sides, last year I was pulled over for trying to make a lawful left turn from the left lane on a 4 lane road in rush hour traffic. The officer rejected what I thought would be a simple explanation that I was turning left, and said bicyclists are required to ride next to the curb with no exceptions for left turns, narrow lanes, or obstacles (all specifically listed in the law). He also misunderstood that impeding traffic is a MOTOR vehicle offense. His (unlawful) instruction to turn left from the right lane was not a safety instruction, and not something I could reasonably obey. (When he left I still had to cross both lanes). Note this happened in traffic where the congestion reduces average motor speed to 10mph.
Other local cyclists have been cited for lawfully avoiding RTOL lanes, and convicted by lower courts that said the law was unreasonable and rejected the text of the law. While these cases are dismissed on appeal, these are all situations where the cyclists are faulted cited for obeying the law, but held at fault in collisions when riding where the officers otherwise demand. These are not situations where reasonable discussion will let the bicyclists ride legally. Some (not all but many) officers don’t know the law and refuse to accept that the law really means what it says. While bicyclists attempts to ride safely and lawfully may not be understood by many motorists, I do think bicyclists have a right to expect all officers to accept the law as written without being expected to ride as dictated by the personal opinion of whatever officer happens to be on the road.
4. April 2010 at 1:53 pm :
IMHO, the time to discuss the law is NOT while you are pulled over. When pulled over, the only thing to communicate to the officer that is confused about the law is the required identification, if requested. Even if you are 100% correct, it is still not the time to attempt to educate an officer who is discharging what he/she sees as his/her duty. The time to discuss the law is afterwards, when you can request that the officer in question be educated about the law and ask for follow-up. You do NOT want to become a target should you run across the officer again while riding legally.
Do not agree to perform illegal acts at the officer’s request. Do not disagree with the officer. In the traffic stops I saw, Chip’s biggest mistake is he did not follow that advice. He was undeniably polite, and the officers understood that, but he might still have been treated much worse, with anything he said used as an excuse.He might have “accidentally fallen” down the stairs at the jail.
The time to complain is when you are no longer in a situation with someone who does not know the law, but that has a gun and a badge. The police are part of the EXECUTIVE branch of government. They do not make the laws, nor are they judges.
5. April 2010 at 8:19 am :
Steve:
You make good points and it gets me thinking that we should be thinking more strategically and less reactively.
A strategic approach would be to obey the advice of the officer unless it poses immediate risk of harm or is outright illegal. The first priority would be to take the officer’s name, badge number or vehicle number, then note how much of your time was wasted with the stop, and what difficulties and additional risks you suffered due to the stop. Then write a very polite and professional letter to the chief or sheriff explaining why the stop was unwarranted and note all the difficulties you experienced because of it. Those of us in Florida can also point to FBA’s Bicycle Law Enforcement Guide, FLBikeLaw.org, and the development of our curriculum.
When stops also involved citations, advocacy organizations should be encouraging cyclists to challenge them in court and give as much support as they can muster.
5. April 2010 at 5:17 pm :
With traffic stop number twenty, citation number three and traffic stops from Port Orange PD counts now at five or six, some of Mighk’s advice would not have been practicable. I would not be able to obey the officer beyond ordinary commands (provide driver’s license) as he did not make any other demands. Oh, yes, I did sign the citation.
The chief of police was the initiator of the traffic stop that generated the first citation, so a letter to that individual probably holds no value. Two calls to the City Manager went un-answered.
Looks like I’ll be filing a motion to dismiss once again.
Details to follow, likely on another forum…
29. April 2010 at 2:06 am :
[...] a Transportation Planner/Bicycle Coordinator for Orlando Metroplan in Florida (an MPO). He has some thoughts and observations on Reed Bates (a.k.a. [...]
11. December 2010 at 8:09 am :
Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article
2. September 2011 at 4:33 pm :
I know this is an old thread, but I would observe that you are not required to give them your driver’s license in the first place. You’re on a bicycle, a driver’s license is not required. If they ask for ID, pull out some other ID and tell them you don’t have a driver’s license to show them. That first step will catch them off guard. Turns out cops don’t know what to do when handed something different. Then you can make polite conversation.
29. October 2011 at 10:09 am :
3361234 beers on the wall. sck was here
4. January 2012 at 3:29 pm :
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)
7. April 2012 at 11:27 pm :
Shoes Men Adidas Originals…
Pretty profitable post. I just stumbled upon your website plus wanted in order to say that I have indeed enjoyed inspection your blog posts. Any instrumentation I’ll be subscribing in order to your feed furthermore I hope you post another time in the …