Reed Bates update

Reed Bates sent an email describing and clarifying the events that lead up to his 18 days in the Ellis County jail in Waxahachie. As noted by Serge in comments to a previous Examiner post, Bates' was held on a $5000 bail for failure to appear at the Ellis County Court on May 7th. The bail was not for charges on his bicycling offenses.

At the end of April, Bates moved from Ennis, Texas, to Dallas where he found work and a new place to live. He admits to screwing up by not informing the Ellis County Court of his address change.

May 7th was his trial date, and the district attorney offered a plea deal prior to that. Bates did not receive any notice of that, of course, but neither did his attorney, Mr. Jones. However, according to Bates, Jones was not listed as his attorney on this particular charge, so Bates takes full responsibility for missing the May 7th hearing.

Ellis County issued a warrant for his arrest on May 7th, and he was subsequently taken into custody in Rockwall on June 8th. He was held in the Rockwall County jail on a $5,000 bond. He couldn't raise the bail money.

On June 21st, he was transferred to the Ellis County jail. Two days later, his second attorney, Mrs. Summers, attended a hearing to sort out the various charges against him. There were several issues. First, who would represent Bates? Next, what were the charges against him, an appeal to the Ennis City convictions, or the Ellis County reckless driving charge? Finally, some consideration was given to reducing the bail.

Mrs. Summers told him of the plea bargain offer from the Ellis County district attorney. If Bates would plead guilty and pay a fine of $200 and court costs, he would be free to go. Bates refused, saying that he would not plead guilty when he hadn't committed an offense. Summers said that Bates would probably have to remain in jail until the trial.

On Friday, June 25th, Mr. Jones arrived to represent Bates. Mrs. Summers deferred to Bates' selection of Jones as his sole attorney. The judge wanted to know how much time Jones would need to present his case, and further, asked if the charge and the appeal could be presented the same day. Jones said he'd need two hours, and the judge set a trial date of July 29th to hear the reckless driving charge, a procedural question about the appeal, and (possibly) an impeding traffic charge.

The district attorney offered a new plea deal: time served plus court costs and three months probation. Bates declined.

On Saturday, June 26th, bail was reduced to $300 and with a friend's help, Bates was released.

Reed Bates insists that he did nothing illegal and therefore he will not plead guilty. How many of us could do the same? It would be easier to simply accept the deal, plead guilty and pay the fines, and then put the matter behind us. At the very heart of all this is Bates' simple assertion of his rights as a bicyclist. He was under no legal obligation to ride on the shoulder of the road. No law requires it of any cyclist in Texas, yet when the authorities couldn't charge him with breaking a non-existent law, they brought other far more specious charges.

The League of American Bicyclists and the Texas Bicycle Coalition remain silent on this issue. The League - which claims it exists to protect cyclist's rights - apparently doesn't believe the rights of this cyclist are worth protecting.

Reed Bates jailed again

(UPDATE, SATURDAY AFTERNOON: Reed Bates' bail was reduced from $5000 to $300. Yes, they wanted $5000 for a bicycling offense.)

(UPDATE, SUNDAY MORNING: Bates was released at 4:15PM yesterday. Trial date on July 29 in Waxahachie. Possibly on all pending charges.)

The story of Reed Bates and his struggles with the legal system in Ennis, Texas, has taken on a Kafkaesque quality. Several times in the last year, Bates was arrested and jailed for the 'crime' of riding his bicycle on the road. Police tried to cite him for not riding in the bike lane, but discovered the town doesn't have any legal bike lanes, so they charged him with failure to ride in the right hand lane.

In the midst of all this, Bates was laid off from his job. With some assistance from other cyclists, he moved to Dallas and found work in a green energy company. He also obtained the services of an attorney to help fight the charges in Ennis. When his company applied for solicitor permits in Rockwall, Texas, local police told Bates there was a warrant for his arrest for failure to appear at an Ellis County court date. Neither Bates nor his attorney were informed of this appearance. Bates was taken into custody on June 8th.

As of Friday, June 25th, Reed Bates has been in the Ellis County jail for 17 days.

Thinking that perhaps the attorney had dropped the ball on this, Bates' employer helped him get assistance from another attorney. She ran into the same brick wall.

Bates is not a flight risk. In fact, he is eager to have his day in court. Yet the authorities in Ellis County seem hellbent on using the justice system to punish this man for having the temerity to stand up for his rights. Even from a distance, this has the appearance of local government officials trying to impose their will on a lone citizen. The corrupt southern red neck stereotype is used to comic effect in numerous television shows and movies, but in real life it's not at all funny. We pride ourselves on the rule of law, but apparently in the Ellis County judicial system, that law is whatever the authorities say it is.

And where are the Texas Bicycle Coalition and the League of American Bicyclists in all this? Why, they're waiting for the perfect case to come along before they'll get involved. Cue the crickets.

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.)