Persecution, Abandonment, and Betrayal: Comments on the Reed Bates Saga
The Situation
Reed Bates's troubles began only a week and half after mine did and followed a very similar pattern. For almost a year, Reed (also known as ChipSeal; formerly of Ennis (Ellis County), Texas; currently of Dallas, Texas) has been terrorized by the Ennis Police Department and the department of Ellis County Sheriff Johnny Brown because they disapprove of his assertive cycling technique. His technique accords with both Texas law and well-established principles of cycling safety and furthermore constitutes the safest and most efficient possible cycling behavior. Not only have they repeatedly harassed him by stopping and detaining him without cause while he was traveling, and not only have they they issued him citations for violating non-existent regulations, they have gone so far as to arrest him and hold him in jail on three occasions for a total of three weeks and to charge him with the crime of reckless driving, a charge that is extremely rare even in cases where a collision occurs.In March, he was convicted of violating the prohibition on "driv[ing] so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law (Texas Transportation Code §545.363)," despite the facts that no traffic was substantially impeded and that he could not reasonably have traveled any faster, in a highly flawed jury trial (recounted here by Steve Averill) that was later invalidated. The charges are still pending, and he expects to be retried. In August, he was convicted of reckless driving in a bench trial (recounted here by Steve Averill) that can only be characterized as a kangaroo court. Acccording to PM Summer, Judge A. Gene Calvert, Jr., in announcing his verdict, said: "You may be right that it is safer to ride in the middle of the lane instead of the shoulder, but it is reckless of you to do so." ("What?!" Yeah, you heard me.) So, in defiance of logic, Reed's behavior, despite being safe and legal, was nevertheless reckless and criminal. Like me, he is in a state of virtual house arrest because the danger of interference from police officers renders travel impractically dangerous for him.
Like me, Reed and his friends and supporters appealed to state and national cycling advocacy organizations for help. Neither the Texas Bicycle Coalition (BikeTexas) nor the League of American Bicyclists was willing to provide any support. In fact, it seems that many "cycling advocates", including leaders of these organizations, worked to conceal and obscure the issue: to spread false information about it so as to cast suspicion on Reed's cycling behavior, legal decisions, credibility, and even sanity and to downplay the merits of his case and the severity of the consequences of it to him and to cycling in general. Having no connection to Texas myself, I do not closely monitor BikeTexas's activities. However, I do know that the League did not even publicize his ordeal (or mine for that matter) to aid him in gathering support from other cycling advocates. This would have been the least it could have done for him, but it should have done much more. It should have treated Reed's experience as a crisis of the greatest magnitude, a potential catastrophe for cyclists throughout the country. It should have helped him collect money for legal fees. It should have supplied him with an expert witness on cycling safety as he specifically asked for. It should have called on everyone who had any influence: law enforcers, politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, cycling advocates, civil rights advocates, League members, cyclists. It should have made a strong and clear statement of righteous indignation at Reed's treatment. It should have constructed and executed a plan to mobilize and coordinate support. But it did none of this.
After Reed's conviction of reckless driving, the frustration of his friends and supporters expressed to the League and particularly to its president, Andy Clarke, grew to such a level that the League's leaders felt compelled to comment publicly on the issue. Andy Clarke posted a letter on the League's blog. I recommend that you read this letter as well the comments made by PM Summer (Clearly Unhelpful) and Keri Caffrey (Who Will Speak Up When They Come For You?) on their respective blogs. PM and Keri express many of my thoughts quite well. However, I have many thoughts and feelings about this situation that others have not yet expressed to my satisfaction. I attempt to express there here.
I hoped that this article would be more timely, but it took a while to collect and organize my thoughts and to choose my words so as to express my thoughts clearly, precisely, and thoroughly. I found the heap of issues, facts, and opinions and the wall of hateful and anti-rational rhetoric so overwhelming that I eventually gave up on the "thorough" part. I settled on making a few points about Andy's letter. In the process, I did compile an extensive index of articles that I have included at the end.
My Thoughts
As PM explains, Andy makes the following false claims in his letter.- For his first trial, Reed freely decided to be tried by a jury in defiance of others' better judgement. (In fact, he was pressured into it by a judge. He did not have an attorney to advise him and advocate for him in court at the time, being unable to afford one.)
- The League has been in close contact with Reed and has been monitoring the case.
- The road on which Reed was cited had a "perfectly rideable shoulder". (In fact, the shoulder was in relatively poor condition. Its surface was covered with sand, gravel, cracks, patches, and a rumple strip, and its width varied erratically, in some places being very narrow.)
- Reed insisted on arguing at trial, in regard to his position on the road, that "that’s where he and everyone else should be riding," rather than restrict his arguments to the position that his behavior was entirely legal.
- The League offered to help Reed with his case under the condition that he restrict his arguments in court to those concerning the law, but Reed refused to abide by the condition.
- Reed's position on the road was unreasonable.
- Reed's concern about the hazards and impediments of riding on the shoulder were unreasonable.
- Reed's position on proper cycling technique is unreasonable.
- Reed was rudely and severely inconveniencing other drivers.
- Reed was deliberately provoking the police
- The merits of Reed's case are weak.
- The consequences of the case to Reed are not very serious.
- The consequences of the case to all cyclists in Texas are not very serious.
- The consequences of the case to all cyclists in this country are not very serious.
- The consequences to all cyclists in this country of the refusal of the League and other "cycling advocates" and advocacy organizations to support Reed are not very serious.
Regardless of the condition of the specific shoulder in question (which, contrary to Andy's claim, was extremely poor), I strongly object to any characterization of a "perfectly rideable shoulder". Riding on a shoulder ALWAYS imposes hazards and impediments beyond those of riding on the road proper (unless the road proper contains a specific exceptional hazard or impediment). Sometimes those hazards and impediments are unreasonably high. Sometimes they are low enough that riding on the shoulder could be considered okay. I myself sometimes ride on the shoulder, albeit very rarely, on some occasions when I deem the risk and inconvenience to be low. However, it I find it extremely offensive and threatening that a police officer or Andy Clarke or anyone else would deign to decide what is an acceptable risk or inconvenience for me or Reed or anyone else to accept, and that is exactly what is done by characterizing a shoulder as "perfectly rideable". The condition of a shoulder can be bad or not so bad but can almost never be such that there is no advantage to avoiding it.
From what I have read, I believe that I would insist on taking the same, middle-of-the-lane, position as Reed did on that road and would strongly advise others to do so as well, assuming that my current impression of the road is verified by direct observation. I would eagerly defend my reasons in a civil and rational manner with anyone who would engage me in a discussion in the same manner. I would willingly consider contrary opinions as well, if presented in a civil and rational manner. I strive to convince, not to confuse or coerce. I would never attempt to prevent another cyclist from exercising his or her own judgement. To do so would be manipulative and controlling and would likely lead the cyclist to make worse decisions, since I would be pressuring him or her not to think for him- or herself. I would never be satisfied to passively allow another cyclist to suffer arbitrary punishment for exercising his or her judgement, even if I disagreed with that judgement. To do otherwise would be weak and dishonorable. To undermine the freedom of a cyclist to exercise his or her own judgement, whether actively or passively, would undermine the cause of cycling advocacy and the pursuit of a free and just society.
No one should be permitted to scrutinize and micromanage a cyclist's lane position. Very few police officers have the expertise to properly evaluate the merits of taking different lane positions on a given road. Neither can someone who has never traveled on a particular road competently evaluate the merits of different lane positions on that road. It would be a detriment to all cyclists to set a precedent of allowing politicians, police officers, judges, or jurors to scrutinize and micromanage a cyclist's position on the road. No one is subject to such intense scrutiny and control when driving a vehicle of any other type. How can anyone accept the idea of being always vulnerable to imprisonment for not being in the exact position that someone else thinks is appropriate? It is unacceptable that cyclists currently receive inferior treatment under the law, and it is unacceptable that those who claim to advocate for cyclists accept and even defend this treatment.
Even for those cyclists who would have preferred riding on this particular shoulder, a bad outcome to this case could leave Texas law in
a limbo where a cyclist would have no way to know whether an attempt to avoid a hazard or impediment (even one that would be widely recognized) could deliver him or her into legal hell. (Limbo? Hell? Get it?) He or she could only cycle with the constant fear of a police officer stopping him or her and ordering him or her to change positions or change routes or even just go back home and stay there (as I was ordered by Joseph Reed shortly after he had arrested me).
And YOU MUST DISTINGUISH between the danger of being stopped and possibly cited for violating traffic regulations and the danger of being arrested and/or charged with committing crimes. If Reed had not been arrested and had not been charged with reckless driving, we would not be having this conversation. As someone who is currently in the aforementioned hell myself, I admonish everyone reading this not to take the possibility lightly. Do not underestimate the impact on a person's life, and do not assume that it cannot happen to you! I have never been a risk-taker. I had never had trouble with the law before this. I did not at all anticipate what happened to me. Trouble can find you just as easily as it found me (in the state whose Declaration of Rights precedes the founding of this country).
And who will support you if and when it does happen to you? After all, that is what we expect cycling advocates and advocacy organizations to do. An organization that would readily abandon any one of its charges in a time of need would readily abandon any other as well, and that includes YOU. That is why, for example, free speech advocates must vigorously defend even offensive speech: because you never know when your speech, which you consider innocent or even righteous, will be tagged as offensive by those with the authority do so. This case has the potential to set a dangerous legal precedent of allowing police officers to arbitrarily order someone off of the road and to use the courts to arbitrarily punish them for refusing. But the attitudes and actions of cycling advocates and advocacy organizations has the potential to set another precedent, not a legal one but a political and social one: that cyclists cannot rely on each other for help when they desperately need it. There seems to have been a recent surge in cases of illegal persecution of cyclists by police officers and judges. There also seems to have been a recent surge in anti-cycling legislation throughout the country that goes beyond the long standing anti-cycling laws that also exist in some form throughout the country. I believe that the outcome of Reed's case will be influential in encouraging or discouraging this discrimination. The League of American Bicyclists has been silent and passive in the face of even the most aggregious discrimination.
Personally, I would very much like to see vehicular cycling principles put on public record. Those principles should be viewed as critical to
all of us, and they are just as much on trial in this case as Reed himself. That is the crux of the reckless driving charge. Reed was taking the safest possible position. The prosecution is claiming that he was taking an unnecessarily dangerous position. Regardless of whether some arbitrary person believes that the additional risk of riding on the shoulder is acceptably low, it is important to acknowledge that Reed's position was entirely safe, that it was safer than the shoulder, and that, regardless of how small the difference might be, the law and its agents should not be permitted to force anyone to accept that additional risk. The advantage or disadvantage to Reed's case of arguing about cycling safety principles should be evaluated by a skilled attorney who is familiar with the particular court and who understands and appreciates Reed's position. It is one thing for such an attorney to criticize Reed's proposed strategy and another thing for someone else to do so without the proper skill, experience, and understanding.
Andy and others have also failed to acknowledge the fact that someone, like Reed (and me), who cycles as a primary mode of transportation cannot afford to make decisions and movements as frequently as a recreation or sport cyclist might expect. Recreation and sport cyclists can afford to take long and indirect routes. They can afford to travel only in good weather and good spirits. Recreation cyclists can afford to travel very slowly. Sport cyclists can accept maintaining a hyper-alert state while cycling because challenge and thrills are a welcome part of sports. An ordinary traveler, who must travel in all conditions, internal and external, who just needs to get somewhere with a minimal expenditure of time and energy cannot afford the burdens of delay, effort, stress, danger, unreliability, and inflexibility that many others are willing to accept. A transportation cyclist must establish reliable habits and policies so that he or she can avoid unnecessary decisions and movements. This is taken for granted with regard to travel by vehicles of other types, such as cars and motorcycles. Anyone who would travel in a timid manner, as many expect Reed to have done, day after day, rain or shine, light or dark, hot or cold, on familiar or unfamiliar roads, while tired, while upset, while stressed out, while preoccupied, needing to preserve the energy, physical AND mental, to perform some task at his or her destination that might be difficult or unpleasant or stressful and still have the time and energy to get back home and eat dinner and get to bed so that he or she could get up in the morning and have a day, then he or she would quickly find his or her life to be hopelessly difficult or severely limited. There are only so many decisions a person can make in a day. There is only so much of the day a person can maintain an athletic level of alertness. Many people adapt to the expectation of timidity (what John Forester has dubbed the "cyclist inferiority complex") by either giving up cycling as a practical form of transportation or imposing severe constraints on their lives to make timid cycling practical. If motorists had to follow these expectations, you would quickly see either an surge of collisions beyond imagination or you would see about as many motorists on the road as you see cyclists now.
Me and Reed were not the first cyclists to be bullied off of the road by police officers. There have been many others. In some cases, cyclists have even been physically attacked by police officers. I hear those more experienced than me that there was time when cycling advocates were thoughtful, passionate, and loyal defenders of the right to travel freely, who would rally together to defend against these attacks. I have hope that this thoughtfulness, passion, and loyalty can be rejuvenated and that the right to travel freely can be reaffirmed.
Resources
Structured Websites
- Let Him Ride - Protect cyclist's rights in the City of Ennis, Texas and Ellis County, Texas.
- LAB Reform - Coalition to Reform LAB Return Control to Members and Restore Traditional Cycling Values
- John Forester - Fight for Your Right to Cycle Properly!
- North Carolina Coalition for Bicycle Driving - Bicyclists are drivers of vehicles. Every street is a bicycle facility.
- Cycling Savvy - A Cycling Education Program of the Florida Bicycling Association
- Cyclist View - The following PowerPoint presentations have been converted to online slides with flash video:
- Reforming Bicycle Traffic Laws - Yes, you can fight city hall** and your state legislature.
- Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Technical Info
Blogs
- Baltimore Spokes
- BicycleLaw
- Bicycling is Better
- Bicycling Matters
- Bicycling Traffic Engineer
- BikeForums
- BikePortland
- ChicoER
- ChipSeal
- CommuteOrlando
- CYCLES
- cycleSMARTdallas
- dailybreeze
- DFW Point-to-Point
- Eyeteeth: A journal of incisive ideas
- HOW WE DRIVE
- Ironton Tribune
- LEAGUE OF AMERICAN BICYCLISTS
- NEWS5
- North Texas Vehicular Cyclist
- Road Rights
- STEVE MAGAS BIKE LAWYER
- STREETSBLOG
- STREETSBLOG NETWORK
- The VEHICULAR CYCLIST
- Tulsa Alternative Transportation Examiner
- VeloNews
- WashCycle
- Windermere Roadies

one thing i have always agreed on: "free speech advocates must vigorously defend even offensive speech" i may not agree with what someone says, but i will agree with their your right to say it.
i'm so sorry that cycling groups are not being more helpful in either of your cases.
best of luck
Reply to this
Eli:
Olympic cyclist-turned-lawyer Bob Mionske has a blog dedicated to cycling and the law. This might make a good addition to your list.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/
My own blog features helmet cam videos of my encounters with motorists in Ludlow, Springfield, and Wilbraham as a bicycle commuter.
One of my videos helped the Ludlow Police Department locate and file felony charges against a motorist who shot me with a pellet gun while I was taking a lane. (See my blog for more details.) I get a lot of grief from motorists but this is the first time anyone has answered for what they've done.
My encounter with the Ludlow Police Department was extremely positive. The officers I worked with commented on a cyclist's right to the road (I never had to mention it), took the incident seriously, and followed up until they caught the shooter.
The rest of my blog shows recent examples of a right hook, left hook, buzzes, squeezes, tailgating, and various other oddities and hazards.
My blog is http://www.cranks-on-cam.com
-Ryan
Reply to this
Hi Ryan. Thanks for the links. By the way, what do you think that camera? I considered that kind when I was shopping for one but decided against it.
Reply to this
Eli:
The camera is a Drift Innovation X170. I researched many different cameras (and found your blog in the process) and decided the X170 was the best compromise between features and price.
I'm a bit more informed after three months of experience with the camera and feel like I got what I expected. It's very good but not excellent.
Pros:
1. The camera is lightweight. It feels like styrofoam in my hands.
2. The built-in LCD allows playback anytime and helps line up shots.
3. Runs on inexpensive AA batteries. I get 4 hours from two AA Energizer Lithium Ion rechargeables.
5. Wireless remote lets you start and stop shooting without fumbling on top of your helmet or dismounting the camera to find buttons.
6. I pedaled several miles through a rainstorm and the camera kept working.
7. The field of view is 170 degrees wide so it captures peripheral vision. The plus side is that I get nearly everything in front and beside. The downside is the slight fish-eye effect in the center of the image makes objects seem more distant than they actually are.
Cons:
1. The picture quality is good for action but not detail. Video shot 10 feet from a car rarely reveals a license plate clearly.
2. The camera randomly stops and restarts itself sometimes during an attempted continuous shoot. A 20-minute video might actually come out as two files of 10 minutes each, minus several seconds in between. The camera sometimes will freeze up, too, for no reason I can see. I have missed two important shots because of the problems and my confidence in the camera is a bit lower now.
3. The microphone picks up a continuous 'buffeting wind' sound at low speeds and a 'whistling wind' at 20 miles per hour. The background noise obscures all except medium-loud sounds like engines and voices. The sound input settings are low, medium, and high. A 'No Sound' option would be the best choice.
4. The camera has no night vision so you need a secondary light source.
Note:
Drift released a new high-definition version of the same camera, the HD170, which addresses many of these problems. I'm considering getting the HD170 and mounting the X170 under my seat post facing back at the lane behind me.
-Ryan
Reply to this
Mine is an Oregon Scientific ATC5K. It has a lot of the same pros and cons as you mentioned. Using standard (AA) batteries was a very important feature to me. That and the low price were the main reasons I chose it. But the image and sound quality, the interface, and the recording options do leave much to be desired.
Reply to this