I have in my hands the transcript of my "reckless driving" trial of August 17 last year. I hope to have the entire transcript digitized shortly.
Here is the closing argument made by Ms. Christin Barnes, Assistant County and District Attorney.
Thank you. Judge, like I stated in my opening statement, we were here we are here to hold Mr. Bates accountable for his actions and his choice. And as he stated in his own testimony, the limitations under the statute don’t apply to a bicycle in terms of riding or driving on an improved shoulder. He has access to that improved shoulder. And we’re talking about someone making a choice, a deliberate choice, when the improved shoulder is available, to instead, ride on the main road of traffic on a very heavy trafficked highway.
He has been asked, told, by officers on several occasions, do not ride in the middle of the roadway. And there’s a reason for that. And that reason is that it is dangerous. That is common sense. It is dangerous, not just for himself, but for the other motorists on the roadway. And because the officers repeatedly told him, Mr. Bates, don’t get back on the road, he made a very conscious and deliberate disregard or indifference for the safety of those around him.
It is common sense that when a bicyclist rides on a roadway in the middle of a very heavy lane of traffic at night time, it is common sense that harder to see a bicyclist. It is common sense that he is riding at a speed very well below the speed limit. It is common sense, as the video showed, so many vehicles traveling adjacent or aside to him at a speed that was high rate of 65 miles an hour or above, and yet he thinks it’s safe for him to just continue to do what he does.
We know from the testimony from Lonnie Creager, who’s an Ennis firefighter, that he witnessed, and the reason for his call to 911, is that he witnessed Mr. Bates riding on his bicycle. Before he saw that bicycle, he saw vehicles, including an eighteen-wheeler, make an abrupt stop. And his testimony was it was scary what he saw. And as he made his way around the eighteen-wheeler, he saw right in front of it, Mr. Bates in the middle of the roadway traveling and that eighteen-wheeler had to come to an abrupt stop to avoid colliding with him, to avoid swerving from him, to avoid having an accident.
His action, for the sake of principle to ride in the middle of this roadway when he could easily choose the improved shoulder to travel, is nothing but downright dangerous. And the warnings and the pleadings and the requests and the orders from police officers for his safety and for the safety of others have been disregarded by Mr. Bates, completely and totally disregarded.
So I ask that you find him guilty based upon the evidence that has been submitted to the court because he has, he has driven recklessly. And as I stated in the opening statement, Your Honor, a bicycle is considered a vehicle. And it is defined under the Transportation Code as a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks. And it falls within that definition of a vehicle, Your Honor. And reckless driving statute does not say, specifically, it applies to a motor vehicle, but to a vehicle which includes a Bicycle.
And in this case, I think it’s imperative that we’re here today in front of this Court because we want to protect our citizens in our community. And whether Mr. Bates recognizes it or not or wants it or not, we’re going to try to protect him. The evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did drive in a reckless manner and he did show a conscious indifference and he did make a choice that was deliberate and I ask that you find him guilty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wait, I see a logic hole, large enough to drive that 18-wheeler through:
ReplyDelete"...Your Honor, a bicycle is considered a vehicle. And it is defined under the Transportation Code as a device in or by which a person or property is or may be transported or drawn on a public highway other than a device used exclusively on stationary rails or tracks..."
This means that the road is for you too. As a former resident of Texas who got her driver's license there as a teen, I know that it's illegal to operate a vehicle on the shoulder (improved or not).
Keep fighting this fight!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBack in the late '90's when my spouse and I were driving a produce truck we traveled through Texas both ways about once a week. I don't believe we ever went a week without seeing a car cruising on the shoulder. We saw it so often that we refer to it now as the "Texas Extra Lane".
ReplyDeleteThe Texas Transpotation Code has very narrow restrictions on when an improved shoulder can be driven on. Naturally it universally ignored by all Texans (including law enforcement). The law is often sacrificed on the alter of the culture of speed.
ReplyDeleteI discussed the laws on traveling on the shoulder here: http://chipsea.blogspot.com/2009/10/it-is-more-important-to-me-than-to-them.html
"We know from the testimony from Lonnie Creager, who’s an Ennis firefighter, that... he saw... an eighteen-wheeler, make an abrupt stop. And his testimony was it was scary what he saw. And as he made his way around the eighteen-wheeler, he saw right in front of it, Mr. Bates in the middle of the roadway traveling and that eighteen-wheeler had to come to an abrupt stop to avoid colliding with him..."
ReplyDeleteYes, and the truly scary thing is that the driver of the 18-wheeler was apprently paying so little attention to the road ahead that he almost (if testimony is to be believed) ran into another vehicle. What's more scary is the fact that the judge determined that the near victim was at fault, even though he was driving within the law.
Also, a shoulder is not a preferable 'choice' - it's not even an equal choice. It is not a road surface that ought to be routinely used by any vehicles. Bicycles belong on the road, where they can be seen and where they can be part of the traffic pattern.
This sort of thing just makes me glad I don't live in Texas.
The fact is, the truck did not hit me, the driver did not come to a stop. The driver was waiting patiently to merge into the left lane.
ReplyDeleteOur witness "saw" more from his imagination than with his eyes.
Chip, Chip, Chip,
ReplyDeleteLonnie Creager ALSO testified, under oath, that a thousand or more cyclists cycled in a local cycling rally strictly on the shoulder and in single file.
That must have been a sight to see! Even PM Summer smiled at the image in his mind's eye.
Full transcript of the trial coming up. All testimony and arguments. No edits. We shall see how good your memory was, Steve
ReplyDeleteI think it's interesting that Mr. Barnes points out that other road-users are traveling at and in excess of 65 MPH. What is the speed limit on the road in question?
ReplyDeleteSomehow, I'm guessing it's probably not over 65, because most thoroughfares in the states that allow speeds in excess of 65 (and, indeed, speeds in excess of 50) MPH seem to be limited-access highways, on which no sensible cyclist would ride anyway, since it's illegal and all.
Yet he seems to imply that one bicycle, traveling below the stated speed limit (but probably well within the common traffic code stipulation of 'at a reasonable speed for a bicycle' -- though that stipulation may or may not exist in Texas) is somehow *more* dangerous than hundreds of *speeding* autos.
Likewise, the entire argument appears to be circular. 'Cyclist was acting dangerously because he was undertaking a dangerous action.' Argh.
Chip, it appears that there's a shortage in the supplies of both logic and common sense reaching the Texas legal system. I would bet that the worldwide cycling community has plenty of surplus logic and common sense that we'd all be happy to lend...
Sorry -- just noticed that's Ms., not Mr. Barnes. D'oh.
ReplyDeleteIronically, it is NOT illegal to ride a bicycle on a limited access highway in Texas unless it is posted to prohibit such action. I have only ever seen such postings on toll roads.
ReplyDeleteWhether a cyclist would attempt to ride in the lane on a road such as I-35 in heavy, high speed traffic, is a different question, but theoretically, it'd be legal.
My uncle was killed while riding his bicycle on the shoulder in Florida last year -- he had ridden all the way to the west coast and was almost home again. A car drifted into the shoulder ...
ReplyDeleteChip, I think you need to invest in two GoProHD or ContourHD cameras and aim one backwards and one forwards. (Actually, ideally make one of them the new ContourHD GPS camera that also keeps GPS data.) And use them, every ride, and keep the video if there's any ... incidents. If that's too expensive, get two (or four, the battery life is only about 2 hours) of the 808 keychain cameras -- they cost around $13, and some 8 GB micro sd cards for them. The video quality is much lower, but they would still help prove or disprove these stories of 18 wheelers having to slam on their brakes.
For most people, I'd say that recording your rides is more trouble than it's worth, but being a trouble magnet -- it would probably help you.
(Of course, you might want to run the idea by your lawyer first -- he might feel that having these videos available might hurt you more than help you.)
A rear facing camera would reveal hours of boring traffic merging at a distance without ever slowing down. Once in a great while would someone have to slow to merge. Ho hum.
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of Utube video examples that demonstrate this.
The issue is not whether some drivers must slow to avoid hitting me, but to whom the responsibility rests to avoid a collision.
The law says that the following driver does. I discuss this law here : http://chipsea.blogspot.com/2009/11/texas-maximum-speed-law-explained.html
This is known in most states as the "basic speed law".
Yes, recording everything will give you lots and lots of hours of boring stuff. And for most people there's little point in even recording it.
ReplyDeleteBut there's this story -- "he saw right in front of it, Mr. Bates in the middle of the roadway traveling and that eighteen-wheeler had to come to an abrupt stop to avoid colliding with him." Obviously that's wrong, as he wouldn't have to stop. Video would be useful in disproving this story. Hi definition video might even show that the trucker wasn't paying attention as he came up on you -- assuming that some version of this incident happened at all.
And if it did happen, video would show how long you were visible before he finally reacted.
Remember, the courts seem to not really care about the law -- they want emotion and danger and such. Video of their "dangerous incidents" might help show that they are not as described.
'Video of their "dangerous incidents" might help show that they are not as described.'
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about getting a helmet cam for this very reason. I've noticed that cyclists don't seem to generally get fair treatment when push comes to shove -- though I didn't know it at the time, I should've been interviewed SEPARATELY from the lady driving the car that hit me a couple weeks ago. I wasn't. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the resulting police report provides a less than accurate view of the facts (that I was moving to avoid the driver at the time of our collision; that she did not, as best I can tell, attempt to avoid me [I don't think she saw me in time]; that we struck *each-other* at an oblique angle, etc. -- all missing from the report). A helmet-cam would've given me a voice in the matter. It seems somewhat like wearing the helmet itself -- cheap insurance, just in case something goes wrong.
Well, that and so I can laugh at my ridiculous videos on YouTube, but you know. Mostly for the reason you outlined above!
Why not get over on the shoulder and let the 18 wheeler pass?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you're turning a great relaxing hobby into a fight.
-a 7000 mile a year commuter in DFW