Posted on by B Spokes

The League & The Reed Bates Case

We have been following the Reed Bates’ case since pretty much the day the saga began. At the very outset, I called a couple of the people closely involved with Mr. Bates and offered the League’s help; it did appear that the charges were inappropriate, that Bates had a legal right to ride where he was riding, and that the jury that Bates chose to be heard by was incorrectly instructed by the first judge involved. On that basis, we would have been happy to help defend his right to ride on the road.
Our offer to assist was not accepted; instead, he and his advisers chose to assert that not only was Bates legally allowed to ride where he was riding, but that’s where he and everyone else should be riding, even in the presence of a perfectly rideable shoulder. That approach took the issue beyond a strict legal argument as to where one is legally allowed to ride to where one should ride, and a rural Texas courtroom may not be the best place to have that call made on our behalf. As the situation has developed, Bates (and the people advising him) has unfortunately chosen to follow a strategy that our board and legal advisers did not think was in the best interests of all cyclists – from the initial trial by jury preference to a failure to show up for court dates and hearings to the pursuit of a position that is simply not reasonable and could easily backfire.
We have remained in touch with the issue with local Dallas-area advocates, Bike Texas and our board of directors. It is instructive that none of us have chosen to get involved. I think we all regret that the way the case has been played by Bates and his advisers has precluded us from constructively intervening to help him and defend our collective rights to the road.
Andy Clarke
President, League of American Bicyclists

https://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/08/picking-your-battles-the-league-the-reed-bates-case/oldId.20100819182256476

3 Replies to “The League & The Reed Bates Case”

  3. If you have not been following LAB’s blog I will highlight this excellent post:
    *****************************************************************************************

    I’ve been swamped and haven’t been keeping up as closely on this case, or this controversy inside the case, as I should I suppose.

    In Ohio, I handled the Selz case. Case came out 10 yrs ago. Steve was either riding in the middle of the lane or the right, depending on whether you believe the cop or Steve. I suppose there was some sort of “shoulder” he “could have” ridden on. There were five lanes – 2 each way, one turn lane in the middle.

    The appellate court found that the key factor was that Steve was going at a speed which, FOR A CYCLIST, was appropriate. Steve fit the definition of “traffic” under Ohio law. Steve was permitted to ride on the road and the 2-1 court of appeals decision made it clear it wasn’t going to allow Steve to be banned from riding on State Route 49 just because some folks, i.e., the judge and prosecutor, thought it was not safe.

    The roads are PUBLIC WAYS and in most states people have the right to use the public ways in a variety of ways. Some are faster than others. Slow moving vehicles include bicycles, farm equipment and, in Ohio, Amish buggies. Faster traffic is MANDATED to accommodate slower traffic. In Ohio, bicycle operators are either allowed to use to use the roadway, or they are not. There’s no rule that says “use the road, but if it’s too dangerous, or the cars are going too fast, use the shoulder.”

    I represented Tony Patrick this year. Tony is the guy who tussled verbally with a deputy who told him, and his riding partner, to “Get off the F-ing Road”. Tony chose to banter with the officer and told the officer, quite correctly, that he had just as much right to use the road as the officer… didn’t go down well.

    Deputy said Tony and his buddy were riding two abreast and “impeding traffic.” He tried to run them off the road with his cruiser, stopped in traffic almost had the kid nail him from behind and then zoomed ahead and Tony ended up tussling with the cop before he was Tasered by a 2nd cop. The “charge” was “Riding a Bicycle on the Roadway.”

    Tony beat the criminal charges – including felony charges. The judge issued an interesting decision. He said under Ohio law two riders HAVE THE RIGHT to ride two abreast. They SHOULD, but DO NOT HAVE TO move to a single file line. The court said they were not doing anything wrong so the actions of the officer were not “lawful.” The distinction is between what is a RIGHT versus what they SHOULD do.

    The point is that people who allow themselves to get shoved into an envelope by police, or even courts, end up with rights that..well… fit into an envelope. Civil rights cases are not filled with people who caved in and didn’t push the envelope…

    I don’t know enough about TX law to comment on this case. I guess on a first impression level I don’t see how you can do something that is LEGAL and be found “RECKLESS.” Under Ohio law, reckless is defined in a way that would imply that acting LEGALLY is a defense to a claim of recklessness.

    Are cyclists REQUIRED to use a “shoulder” in TX? If a shoulder is next to a road do cyclists need to use it? If not, then what’s the rub? Are we arguing what is “legal” over what is “nice” or “preferred?” In Tony’s case, he probably should have pulled over and not ignored the cop’s order to “pull over.” In general, cyclists riding two abreast SHOULD go to single file but under State v. Patrick, they are clearly not required to do so and cannot be ticketed for “impeding traffic” if they do.

    Anyway, that’s the first of my two cents…

    Steve Magas

    https://www.bikeleague.org/blog/2010/08/picking-your-battles-the-league-the-reed-bates-case/comment-page-3/#comment-33332

Leave a Reply