Traffic Stop Ruminations

Why was I pulled over?

Do you think this officer was truly concerned with my safety, or was he just enforcing the Culture of Speed?

Is he the local safety patrol or is he a speed cop?

His first gambit, perhaps as a result of his confidence that I was breaking some sort of law, was that I "can't be blocking traffic that way". It is not clear precisely what he meant.

As there was a travel lane next to me (conveniently commonly called a passing lane) I wasn't blocking anyone. Was he objecting to my chosen route? (In the travel lane and not on the shoulder?) Was he objecting to my centered-left lane position?

Regardless, I responded to what he actually said by pointing out that everyone was free to avail themselves of the other lane if they wished.


So he made up a scenario that in his imagination was my imminent peril; "Well, a bunch of cars almost swerved into you back there."

As I noted, traffic was not heavy. The Airport Freeway parallels Hwy 183 siphoning off non-local traffic. I find it hard to believe, even on reflection, that I was a significant hindrance to anyone, nor do I think there was enough traffic to create the hazard he lied about.

No one passed me while straddling the lane, for instance. This would be something I would notice because it is such a rare event. All the overtaking drivers that day did so with due care and completely within their own lane.

Even if folks did dart into my lane without seeing me, it would be their reckless actions that were putting me at risk, not my lawful presence, as his statement implies. In that moment, and even now, it is this notion that particularly irks me: To make an unsafe lane change is illegal and a citable offence; But this officer pulled me over, not them!

These are the issues that I am hinting at with my questions to him, and so he retreats to the more tenable position of "safety".

What a joke! This officer hasn't a clue as to how to operate a bicycle on a roadway. He is immersed in the Culture of Speed, he has a windshield view of the world and he has likely never given any thought as to how fast vehicles behave around slow vehicles. Excuse me if I doubt that your safety tips will be useful to me.

Society has empowered this officer to enforce laws enacted by our duly elected legislative bodies. He has been given the power to detain people suspected of criminal behavior. He is therefor abusing such powers if he is detaining the law-abiding for breaking imaginary laws or by capriciously enforcing his own personal rules. As an agent of the state he has no lawful authority to compel others to listen to his safety lectures.

So what is he? A policeman? Is he a Culture of Speed cop? Is he the local safety patrol?

Again While Minding My Own Business

Tuesday August 13, 2013

I am enjoying a ride through Richland Hills (a suburb of Ft. Worth Texas) going south on Hwy 183 at around 3:30 pm. It is sunny, there is a mild south wind and traffic is mild and calm. There is a 45 MPH posted speed limit.

This is my first experience on this road, and I like it. A four lane with a median and nice 11 foot bicycle/automobile lanes. I am driving in my classic Mike Beck Disapproved lane position- Yes, I am in the left tire track! (GASP!) I am wearing long sleeves, long pants and no helmet.

BLAAT! BLAAT!

At the sound of the electronic klaxon I do a shoulder check to see flashing red lights. I am being pulled over by one of Richland Hills finest.

I stop, and discover I am quite nervous. I work at calming myself. I remind myself to keep my mouth shut as much as possible. "Don't argue," I tell myself, "and don't make statements, try to couch everything as a question..."

The officer gets out and walks up to me and says; "Traffic was piling up behind you; You can't be blocking traffic that way."

"Was traffic having trouble passing me in the next lane?" I ask.  My jitters are going away and I am returning to a calmer state.

"Well, a bunch of cars almost swerved into you back there."

"Am I to be held responsible for the actions of others?" I speak in an even tone. He seems surprised at my question.

"Well, I'm concerned about your safety."

"I doubt that." I say in a disgusted tone. (I couldn't help myself.) He gives me a funny look.

"You from around here?"

"Yes"

"Do you have ID?"

"Yes"

"Can I see it?"

I reluctantly hand it over.

"Wait here, I'll be right back."

He retreats back to his patrol SUV to discover that there are no warrants out for my arrest.

After a short while he returns and says; "I have taken down your information just in case you get hit down the road." Handing me my ID he says; "You are free to go, but it would be safer if you used the shoulder."

"Actually it wouldn't." I say.

"I am not here to argue with you. You obviously dislike cops, and I just don't want you to be hurt."

This time I manage to keep my mouth shut. But it was hard.

I put away my ID, wait for a gap in traffic and proceed on my way.

Police Contact

I was stopped on the way home last night at about 10:15.

I will hide the officer's identity to shield him from public ridicule. I will call him "Officer Fife".

Officer Fife works for the Richardson Police Department.

I was traveling south on Plano Road approaching Beltline when he pulled me over.

"You must have a blinking red rear light to operate on the roadway at night. Get off the road and onto the sidewalk."

"I am not required to have a rear light on my bicycle."

"Like all vehicles, you have to have a rear light. You must ride on the sidewalk. If there is no sidewalk, you must ride on the other side of the road against traffic."

"There is no law requiring such."

"It is a City of Richardson law."

"Does city law supersede state law?"

"Our laws conform to state law."

"Could you show me the statute, please?"

"I'm not going to argue with you. Do I have to write you a ticket?"

"For what violation?"

"Very well, show me your ID."

"I have no ID on me."

"Take your bicycle onto the sidewalk and out of the street. I'll deal with you there."

So I walked my bicycle to the sidewalk and lay it down. I waited while he got his notebook out.

"Name?" I told him my name.

"Driver's licence number?" I told him I had no driver's licence.

"No driver's licence? Any ID issued by Texas?" "None" I said.

"Birthday? Address?" I gave them to him.

With that he retreated to his squad car. After a few minutes he returned.

"I don't have time to deal with stuff like this, so I'm letting you go with a verbal warning."

"We disagree on what the requires of me."

"I told you what the law says."

"What does Sec 551.104 say?"

"I'm not going to argue with you. Stay on the sidewalk!"

"Do you just make up laws?"

He stalked off in a angry huff.

I waited until he was out of sight, and then I continued on my way in a lawful manner, as I had before. I was delayed about 15 minutes.

Sec. 551.104. SAFETY EQUIPMENT. (a) A person may not operate a bicycle unless the bicycle is equipped with a brake capable of making a braked wheel skid on dry, level, clean pavement.
(b) A person may not operate a bicycle at nighttime unless the bicycle is equipped with:
(1) a lamp on the front of the bicycle that emits a white light visible from a distance of at least 500 feet in front of the bicycle; and
(2) on the rear of the bicycle:
(A) a red reflector that is:
(i) of a type approved by the department; and
(ii) visible when directly in front of lawful upper beams of motor vehicle headlamps from all distances from 50 to 300 feet to the rear of the bicycle; or
(B) a lamp that emits a red light visible from a distance of 500 feet to the rear of the bicycle.

More Ennis Peril

The city of Ennis has informed me that they are going to move ahead and prosecute me for the March 2010 arrest.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled to take place on February 24. So far the charge remains "Failure to Keep Right". I anticipate the charge to be changed before too long.

Impede Traffic, Pull Over a Cyclist!

Graphic courtesy of Keri Caffrey

Friday March 19, 2010. Approximately 13:30 hours. Ennis PD traffic stop.

Cause: The Patrol Officer preferred the cyclist use a different route.

Result: Cyclist allowed to proceed after a consultation with headquarters.

Particulars:

The cyclist was traveling west-bound on East Ennis Avenue having just crossed Kaufman Avenue, on his way home with groceries. He was pulled over in the 200 block in heavy traffic. Because there was no place to pull off the roadway, they blocked the right travel lane for the time of the stop.

The highway has four 12 foot travel lanes. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH.

The Officer initiated the traffic stop from the left lane. When he “whooped” his siren, the cyclist did a head check to see the patrol car in the left lane trailing the cyclist by less than a car length. There was another car, directly behind the cyclist, trapped by the patrol car. The cyclist signaled a right turn and pulled to a stop at the curb.

The officer approached the cyclist and greeted him by name. The cyclist was unfamiliar with this officer.

The officer asked the cyclist if he understood that he was not allowed to drive on the left side of the right travel lane.

“Not on this lane.” Said the cyclist.

“Why not?” Asked the Officer.

“It is less than 14 feet wide.” Replied the cyclist while producing his 12 foot tape measure.

The lane turned out to be 11 ½ feet wide.

The Officer excused himself to consult someone who had access to the law books.

The cyclist busied himself with taking photographs.

Shortly, the Officer again approached the cyclist and apologized for stopping him.
The cyclist accepted his apology, and continued his trip home.


Self-portrait in Officer McCurdy's glasses

First, Stop Digging

I am concerned with the City of Ennis’s reputation. They seem to be garnering the mantel of a backward jurisdiction with a Barney Fife police force.

I resist that notion. I still want to believe that the men and women on our police force are sincerely serving our community with personal integrity and with honor. But it is hard.

To maintain that notion, I am clinging to the idea that they have inept leadership, and those who ought to know better are allowing otherwise fine officers to look foolish.

On Tuesday, March 9, Officer McCurdy arrested me. He did not tell me what law I had allegedly broken. After cooling my jets in the Ennis city jail for 26 hours, (10 AM Tuesday to just after 12:30 PM on Wednesday, according to my phone records.) I was keen to look at the citation to see what the particular charge was.

I was not given one.

What I did receive was a “personal recognizance” bond form with the charge “Impeding traffic/Bike Offence” in Municipal Judge Johnson’s handwriting and his signature. This was different than last time. I wonder: Was my previous arrest handled in an irregular manner, or was this latest time the irregular one?

I suspect, but I can’t be certain, so this is somewhat speculative: Why was I held for about three hours after the PR bond was signed? I think they would have held me longer but it was easier to release me than to make a run to McDonalds for another dollar value menu hamburger.

So Friday I stop at the court to file seven motions and plead not guilty to this charge. I ask the court clerk for my case number. She runs my case envelope through the copy machine. Here is what my case envelope says:

E0011786 01 100053359
Fin: 100.00 Cst: 94.00 Due: 194.00

BATES, REED

Officer: MCCURDY, JASON E
FAILURE TO KEEP BICYCLE ON RIGHT SIDE OFROAD

Violation Date: 3/9/2010

Yeah, that charge has me scratching my head too. As absurd as it is, they avoided an even worse charge that the police were considering, and perhaps this is just a reflection of it.

I wonder who changed it to “Impeding Traffic/Bike Offense”. Was it Judge Johnson cleaning it up after closely questioning the circumstances surrounding my arrest by interviewing the four officers who were present? Did he interview any of the 911 callers who accuse me of impeding them?

Who else has the authority to change the charges? Toby Mash, our city attorney?

My recollection of how it went down

With unsubstantiated anonymous reports of death and mayhem pouring in to the Ennis 911 system, three patrol units and four Ennis city officers responded to suppress the latest crime wave on Hwy 287.

Now while I always strive to be polite, some of my friends have counseled me that my style of presenting my case can feel confrontational. Making declarative statements of what the law actually says to a police officer can get their backs up, apparently. “You may be right, Reed, but they think they know the law. You can’t appear to be schooling the teacher.”

So I am resolved to defend myself with Officer McCurdy by avoiding declarative statements by asking questions instead. (Y’all can see how well that worked out!)

So after I take his picture, I concentrate on presenting my case through questions.

Chip “Why did you stop me?”
OM “We have been getting a lot of 911 calls.”
Chip “Couldn’t the 911 operator inform them that bicycles are allowed to operate on the roadway in Texas?”
OM “We are concerned with your safety.”
Chip “Oh, you stopped me on a safety violation?”
OM “Yes. You were riding out there”; He pointed to the roadway. “Why weren’t…”
Chip, interrupting; “Now you are talking about traffic law, not a safety violation!”
OM “… you riding over here on the shoulder?”
Chip “So did you stop me for a traffic violation or a safety violation?”
OM “Traffic law is about safety.”
Chip “How wide is that travel lane?”
OM “I’m not here to argue about the law.”

Officer McCurdy seemed a little flustered, and unsure of himself. He tried a different tack.

OM “You know tractors, right? They have to have those slow moving vehicle signs on them.”
Chip, displaying the back of his messenger bag that has a 7” by 7” triangle on it; “You mean one of these?”
OM “Yes, but bigger, you need to have one of those to ride out there.”
Chip “So you stopped me because I have an equipment violation?”
OM, looking hopefully toward arriving backup officers; “No…” He seems sorry he brought it up.
Chip “So if I get a big triangle, I can drive on the roadway?”
OM “No, I’m not here to argue about the law.”

Enter Sgt. Pillow. She came toward the front of officer McCurdy’s unit, but would not advance closer to us than standing beside the front wheel. I suspect she was avoiding being viewed by the dash camera. She and I exchange greetings with each other by name.

SP “Mr. Bates, we have been through this before, you need to be riding over here.” She points to the shoulder.

(I want to say that I replied that shoulder use was optional, and I chose not to, but frankly I don’t remember what I said here. I will take the time to transcribe the dash-cam audio when it is made available to me. I hope what I write here will correspond to the audio. I will post it so you can see how well I did.)

SP “This is a designated bike lane here. You are required to ride on it.”
Chip, in astonishment “Where are the signs designating it? How is the public to know it’s a bike lane?”
SP “It is a designated bike lane”

She holds a quick roadside conference with the other two officers present.

OM distracts me “This is a wide shoulder. It’s in pretty good shape. It’s pretty clean. Why won’t you ride on it?
Chip “It is more dangerous than the roadway.”

Officer McCurdy dismisses all of my objections as inadequate, and I am irked that I am being required to justify opting “no” to what by state law is optional. I finally ask him what vehicles are required to use the shoulder. “I’m not here to argue the law.” He said, as he went to consult Sgt. Pillow.

He returns after a moment and places me under arrest. Outside of “OK” and “thank you”, I say not a word more. Officer McCurdy never tells me what I am being arrested for, and so for the next 26 hours I am hoping it will be a Sec.551.103 (a)(4)(A) violation of failure to use a designated bike lane. Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

Which behavior causes the most harm?

It is clear by their roadside behavior, the line officers are not getting guidance from their leadership other than “get him off the road!” These officers are casting about for any excuse to arrest me and make the 911 calls stop. But the way charges are changed after the fact, why do they even bother?

Clearly, what the law actually says, allows and prohibits has no importance at the street level. The Ennis police apparently are buffeted by forces beyond all that nitpicky legal stuff. Any excuse , no matter how ridiculous, is seized on to justify arrest.

And our judge and city attorney clean it up and back them up.

Logic and reason likewise are unable to deter this manic imperative to put the irksome uppity cyclist in his place. Could someone point to the harm that requires an arrest be made? With at least 20 hours of exposure on Hwy 287 and more than 300 miles expended crossing it, who has been harmed? Bring forth the victims!

If operating on that roadway were such a perilous activity, why am I still able to write this after all that exposure? Shouldn’t I be road kill by now?

But with the international attention being drawn to the City of Ennis, are continued arrests worth the damage they are causing to our reputation? It is easy to draw images of Barney Fife blundering about. Negative slander is carried along with popular notions of “southern small town corruption”. The behavior of our police can be easily cast as typical ignorant prejudice. [biking in heels, Rantwick, city cycle]

The lawfulness of my behavior is clear to any who can read. There plenty of helpful guides on-line if one needs help. [1] People outside of Texas have a better handle on the rights of cyclists in Texas than the Ennis PD does! Oh yes, let’s keep arresting the bicyclist!

Stubborn

Who should back down, the City of Ennis or ChipSeal?

Perhaps the City of Ennis should wait to see how the new appeal trial turns out. Such a claim would save face and allow further sport at our expense to cease. It would be just like those two years prior to October 2009 when I drove around just like do now, but without the drama. (How did Ennis get along all that time without arresting me? Can the City of Ennis point to chaos and mayhem during that period when I was “unregulated”?)

Or perhaps I should voluntarily abandon exerting my right to drive on the public roadway. Suck it up and drive where it is less safe. Expose myself to greater peril for the greater good. (Reducing the work-load of our 911 operator?) Take to gravel roads and take longer trips.

I should just stay home, or take the bus. (There is no bus.) I could walk the six miles to town for groceries. If I took a wheelbarrow, I would be a vehicle and thus traffic, and able to use the roadway! [2] I would no longer write critical phone numbers on my arm before leaving the house.

No, I think not. The more the City of Ennis strives to remove my right to the public road, the more dear that right seems to me. I won’t be backing down, Ennis. Perhaps you should weigh the costs and reconsider before proceeding.

I have.



[1] The Ennis PD should make haste to update their copies of the TTC. It is shameful that Officer Watson was made to look the fool because he was provided with an outdated copy of the TTC

[2] Sec. 541.201. (23) "Vehicle" means a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway.

Sec. 541.301. TRAFFIC. In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel.

While Minding My Own Business…

As I zip up my back-pack, I look up to see an Ellis County Sheriff’s Police cruiser pulls up to me.

I am on the shoulder of Hwy 287, and I am about to continue on my way home. It is dusk and I turn my rear light on as wait to see what this deputy wants to say to me.

“We’ve been receiving a lot of calls that you have been riding on the roadway.”

“Yes” I say; “In the middle of the lane, just like all the other vehicles.”

He says; “No, you have to ride on the shoulder.”

“Are you saying I can’t drive on the roadway?”

“I’m saying you have to drive on the shoulder.”

I tell him; “That would compromise my safety. I am going to drive home on the roadway.”

He says; “Your not listening to me, you have to ride on the shoulder, or I’m going to arrest you.”

I say, “Because that is an unlawful order, and it will compromise my safety, I am going to drive in the lane.”

With that, I check for traffic, mount my bicycle and merge onto the roadway.

Tomorrow, I will tell you what happened on that day.

It Is Hard To Plan For Traffic Stops

So when I was done with the things I had to do in downtown Ennis, I headed out to Waxahachie for an appointment I had there. With a 18 mile trip before me, I figured that an hour and a half would be plenty of time.

I figured wrong.

This happened on Tuesday December 16.

I took Hwy 287; a four lane road with a center median and all the look of a limited access freeway except for all the driveways and cross streets. No signal lights for ten miles. Sixty five mile per hour posted speed limit. A shoulder of varying width from six inches to ten feet. A rumble strip straddling the transition from a resurface job, which in practice meant that the inside of the rumble strip was a couple inches higher than the outside edge. An occasional right and left turn only lane. Twelve foot wide travel lanes. Real smooth pavement on the roadway. [1]

My appointment was at three in the afternoon, and I rolled out of downtown Ennis just after one thirty.

As is usual when I take the lane on a road with a shoulder, I was frequently honked at. Isn’t the freedom of expression great? It makes it so much easier to spot the idiots!

What was unusual is that about half of the commercial trucks chose to identify their IQ! That is way high in my experience. As a percentage, maybe five to ten percent of private vehicles honked. The usual number chose to pass me on the right on the shoulder which is a crime in Texas. [2]

The First Stop

After a few miles. A State trooper’s vehicle passed me. He slowed and used a crossover to wait for me. As I passed his location, he got on his PA system and said; “For safety’s sake, will you please ride on the shoulder?”

I emphatically shook my head no and continued on my way.

When traffic permitted, he pulled onto the roadway and displayed his lights. I stopped and waited for him. [3] I regret that I am unable to remember his name.

“It’s dangerous to ride out there” he said.

“It’s even more dangerous on the shoulder.” I said. “Do you think drivers are so incompetent that they will run over objects in their path?”

“That’s what the rumble strips are for- to protect the idiots from themselves!”

He then painted a preposterous scenario. He said that if someone panicked and traffic backed up then I would be guilty of impeding traffic.

I pointed out one of Texas’s laws in the Texas Transpiration Code (TTC) and we discussed it for a while. I am reluctant to share it here until after my ticket is resolved with the city of Ennis. I see no point in helping the DA in convicting me by pointing out statutes I will defend myself with.

He then asked me for my ID. Good for him! He didn’t ask me for a driver’s license! I promptly began digging into my backpack to get it.

He asked me where I was going. “That away”’ I said, indicating down the road. He didn’t pursue the issue, as it was really immaterial to the traffic stop. [4]

Handing him my ID, he said that he would be writing me a warning.

“What is the charge?” I asked.

“Impeding traffic.”

“Will you be citing the section of the transportation code?”

“I’ll have to look it up for you”

As he returns to his vehicle, I pull out my camera. His dashcam is taking pictures of me, I am taking pictures of him.



About then another police unit pulls up. Officer XXX of the Ennis police department gets out and walks up to me.

What’s he saying to you?” he asks, indicating the trooper.

“He thinks I should be riding on the shoulder.”

Sergeant Joe Sifuentes informs me that Ennis police are getting a lot of calls complaining about me. Then, deciding the state trooper has things under control, wishes me a Merry Christmas and leaves.

The Texas Trooper returns and says that he can’t find the statute he was looking for, and he tells me I am free to go. He urges me to ride on the shoulder where he believes I will be safer. I thank him for his concern and wish him a Merry Christmas, and at the next gap in traffic, I merge onto the roadway again.



I found the State Trooper’s demeanor to be exemplary. He was polite, friendly and professional. Nonetheless, I think he felt it was his greater duty to enhance traffic flow rather than to expect road users to follow the rules.

The Second Stop

Soon enough, business 287 peels off of Hwy 287. It becomes a narrow two lane 55 MPH shoulderless chipsealed road for about two miles, and then it changes into a 30 mph narrow two lane residential road. It was on this residential part when a Waxahachie police officer pulls me over.

This young officer seemed to be in his mid twenties. He asked me to step off the roadway so he could talk to me safely rather than standing in front of his cruiser in view of the dashcam.

“Are Waxahachie drivers so incompetent that they can’t avoid a pedestrian on the street?”

I think this question derailed his agenda. He took a moment to get started again.

“Are you coming from Ennis?” I nod in affirmation. “We have been getting a lot of calls about you, they say you are wandering all over the road.”

“I wasn’t wandering at all, I was riding in the center of the lane, just like they were.”

“Your supposed to ride on the right half of the lane.”

I deny that his understanding is correct. “You should refresh your memory. The part you want is section 551.103.”

This rattles him as well, and he is now clearly uncomfortable with the conversation. He quickly ends the traffic stop, and I again resume my trip. Alas, I am too late for the meeting and my trip was for naught.

I strike up a conversation with someone while I rest, and perhaps get too involved in it, as it is dusk when I begin my return leg. I re-trace my path onto business 287. Only a couple of idiots identify themselves.

I turn on my rear blinky just before I merge into traffic on Hwy 287.

Another ten miles of serial rudeness ensues.

The Third Stop

As I exit Hwy 287 onto the business 287 near Ennis, I am again pulled over for a traffic stop. It is Sergeant Joe Sifuentes again! He doesn’t even bother to get out of his cruiser. He is polite and professional, but he is responding to the urging of dispatchers. I doubt he would've pulled me over on his own initiative.

He too proposes a preposterous analysis. He asked me why all those cars were taking evasive action, changing lanes, slamming on their breaks and swerving onto the shoulder? I said it was because the drivers were incompetent and impatient.

No, he said, it was because of you! I denied that it was my fault that they were passing me illegally; On the right and on the shoulder. Who’s fault was it then, he asked, incredulous at my reply.

I said that I had no power to steer an automobile. Those motorists have a legal duty to observe my right-of-way.

He then asked me for my name and such, as he needed to write a report of the stop so they have a record of my behavior in case something were to happen to me.

I laughed out loud at this. “So that I can be blamed if someone runs into me?”

Just at this point, our communication broke down due to an unfortunate collection of events. I spoke something to him and laughed again. He said something to me at the same time (cross-talked) and so I did not hear what he said, and some traffic passed by further muddying the sound for each of us. But he got angry that I laughed, thinking I was reacting to what he said.

I was realizing at that moment that his “windshield view” common sense was going to prevent him from ever believing that being legally in the way was safer than being out of the way on the shoulder. I was laughing at the absurdity of my attempting to convince him. Sadly, it caused him to harden his attitude toward me.

“Will you be laughing when someone runs you down?” He asked sharply.

“Do you ride a bicycle?” I asked him. He said he never does. I said; “I have ten thousand miles on that very bicycle right there, ridden in just this same way, and I am still here to talk about it. In this conversation, one of us is an expert at cycling and the other one is not.”

After a few more sage words of advice for me along the lines of the futility of being right but dead, he returned my ID and I continued on my way.

Reflections About These Events

Ignorance about most traffic laws is widespread in my community, and when it comes to bicycle specific traffic law the ignorance is even more acute.

It is first made apparent by the honking. For example, on the two lane near Waxahachie, a motorist a fair distance back honks at me. Short and polite: Honk-honk. After a moment, again: Honk-honk. And then, when I don’t disappear into thin air (It is hard to know what this motorist expected, as we were traveling on a ten foot wide lane- he would have had to encroach onto oncoming lanes no matter where I was laterally in the lane!): HONK hooonk hoooonk!

Many honk at me while sailing past me, unhindered, in the left lane. Perhaps they are expressing joy at finally coming across someone who is driving on the public road in a lawful manner!

In my presence, many many traffic laws were broken. But it was me, one of the few legal drivers, who was pulled over.

The State Trooper pulled me over on his own initiative, perhaps with genuine concern for me. I am sure that when he initiated his stop he was certain I was breaking some law, and he may have even had one or two in mind that failed to pan out.

The traffic stop by the Waxahachie police and the stop (Two stops?) by Ennis police were in response from phone calls dialed in to 911 lines. But once my behavior was observed, neither attempted to cite me for any offence. They just tried to convince me to ride where I believe it to be a compromise of my personal safety, for the purpose of enhancing the convenience of automobile drivers.

Mind you, I had no choice to opt out of the lectures. I had to stop under penalty of law. Bicyclists are just out for a lark anyway, right? It is folks in automobiles that are going somewhere important.

None of the illegal driving by licensed motorists were cited. Sergeant Joe Sifuentes even notes that he saw such behavior himself. He ignored all that, and pulled me over instead, even though he had not observed any unlawful behavior on my part.

Two officers commented that their departments had received many calls from motorist complaining that I was driving my bicycle in a legal manner. Why did that require a response by a patrol officer? Once the officer observed my driving, why did they continue with the stop?

Why couldn’t dispatchers tell motorists that bicycles are allowed to drive on the roadway?

The reason is that the whole of them are ignorant to what Texas law says. Because bicycle driving is uncommon, it is assumed that it is uncommon because it is illegal.

The result is that law abiding citizens are delayed, harassed and abused by law enforcement and by mistakenly outraged motorists. Meanwhile, the Texas Bicycle Coalition spends it’s legislative activities trying to pass new laws that are a simply a re-statement of current law.

Perhaps our bicycle advocates could work to change the real discrimination we Texas cyclists face. You know, something that would actually make Texas better for their constituents. (I know, I’m making crazy-talk again.)

Conquering the Frontiers of Ignorance

Perhaps our local police could become familiar with bicycle specific law if they are going to do something about scofflaw cyclists, and if they intend to respond to the uninformed opinion of angry Texans on the other end of a phone line.

I’ll even help them with a heads up for where to look:
Sec. 551 with a special emphasis on Sec. 551.103 (a)(4)(A) – I would suggest you read that part two or three times.

You should also become familiar with these sections which are important to understand when you are dealing with slow vehicles on the public road: Sec. 541.301, Sec. 545.002, Sec. 545.051, Sec. 545.058, Sec. 545.060, and Sec. 545.363

Ignorance can be defined as not knowing what you don’t know. One is not doomed to remain in ignorance forever. Those statutes there can start you on your path to enlightenment, if you want it.

[1] I am using the legal definition of the word “roadway”. From the TTC:
Sec. 541.302. (11) "Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel.

[2] Sec. 545.058

[3] Note to SteveA. I watched to see if he was pulling onto the shoulder before I crossed the edge line. As I did later as well.

[4] In Texas, one is required to tell a law enforcement officer his real name and his current address. We are not required to produce ID of any kind, but the officer is allowed to detain you until your identity can be confirmed. When you are operating a motor vehicle, you must be able to produce a driver’s license on demand.

It Is More Important To Me Than to Them

SteveA says this is my advantage in getting my ticket resolved in my favor. Passion.



I stopped in at the Ennis Police Station see what the procedure is for getting clarification as to the Texas Transportation Code (TTC) statute that I have been accused of violating. It is hard to tell, because there is no "impeding traffic" section in the TTC.



I spoke with a Ennis Police Department (EPD) officer who was also exemplary in his demeanor. After he explained what steps I had to take next, he indulged me with a wide ranging conversation on police work, the law, some of the forces that affect an individual officers discretion in enforcing the law, police priorities and such.



He demonstrated good professionalism by being careful not to imply advice for my particular situation, and he and I avoided talking about Officer Watson's conduct, other than my making it clear that I was impressed by his low-key non-confrontational style. (I was complimentary about Officer Watson.)



I was disheartened by some comments made by this officer. I have had very few hassles from police in all of my Texas travels on two-wheels. I had thought this was due to the clear simplicity of Texas law. Texas has codified one of the least restrictive bicycle laws in the nation. It is something all Texas cyclists should be grateful for. (It would no doubt be better with the far-to-right language removed.) Cyclists enjoy unusual liberty in Texas.



When I tried to express how police priorities place traffic flow issues above safety, and it would be in EPD's best long term interests to crack down on scofflaw cycling, he told me that the community and officers feel that enforcing bicycle law was "harassment" and lead to many formal complaints. (Every formal complaint must be investigated, documented, and adjudicated, eating up a tremendous amount of resources and man hours.)



And then, when speaking about operating a bicycle on public streets, it became clear that none of them think a bicycle should be on any public street. He insisted that bicycles, for example, must ride on the shoulder of the road, "just like slow cars are required to" to avoid impeding traffic. Sigh.



As I will show below, this is an understanding from our speed dominant car-centric culture, not something derived from the TTC. The idea of public roads accommodating none-motorized traffic is crazy-talk. When they think of road use, they are thinking in terms of private automobiles equals public use. I guess they don't remember how "traffic" is defined in the TTC: "In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel."



When someone is riding their bicycle on a public road, they are traffic. They are in fact "normal and reasonable" traffic.



So if his perspective is true, I would be hassled at every turn except for the the low priority placed on enforcing bicycle law! I thought it was because I work so hard at riding in a lawful manner.



The TTC has a lot to say about driving and riding on the shoulder, but it nowhere requires using it, and it most certainly discourages it's use.



First, some definitions.



"Highway or street" means the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way any part of which is open to the public for vehicular travel. Sec. 541.302. (5)　　
"Improved shoulder" means a paved shoulder.　Sec. 541.302.(6)
"Laned roadway" means a roadway that is divided into at least two clearly marked lanes for vehicular travel. Sec.541.302.(7)　
"Roadway" means the portion of a highway, other than the berm or shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel. If a highway includes at least two separate roadways, the term applies to each roadway separately. Sec. 541.302.(11)　
"Shoulder" means the portion of a highway that is:
(A)　　adjacent to the roadway;
(B)　　designed or ordinarily used for parking;
(C)　　distinguished from the roadway by different design, construction, or marking; and not intended for normal vehicular travel. Sec. 541.302.(15)　



Naturally, because politicians wrote it, it is a little confusing. Their definition for "highway" appears to include the entire right-of-way from fence-line to fence-line. The definitions for "roadway" "laned roadway" and "shoulder" clearly state that shoulders are not intended to be used as travel lanes.



Sec.　545.058.　　DRIVING ON IMPROVED SHOULDER.

　
(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:
(1)　　to stop, stand, or park;
(2)　　to accelerate before entering the main traveled lane of traffic;
(3)　　to decelerate before making a right turn;
(4)　　to pass another vehicle that is slowing or stopped on the main traveled portion of the highway, disabled, or preparing to make a left turn;
(5)　　to allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass;
(6)　　as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(7)　　to avoid a collision.


(b)　　An operator may drive on an improved shoulder to the left of the main traveled portion of a divided or limited-access or controlled-access highway if that operation may be done safely, but only:
(1)　　to slow or stop when the vehicle is disabled and traffic or other circumstances prohibit the safe movement of the vehicle to the shoulder to the right of the main traveled portion of the roadway;
(2)　　as permitted or required by an official traffic-control device; or
(3)　　to avoid a collision.


(c)　　A limitation in this section on driving on an improved shoulder does not apply to:
(1)　　an authorized emergency vehicle responding to a call;
(2)　　a police patrol; or
(3)　　a bicycle.　　　　



There are three portions to this law: What circumstances allow travel on the shoulder to the right, (7 of them) what circumstances allow driving on the left shoulder, (Two repeats and one new one) and the vehicles that are not bound by this law.



Now the statement made separately by two EPD officers was that "slow moving vehicles must use the shoulder" to allow faster traffic to overtake them in a more convenient way. Is that what the statute says?



It does no such thing! In fact, even beyond the obvious permissive word of "may" rather than the compulsory word of "shall", it sets up a host of conditions that, to my mind, would be unusual enough to make driving on the shoulder legally quite rare.



The twin pre-conditions of necessity and the ability to do the maneuver in a safe manner that have to be present will wipe out most scenarios for doing this that I can imagine. In fact, the necessity clause nullifies the permission to allow faster traffic to overtake you easier! After all, don't those who complain about cyclists riding centered in the lane object on the grounds that it is rude to inconvenience others? No one has ever argued with me that it is a necessity to overtake slower traffic.



So yes, Steve, it is more important to me than it is to them, for it is my liberty to use the public road in a lawful manner that is at stake.



This, as you say, is my advantage.

Nice Meeting You, Officer Watson

That is, if you are officer Watson. More about that later.

It was about 7:30 in the morning, Thursday, and I was traveling west on West Ennis Avenue after negotiating the angled parking area. Because of the dense traffic, I had to wait for a few automobiles to overtake me on the right before I could merge into the right lane. I was then the first person waiting at the light at Gaines Street.

I didn't notice that the car that pulled up next to me was a Ennis City patrol car.

The light turns green and I proceed through the intersection, and I then notice the patrol car because he has accelerated ahead of me. But he is obeying the speed limit, and that causes a larger than usual platoon of cars to form behind us. As we approach Clay Street the patrol car must come to a stop to yield to a vehicle waiting to turn left, and I zoom by him in the right lane. (This fact will be important.)

As West Ennis Avenue continues beyond Clay Street, the road's geometry abruptly changes. Both west-bound lanes make a ten foot jog to the right (In the intersection itself!) to make room for a suicide left turn lane that is created/terminated there. There is also the appearance of a varying width improved shoulder of between four and six feet that extends all the way to Waxahachi. The lane itself is about ten feet wide by my trained observation, but I will update this post with an actual measurement later.

I get about half way down that block before the first automobile overtakes me, and curiously, he honks. (Silly goose!) Then I hear the BLAAK of the police saxon, I do a head check and see flashing red lights behind me. Note to Steve: I moved to the right tire track, checked to see if the officer was on the shoulder, and then pulled onto the shoulder in front of him. I wanted to be sure he was pulling me over, not abusing his authority to get me out of the way.

As the Officer gets out of his patrol car, I put on my blogger journalist cap. I greet the officer with a question; "What time is it?"

He answers conversationally, checking his watch. I would like to note that this officers demeanor and tone was pleasant and un-confrontational through-out. He acted in every way professionally.

He asked me where I was going, and I foolishly answer, because I was so intent on reading his name tag for this post. I say foolish, because my purpose for traveling on that public road was none of his concern. Oh, there it is, above his right pocket, Officer Watson!

He says to me that I am impeding traffic. That back there (He must mean on the other side of Clay Street- he was pointing.) it is a 30 MPH zone and it changes up ahead there to a 45 MPH zone. I am not allowed to impede traffic at the slow speeds I am going.




I tell him it is doubtful that I would be able match the speed of the other traffic. But I am going to travel down the street in the travel lane. He is welcome to give me a ticket for any law he thinks I am breaking.

He says well, OK then. Can I see your drivers license? Any ID? (By Texas law, I am required to give any law enforcement officer my name and current address. I am not required to carry ID. An officer can, if he suspects that I am lying to him, detain me until my identity can be established.) He accepts my health insurance card and debit card, both without photos, as evidence enough, and goes to his patrol car to write the ticket.

I then remember my camera is in my bag, and so I haul it out to document the stop. Smile Officer Watson!




So he comes back and asks me to sign the ticket, and I ask what I am signing.

He says, for impeding traffic. I didn't impede traffic, I protest in a conversational tone.

"No, no", he says, "you are just promising to appear on that date." So I ask him what law I violated, and he blinks in surprise. (He thought he had just told me!) So I asked him what part of the law, could he cite it to me?

I figured he would have to cite the section of the transportation code he was accusing me of breaking in the process of writing the ticket, but apparently not. I am sure he is thinking of sec. 545.363 which applies to motor vehicles, not bicycles. But he missed that opportunity to avoid embarrassment. I tried Officer Watson. I am sure that there are many places in the Texas Transportation Code (TTC) that you know better than I do, but I am confident I know my way around the bicycle parts, and you clearly don't.

So we part ways without rancor, and I resume riding centered in the lane.

So I get home and examine the ticket.



I am again surprised that there is no section of the transportation code cited. Do officers just make up the laws they "enforce" as they go along? In this officer's defense, I think he is sincere in his understanding of the law, just sincerely wrong. He will be educated about it soon, it just would have been less expensive for him if he had a little more humility.

Under the heading "VIOLATIONS" it says "CITATION VIO 1: Impeding Traffic" That is all that it says.

Then I discover another surprise. It says "Issued by SGT PILLOW, Badge#620" Huh? Who is that? Does Sgt. Pillow put someone else's name tag on his uniform? I will have to investigate this.

Then, another surprise! The citation is for impeding traffic in the 300 block of West Ennis Avenue! Hah! How could I have been impeding traffic there, when traffic was passing me on the right?

Alright, some observations. This is an example of traffic flow maximization rather than safety promotion. When I see people on bicycles in town, they are invariably scofflaws. The ones who I see riding lawfully seem to me to just be riding that way by chance- should I observe them five minutes later they would be back to their scofflaw ways. Salmon, sidewalk, parking lot ninja and night ninja behavior is the order of the day. These are the practices that are far more hazardous than a cyclist following traffic rules. Yet that lawlessness not an issue for the Ennis police department. Safety is not a priority, smooth traffic flow is.

From the one hundred block of West Ennis Avenue to the end of the three hundred block, it is a very wide single lane road that automobiles routinely share side by side, making it a de-facto two lane road each way. This is to accommodate angled parking.

The rest of West Ennis Avenue is is made up of two narrow lanes in each direction, with the addition of a suicide center left turn lane from the five hundred block to the three thousand block. The question is, can a slow moving vehicle on a multi-lane road impede traffic? Further, the automobile that caused the patrol car to come to a complete stop when it was waiting for a gap in opposing traffic to turn left onto Clay Street, was it impeding traffic?

Yes, they were impeding traffic! In fact, we are "impeded" all the time! We are impeded by school buses loading and unloading children, trains, signal lights, folks preparing to parallel park... you get the drift. We are impeded all the time when we travel about on the public roads. The real question then is, are all those impediments to traffic illegal? Why not? What is illegal impediment of traffic?

TTC Section 545.363; " MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law."

"Normal and reasonable movement of traffic." Each word drips with meaning. What is traffic anyway? The TTC defines traffic as: "Sec. 541.301. TRAFFIC. In this subtitle "traffic" means pedestrians, ridden or herded animals, and conveyances, including vehicles and streetcars, singly or together while using a highway for the purposes of travel."

If the traffic this morning was a horse drawn carriage, and not a bicycle, would it be an illegal impedance? Obviously, to say that a vehicle traveling at a speed that is reasonable for that vehicle, but will cause other faster traffic to slow down is an illegal impedence would ban them from operating on public roads. This then would be the effect if the views of Officer Watson/Sgt. Pillow were the proper reflection of the law.

Furthermore, because I was traveling in the right lane, faster traffic was not impeded at all by me, because they had a dedicated passing lane next to the one I was using! Here is the reason I think the TTC is clear on this specific point. The whole of the statute regulating lane position and impeding other traffic is this:

"Sec. 551.101.　　RIGHTS AND DUTIES.　 (a)　　A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle, unless:
(1) a provision of this chapter alters a right or duty; or a right or duty applicable to a driver operating a vehicle cannot by its nature apply to a person operating a bicycle.

Sec. 551.103. OPERATION ON ROADWAY. (a) 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:
(1)　　the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2)　　the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3)　　a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(4)　　the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is: (A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.
(c)　　Persons operating bicycles on a roadway may ride two abreast. Persons riding two abreast on a laned roadway shall ride in a single lane. Persons riding two abreast may not impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic on the roadway. Persons may not ride more than two abreast unless they are riding on a part of a roadway set aside for the exclusive operation of bicycles."

So, 551.101 means that a cyclist is "by his nature" unable to keep up with a motor vehicle, so he has no duty to obey the slow vehicle statute when he is traveling at a speed that is reasonable for cyclist.

And in Sec. 551.103 (c) that says two cyclists riding two abreast can be in violation of impeding traffic, but only if a travel lane is wide enough to safely share side-by-side with motorists and a single cyclist. If it is too narrow for a single cyclist to share, then riding two abreast is just as much an impedance as a single cyclist.

So as it stands now, I am charged with impeding traffic. Perhaps they will change it to improper lane position, seeing how there was that lovely shoulder over there I was ignoring.

I must give credit to some folks whose clear thinking and discussions have shaped this blog entry. My thanks to Mighk Wilson, Herman May, Keri Caffrey, AndrewP and fred_dot_u.

***An update! I found Sgt Pillow! I always write the blog and add the photos later. As I was cropping and manipulating my pictures in Picasa 3, I can see there is a person I did not notice during the traffic stop sitting in the passenger seat of the patrol car! Gee whiz!

I think my camera has distorted the features of Officer Watson. He seemed much leaner to me at the time of the stop. My apologies to him for any such distortion of his features.

Abuse of power

Today I expected to ride north with a strong south wind and make it a 10 mile out and back, but when I stepped outside with my bike and the wind was blowing about 20 MPH from the west! So east it is.

I choose a familiar loop that will dump me onto state highway 34 for the west-bound leg back to Ennis and the headwind portion.

Highway 34 is signed 55 MPH with a single 12 foot lane each direction, with occasional improved shoulders. The traffic was moderate, and I was overtaken by four semi-tractor trucks during the three and a half miles.

I was also overtaken by an off duty cop, unfortunately. He tried to bully me into obeying his view of how things ought to be.

He drives up beside me (on the shoulder) in a small car with a young female child sitting next to him, paces my speed and when I look at him, he displays his badge and orders me to pull over.

So he gets out of his car and a lecture ensues. He tells me I can't ride so far in the lane. (I was positioned in the left tire track.) I tell him I need to for my safety and the law permits it. He says I need to keep on the shoulder because I am "impeding traffic" and violating the far to the right rule. I ask him if he is going to cite me. He says no. I then ask him if I can be on my way then. He says he didn't order me to stop- he didn't flash any red lights... I cut him off with a raised voice; "You stopped my under the color of law by flashing your badge at me!"

I mark that as the point that the "traffic stop" became something different- more of a conversation than a confrontation. I'll try to describe it in broad strokes rather than specifics, but some of his assertions are real gems.

So he tells me I can proceed, and I turn to mount my bike. He then said; "But don't be riding out where you were or I will have to call one of my on duty friends to meet you." I am about to retort "You had better call him, then!" when he asks if we could talk for a minute. I calm myself down and face him, and agree to talk.

He now asserts that he is just concerned for my safety. We discuss the relative merits of riding on the shoulder and in lane. It is impossible for him to imagine that I would be at greater risk of inattentive drivers when riding on the shoulder. I tell him that there are no restrictions on where I can ride in the lane if the lane is less than 14 feet wide. He asks how wide I think the lane is, did I measure it?

I tell him it is easy to get an accurate estimate. (Most cars about six and a half feet wide, can two of them travel side by side within the lane?) At this he laughed, and he said he knew quite well they were less than 14 feet from accident investigations.

He says; "Maybe it's within your right to ride there, but you'll end up dead right." (Yes, he actually did!)

We talked about the danger of distracted drivers drifting onto the shoulder, I quoted to him the law and we realized neither of us would persuade the other.

So I was compelled by a law officer who took it on himself to enforce (through intimidation) laws that only existed in his car-centric prejudices.


Sec 551.101.
RIGHTS AND DUTIES.
(a) A person operating a bicycle has the rights and duties applicable to a driver operating a vehicle under this subtitle


OPERATION ON ROADWAY. Sec 551.104
(a) 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:
(1) the person is passing another vehicle moving in the same direction;
(2) the person is preparing to turn left at an intersection or onto a private road or driveway;
(3) a condition on or of the roadway, including a fixed or moving object, parked or moving vehicle, pedestrian, animal, or surface hazard prevents the person from safely riding next to the right curb or edge of the roadway; or
(4) the person is operating a bicycle in an outside lane that is:
(A) less than 14 feet in width and does not have a designated bicycle lane adjacent to that lane; or
(B) too narrow for a bicycle and a motor vehicle to safely travel side by side.