ChipSeal update (2)
Earlier today, Blogger Joe K said...
Ed, If I read the Texas Bicycle Law I come away convinced that ChipSeal did violate the law and yes I'm a cyclist (grin). See 551.103 (b)
According to ChipSeal (if I remember right) he said he has a right to the roadway. Wish I could see a transcript of the court trial to see if he ever moved right of he was steadfast that he has a right to the lane and wouldn't move right. If he would not move to the right with cars behind him, then he is impeding traffic.
Either way it's sad that confrontation couldn't be avoided by common sense and common respect.
Ride Long and Prosper
Slo Joe Recumbo
(Joe provided the relevant law. I've edited it for brevity.)
Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.
Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless....(a) surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway...the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or (is) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
Bicycles may ride on the shoulder
Sec. 545.058. Driving on Improved Shoulder. [i.e., a paved shoulder outside the traffic lane]
(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only (among other things) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass...
First, an aside about the court proceeding in Ennis. As I understand it, there is no written record of it. That's how they handle local cases like this, and some witnesses said the judge did not give the jury the full text of the law in his instructions. Anywhere else that alone would be grounds for appeal and possibly reversal, but then again, I'm not an attorney.
However, Bob Mionske is an attorney, and he wrote this about the Selz case and impeding traffic in his book, Bicycling and the Law:
...the problem for the court was that, contrary to what the police officer believed, the statute does not prohibit slow-moving vehicles from impeding traffic....the Ohio court explained that if the statute did prohibit slow-moving vehicles from impeding traffic, "it would be tantamount to excluding operators of those vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do."..."a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can."...Because it's clear that the Ohio court interpreted the impeding traffic statute correctly, it seems likely that other courts would agree with Ohio.
'Other courts' evidently does not include Ennis, Texas.
Let's define what 'roadway' means. In most states, Texas included, the roadway is that traveled portion of the road exclusive of the shoulder. That's not my interpretation. It's the law. Given that the lawmakers decided to address the presence of a bicyclist or other slow-moving traffic on a roadway, they obviously expected cyclists to be using those roadways, not the adjacent shoulder. Otherwise, they would have written the law to exclude them. Surface hazards, etc., may induce a cyclist using the shoulder to swerve left and right into the traveled part of the road, posing an obvious hazard to himself and others. It's safer to stay in the roadway. That's makes a bicyclist's movements more predictable, and as we all know, being predictable is the very foundation of traffic law.
Also, absent a "designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane" a bicyclist is not obligated to move to the right. The police tried to charge Bates with failure to use a bike lane - a charge that wouldn't stick because there are no designated bike lanes in Ennis.
Bicyclists may use the shoulder. Note it does not say that they must use the shoulder. This is a critical difference. But even when it says we may use the shoulder, it specifies that it's only if "it may be done safely." Who can better judge the condition and safety of a shoulder - a cyclist traveling at 15 mph, or a motorist driving at 50? What is 'safe' to a motorist surrounded by a ton or more of steel and glass may be something quite different to a bicyclist protected by a lycra jersey and a styrofoam hat.
Finally, one last thought, Joe. You're, well, um, you're a recumbent rider and as we all know, 'bent riders are the spawn of Satan. (Don't listen to Steve A when he says that I'm one of Satan's minions. Steve lies.)
Ed, If I read the Texas Bicycle Law I come away convinced that ChipSeal did violate the law and yes I'm a cyclist (grin). See 551.103 (b)
According to ChipSeal (if I remember right) he said he has a right to the roadway. Wish I could see a transcript of the court trial to see if he ever moved right of he was steadfast that he has a right to the lane and wouldn't move right. If he would not move to the right with cars behind him, then he is impeding traffic.
Either way it's sad that confrontation couldn't be avoided by common sense and common respect.
Ride Long and Prosper
Slo Joe Recumbo
(Joe provided the relevant law. I've edited it for brevity.)
Sec. 551.103. Operation on Roadway.
Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person operating a bicycle on a roadway who is moving slower than the other traffic on the roadway shall ride as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway, unless....(a) surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway...the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or (is) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
Bicycles may ride on the shoulder
Sec. 545.058. Driving on Improved Shoulder. [i.e., a paved shoulder outside the traffic lane]
(a) An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of a roadway if that operation is necessary and may be done safely, but only (among other things) to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass...
First, an aside about the court proceeding in Ennis. As I understand it, there is no written record of it. That's how they handle local cases like this, and some witnesses said the judge did not give the jury the full text of the law in his instructions. Anywhere else that alone would be grounds for appeal and possibly reversal, but then again, I'm not an attorney.
However, Bob Mionske is an attorney, and he wrote this about the Selz case and impeding traffic in his book, Bicycling and the Law:
...the problem for the court was that, contrary to what the police officer believed, the statute does not prohibit slow-moving vehicles from impeding traffic....the Ohio court explained that if the statute did prohibit slow-moving vehicles from impeding traffic, "it would be tantamount to excluding operators of those vehicles from the public roadways, something that each legislative authority, respectively, has not clearly expressed an intention to do."..."a bicyclist is not in violation of the ordinance when he is traveling as fast as he reasonably can."...Because it's clear that the Ohio court interpreted the impeding traffic statute correctly, it seems likely that other courts would agree with Ohio.
'Other courts' evidently does not include Ennis, Texas.
Let's define what 'roadway' means. In most states, Texas included, the roadway is that traveled portion of the road exclusive of the shoulder. That's not my interpretation. It's the law. Given that the lawmakers decided to address the presence of a bicyclist or other slow-moving traffic on a roadway, they obviously expected cyclists to be using those roadways, not the adjacent shoulder. Otherwise, they would have written the law to exclude them. Surface hazards, etc., may induce a cyclist using the shoulder to swerve left and right into the traveled part of the road, posing an obvious hazard to himself and others. It's safer to stay in the roadway. That's makes a bicyclist's movements more predictable, and as we all know, being predictable is the very foundation of traffic law.
Also, absent a "designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane" a bicyclist is not obligated to move to the right. The police tried to charge Bates with failure to use a bike lane - a charge that wouldn't stick because there are no designated bike lanes in Ennis.
Bicyclists may use the shoulder. Note it does not say that they must use the shoulder. This is a critical difference. But even when it says we may use the shoulder, it specifies that it's only if "it may be done safely." Who can better judge the condition and safety of a shoulder - a cyclist traveling at 15 mph, or a motorist driving at 50? What is 'safe' to a motorist surrounded by a ton or more of steel and glass may be something quite different to a bicyclist protected by a lycra jersey and a styrofoam hat.
Finally, one last thought, Joe. You're, well, um, you're a recumbent rider and as we all know, 'bent riders are the spawn of Satan. (Don't listen to Steve A when he says that I'm one of Satan's minions. Steve lies.)
Labels: chipseal, ellis county texas, ennis texas, reed bates
posted by Ed W at 7:12 PM
10 comments
