Pages Menu
RssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 20, 2010 in General | 38 comments

Who will speak up when they come for you?

We have so much fun and positive stuff going on, I hate to interrupt it for this. But this must be said.

Please read this post at CycleDallas:

Reed Bates’ trials (and travails) got some wider coverage this week (Streetsblog, among others). People began asking why the League of American Bicyclists (LAB) wasn’t helping. Trying to get ahead of the issue, LAB President Andy Clarke widely posted a response, which I reproduce below with factual corrections. Read more.

I want to add a few thoughts here.

First, I heard some of the same “justifications” almost verbatim from other LAB insiders. From people who don’t know Reed, never spoke with him and don’t know his friends, I heard that Reed was baiting the police, that he was being manipulated and that he and his “advisers” are extremists — insisting that everyone should ride the way he does (both publicly and as a legal defense). That’s pure fiction, and very easy to disprove simply by reading the many posts written by Reed and his friends (including me).

This slander looks like another shot in a decades-long campaign to discredit bicycle driving advocates. Admittedly, there are some “VC” advocates who make it easy for such specious arguments to stick, but don’t buy into it. We are not monolithic, and the majority of advocates for integrated cycling are motivated by concerns about safety and access for cyclists.

In Reed’s case, access was paramount. He had no other form of transportation in rural Texas. Necessity led Reed to choose that road to travel to his destination. Decades of cycling experience led him to choose his position on that road. He was riding in the manner safest, most practicable and most comfortable for him. He was riding in accordance with the law. He was causing harm to no one.

He was not baiting anyone, he was standing up for his right to drive defensively. As a result of a campaign of police harassment, he was essentially forced to leave that county. Without a car, he could no longer drive defensively without being thrown in jail. Thus, during this process, he moved to Dallas.

Second, both trials reek of small-town politics.

In the first trial, the judge—possibly not wanting to have to rule against his small-town PD—railroaded Reed into a jury trial. A jury of motorists, of course, convicted him.

The second, most-recent trial, demonstrates a chain of bad decisions made and protected by each level of a corrupt system. Here’s my take on it. The deputy screwed up by issuing Reed an ultimatum (that he would arrest him if he didn’t ride on the shoulder). Then he had to arrest Reed when he refused to give up his legal right to drive defensively in the manner he felt safest. Since Reed broke no laws, the Sheriffs Office had egg on their face. But rather than admit it and dismiss the charges, the prosecutor came up with a charge so outrageous she probably thought Reed (who had since moved to Dallas) would take a “generous” offer to plead guilty and be let go with time served (No harm no foul, right? Merely the inconvenience of having been incarcerated repeatedly for legal, defensive driving). But Reed would not plead guilty when he had broken no laws. Would you? So the judge, who has to live in this small town and work with the prosecutor and the police, decided to make a mockery of justice and issue an absurd guilty ruling while admitting that Reed broke no laws.

Reed’s civil rights have been trampled, with the added absurdity of a conviction for reckless driving. Do you know how hard it is to get a citation for reckless driving issued to a motor vehicle driver? Even when reckless drivers cause a crash, the system is stacked so hard against conviction that police go for careless driving instead. There are drivers who are a menace on the roads still driving legally and endangering us all because of this!

When one cyclist is beaten down by the culture of speed, we all are. You and I might never choose to ride on a road like HWY287, or we might choose to ride in the crappy shoulder. But if it is made clear to all that we have a legal right to use the road there, we will be that much closer to preserving the rights and access for cyclists on all roads. No matter how people feel about various types of infrastructure, those of us who rely on bicycles for transportation will always need to use roads to access our destinations.

As Dan Gutierrez posted on Facebook this morning:

“They came first for the state highway riders, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a state highway rider. Then they came for the arterial riders, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an arterial rider. Then they came for me (collector/residential street rider), and by that time, no one was left to speak up for my right to use the roadway.”

If you would like to support Reed’s appeal, you can do that here. (link no longer active)

38 Comments

  1. Just so we’re clear, Florida defines reckless driving thus: “Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.”

    And how exactly do you simultaneously prove “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons” and yet say (as the judge did) “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.”

    I guess the League was uncomfortable going up against such legal brilliance.

    • I’m having a really hard time parsing “safer but reckless”.

  2. Florida law is almost word-for-word the same as TX law.

    Sec. 545.401. Reckless Driving; Offense.
    (a) A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.

  3. this whole case is stupid. if those whose obligation it is to uphold the law would do so and ignore their own biases, this should never have gone to a jury trial in the first place. i’m so sick of people who view their position of authority as a golden ticket to force their will on others.

    i’m no activist, and motorists can drive their cars to the moon for all i care. all i ask is the same respect for my right to travel safely and legally that anyone else is entitled to. apparently that’s unreasonable, because much of the harassment i’ve faced has come from those in uniform.

  4. Since Keri mentions it, we saw a pickup run off the highway Reed was arrested on, over the rumble strip and onto the shoulder on our way home from Reed’s trial. Fortunately, the driver recovered, but had a cyclist been over there, it would have been real ugly. It made a real strong impression on my daughter.

  5. Very, very, well written up! Thank you.

  6. “we saw a pickup run off the highway Reed was arrested on, over the rumble strip and onto the shoulder on our way home from Reed’s trial….”

    And if that tired or distracted driver had come upon Reed in the travel lane, do you really believe Reed would have faired any better?

    Folks keep citing these terrible shoulder situations, but turn a blind eye to the fact that one of the most common collision types is a rear end collision… The book “Traffic: why we drive the way we do” mentions that motorist have run into slow moving trash trucks and that drivers have run smack dab into non moving objects on the road… due simply to the fact that we humans have a hard time judging speed differences when closing on an object.

    While some seem to thing that moving slow smack in front of a fast moving motor vehicle will garner the attention of the motorist, there is little evidence to prove that.

    Go ahead and take the lane, when you need to, when there is no other choice… but don’t expect to suddenly wake the “driving dead” by doing so.

    • Drivers rear-end stopped 4-wheel vehicles because their brains expect them to be going the same speed. It has less to do with judging speed differentials than associative error. The attention is on something else, the quick visual check shows a 4-wheel vehicle, auto-pilot says “all conditions normal,” go back to the distraction.

      Similarly, when a cyclist is on the shoulder… quick visual check, nothing in my lane, go back to the distraction, drift off the road and hit the cyclist.

      You’re not safe from an incompetent or distracted driver anywhere. Distracted drivers have a good track record for killing cyclists in bike lanes and shoulders.

      No one can, or has tried to prove that a cyclist is safer in the lane than the shoulder. But those of us who have ridden many miles in the lane on high speed roads have done so safely. I know Dan, Brian and I have looked at dozens of hours of rear-facing video and observed motorist behavior on high speed roads.

      But that wasn’t the point of my bringing up the crash from last year. I was making the point that a distracted driver mowed down two people on the shoulder and wasn’t charged with anything while Reed was convicted of reckless driving for driving legally in the manner he felt safest and hurting no one.

    • “And if that tired or distracted driver had come upon Reed in the travel lane, do you really believe Reed would have faired any better?”

      Yes, because for the seconds prior to getting so distracted as to drift off of the roadway, the driver was paying sufficient attention to the roadway remain on course, and it takes very little attention to notice a cyclist ahead in front of you in a traffic lane – it sets off all kinds of alarms and grabs the motorist’s attention, thus preventing him from paying attention elsewhere and drifting.

    • Go ahead and take the lane, when you need to, when there is no other choice….

      Why only, “when you need to, when there is no other choice”?

      What if there is another choice, but it is inferior?

      This sounds like typical anti-cyclist thinking.

      • Go ahead and take the lane, when you need to, when there is no other choice….

        Yes, but the other choices are that you are expected to drive a car or use another road and go somewhere else.

        I was pulled over on an 8 lane highway with no shoulder (constant driveways, intersections and traffic lights; , center lanes high speed through traffic, traffic too sporadic and light to fill 2 lanes of 4 north bound lanes).

        The officer’s excuse was that bicycles are not allowed on multilane roads, numbered highways. (There is no such law.) The county policeman was screaming, but did not cite any laws, and eventually let me go (policeman screaming, no requests for ID – I really did not want to escalate the stop with an emotional policeman).

  7. The “Bikes Don’t Belong (on the road)” campaign is beginning to have greater and greater repercussions for cyclists who actually want to go somewhere specific. The segregationist mentality takes their fear and forces it upon others… with a dash of hate thrown in for good measure.

  8. GeneC claimed: “one of the most common collision types is a rear end collision… ”

    That may be one of the most common collision types between two motor vehicles. It’s one of the rarest types between MVs and bicycles.

    It’s common between cars because tailgating, especially in dense traffic, is rampant. I believe the common crash mechanism is when a motorist at the front of a chain of tailgaters must brake, and each tailgater must brake increasingly harder because he’s left too little reaction space. Those at the end of the chain can’t stop in time.

    That crash scenario has nothing to do with a cyclist competently controlling a lane. If the lead car had to brake suddenly – very unlikely – any crash would occur several cars back, and not involve the cyclist.

    • “GeneC claimed: “one of the most common collision types is a rear end collision… ”

      That may be one of the most common collision types between two motor vehicles. It’s one of the rarest types between MVs and bicycles.”

      It’s a rare collision type between bicycles and motor vehicles because most people riding bikes do not do so well into the travel lane. Most cyclists ride off to the right in some fashion, hence the term “curbhugging.” Such a position makes it some what difficult to be rear ended by a motor vehicle.

      Not that I am condoning curbhugging mind you, but your statistical data is quite flawed.

      If taking the lane in a conspicuous manner is so safe, then why is it that the most deadly type of bicycle crash is an overtaking collision occurring on rural roads when cyclists are taking the lane?

      • “If taking the lane in a conspicuous manner is so safe, then why is it that the most deadly type of bicycle crash is an overtaking collision occurring on rural roads when cyclists are taking the lane?”

        Cite?

      • Gene C,

        You write, “If taking the lane in a conspicuous manner is so safe, then why is it that the most deadly type of bicycle crash is an overtaking collision occurring on rural roads when cyclists are taking the lane?”

        As Eric noted, you didn’t mention a citation.

        A cyclist can be hugging the white line and nicked by the right front of the car. That counts as a rear-ender. And I bet that’s what most of them are. Here’s why:

        Think of the bell curve. I have two of them:

        Bell curve #1: Motorists’ notion of how much space to give you falls into a bell curve.

        Bell curve #2: Motorists’ accuracy in how well they give the amount of space they had in mind falls into another bell curve.

        The first bell curve, you can control. You control how much space they decide to give you.

        The second bell curve you don’t control. If someone decides to give you six inches, with the tiniest bit of inattention, six becomes zero. So you don’t want him to decide on six inches!

        Back to controlling the space they decide to give you:

        Something that is depicted _very_ convincingly by Dan Gutierrez’s and Brian DeSousa’s videos at dualchase.com is how overtaking motorists respond to varying positions in the road. If you’re gutter-bunnying it, they don’t react at all until they’re quite close to you. Then they make the minimum deflection to squeeze by. But if you’re using a lane-occupying position, they react much farther back — maybe 100 yards or so — and have their lane change all done long before they reach you.

        Those motorists who see you blocking their normal use of the lane from 100 yards back have no choice: they have to make a lane change to get around you.

        The video evidence is compelling. Dan and Brian MEASURED the increase in passing clearance as a function of lateral position. The measurements are here:

        http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/passingplotchart.jpg

        And by the way, I don’t _just_ rely on all these wonderful data and videos. I note my own experience. Whenever I take more space, I get given more space. Simple as that.

        Now: back to the data you didn’t cite. Most people, when they discuss overtaking collisions, are referring to the 1977 Ken Cross study. A good chunk of the collisions in that study involved unlit bicycles at night. Cross doesn’t discuss fine points of lane position.

        So Cross’s data (which may or may not be what you were thinking of) doesn’t support the notion that those collisions involved ‘taking the lane.’ Nor does it cast doubt on the more recently produced splendid data about how to influence driver behavior.

        John Schubert
        Limeport.org

        • Statistics on presence or absence of lights at night in NC are essentially non-existent. The Highway Patrol doesn’t generally even mention presence or absence of lights/reflectors in accident reports.

          According to NCDOT statistics, from 1997 to 2006 we had about 6% of all bicycle collisions in the category of “motorist overtaking bicycle – motorist failed to clear”.

          However, this year, according to charlottevelo.com, which tries to monitor all bike crashes anywhere near Charlotte, including bike/bike ones, rear-enders are around 30% of total.

          This is happening during a big upsurge in regional (big AM station out of Charlotte) radio hatemongering against bicyclists.

          One crash that received considerable publicity was the death of Adam Little, who was riding in the travel lane on a 4-lane, roughly in the right wheel track, where there was a paved shoulder with no rumble strip or significant debris. The others have involved two-lane roads without shoulders, except maybe one other.

          That one was on a highway that is mostly 2-lane with paved shoulder near me, but I’m not sure what it’s like where the crash occurred. Victim was on a recumbent trike. One photo of him taken while he was alive does show him riding on a shoulder, but of course that wasn’t the same location as the crash.

          • “However, this year, according to charlottevelo.com, which tries to monitor all bike crashes anywhere near Charlotte, including bike/bike ones, rear-enders are around 30% of total.”

            Far be it from me to question an out-of-state organization, but that number sounds so far out of line that I find it not credible. Even if it is credible in NC (and I have driven many 10′ lanes in NC), that percentage is not credible in FL. I try to keep up with deaths around here and very few involve rear-enders, but this is based on anecdotal evidence.

            I’ll be waiting for Gene C. to prove that:
            “that the most deadly type of bicycle crash is an overtaking collision occurring on rural roads when cyclists are taking the lane?”

        • The key component in your statement is this:

          “Those motorists who see you blocking their normal use of the lane from 100 yards back have no choice: they have to make a lane change to get around you.”

          They have to see you, they have to be awake and aware.

          If that is the case (motorist awake and aware, and actually seeing you) then it doesn’t matter whether you are in the travel lane or on the shoulder (and not gutter hugging)… you will be seen and avoided.

          But if you are not “seen 100 yards back…” and you are in the travel lane, you will be hit. Reconcile that.

          • My intended point here is not that rear-enders are somehow all of a sudden, mysteriously a much larger portion of crashes around Charlotte and therefore all of us should stay out of the way, no matter what.

            My intended point is that some of these accidents ain’t accidents, and we need to deal with that.

            We don’t just have a driving/riding problem, although we do have that. We have a civil rights problem on top of that, and the longer we delay in recognizing that and dealing with it as that, the longer the dupes of the hatemongers will keep ramming us.

            There is no defense against a homicidal hate movement in lane position. The only defense is a concerted bicyclists’ civil rights movement, one that presents itself as such, and articulates its positions accordingly.

          • 1. If they are not awake and aware, even if you are hugging the edge, they are very likely to hit you on a 10-12 foot wide road.
            2. If they are not awake and aware, they are likely to slip off the road and will hit you even if you are off the road. In fact, many more people are killed around here in one car crashes than car/bike crashes.
            3. Your awake and aware argument says that no one except motorists that aren’t awake and aware can use the road. Pedestrians will be killed even by lawfully crossing the road, motorcyclists will be rear-ended, trucks will kill motorists when the motorist runs into the truck. Awake and aware motorists will die waiting for the light to turn because that’s what happens when a car gets read-ended hard enough.

            So, rather than punishing deviant behavior, we should accommodate it?

          • Eric said: Your awake and aware argument says that no one except motorists that aren’t awake and aware can use the road.

            SPOT ON! Through that logic, the incompetent shall inherit the roadway.

            Shoulders serve 2 purposes: to support the structural integrity of the roadway and to provide run-off-the-road space for inattentive drivers. As such, shoulders increase the design speed of the road and reduce the level of attention motorists feel they need to give to the task.

            As if it’s not disgusting enough that the car culture wants to shove us into that space, bicycle advocates are not only requesting to be given that space, but browbeating bicycle drivers who don’t want to operate there.

          • “They have to see you, they have to be awake and aware.”

            It is impossible to maintain course in a traffic lane without being both awake and aware. Therefore, anyone maintaining course in a traffic lane IS awake and aware.

            Of course, people do fall asleep or become so inattentive that they fail to maintain course, but this happens seconds before they go off course, because… it is impossible to maintain course without being both awake and aware.

            So the key is to grab their attention BEFORE those final seconds. Riding irrelevantly off to the side is not how to do that. Riding prominently in the middle of the lane is.

            “If that is the case (motorist awake and aware, and actually seeing you) then it doesn’t matter whether you are in the travel lane or on the shoulder (and not gutter hugging)… you will be seen and avoided.”
            For over five years of these discussion you have been conflating sensory and cognitive conspicuity, no matter how many times it is explained to you. Enough.

            Remember this? “We are much more likely to notice things which are relevant to us in some way.”

            http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/inattentionalblindness.html

            To a motorist, who is perhaps on the verge of drifting off into sleep or inattention, in his final moments of awareness, what do you think is more relevant? A cyclist 100 yards ahead off to the side out of his intended course, perhaps in a shoulder or a bike lane, or a cyclist 100 yards ahead directly in his course? Please do not dodge this question.

            “But if you are not ‘seen 100 yards back…’ and you are in the travel lane, you will be hit. Reconcile that.”

            Actually, if the driver is already so asleep or unaware when 100 yards back that a cyclist in the middle of the lane does not grab his attention, and remains unaware for the entire 100 yards, then he is more likely to be off to the side in the bike lane or shoulder than still on course in the traffic lane three seconds later (assuming 60 mph) when he is 100 yards ahead.

            Some day on an empty multi-lane road while driving a car with a trusted passenger next to you, close your eyes and relax your hands and arms to see how long you can maintain course. You will see that by the time you’re 100 yards later, you won’t drive in the space in the center of your original lane, for you will be traveling in the space off to the side instead, probably well into an adjacent lane (more likely to the right if that’s the camber of the road).

            Reconcile that.

          • It helps if we flip this around. The cyclist who hugs the edge in a shared lane is at at least the same amount of risk as the cyclist in the middle of the lane.

            Hundreds of thousands of cyclists across the country log millions of miles every year riding narrow, two-lane rural highways used by higher-speed motorists. A motorist centered in a 10- or 11-foot lane has on average only 1.5 to 3 feet on either side of his vehicle. The cyclist riding a foot from the edge has his or her left shoulder two feet from the edge.

            The aspleep/unaware motorist would just as likely hit the edge-hugging cyclist as the lane-controlling cyclist. (Especially since the roadway crown tends to send sleeping/inattentive drivers to the right.)

            Yet in spite of millions of miles traveled by recreational cyclists, overtaking crashes for such cyclists are very rare. They are so rare that we should be focused on the fact that it takes exceptional incompetence to hit a cyclist in such a manner. In any rational realm one targets and punishes the exceptionally incompetent, not the competent and predictable.

            In urban and suburban environments the need for attentiveness is much more intense that for an empty straight rural road (we have lots of those in Florida).

            The perception/reaction/braking distance to slow from 45 mph to 15 mph is roughly 225 feet, yet a cyclist can be (and is routinely) seen by the average motorist from much farther than that; at least a tenth of a mile. If a motorist a tenth of a mile back drops his attention to the roadway, he’ll have to do so for nearly 5 seconds to cover the 300 foot difference. That’s an awfully long time to take your eyes off the road.

  9. Excuse me while I take the opportunity to plug my hostility monitoring project.

    I am looking for cyclists who will log instances of hostility they experience (police hostility is one category) on a spreadsheet I provide, and send it to me at the end of the year. It comes with instructions, and it’s easy.

    Purpose of the project is to gather information, and look for conspicuous patterns. I want to do this over a period of years.

    To participate, send me an e-mail at markortizauto@windstream.net, and request the hostility monitoring package.

  10. Mark, I believe I collected the hostility package some time ago, and have since had a few incidents of note. My computer is a mess, generally speaking, and I do most of my useful work on web-based stuff.

    It’s my opinion that if you could implement your collection system on a web site, where one could enter day-specific information for you to collect on your own time line, it would be far easier for me and others to contribute. I could be incorrect, as I often am.

    I use a web-based ride log, a web-based gps log, and who knows what else, simply because it’s convenient and easy to locate. My spreadsheet software bogs down the machine, but that’s not cycling specific and need not be expounded upon.

    Just a friendly suggestion.

    • Fred,
      Web based spreadsheets are available at Google Docs. I think you can import spreadsheets into that web based app.
      Here are the types it claims can be imported:
      .xls, .xlsx, .ods, .csv, .txt

      • What I was thinking of was not spreadsheet based, but more user friendly, web-page based log-type entry. I’ve signed up at BikeJournal for my daily ride logging, and I’m sure that it involves much greater programming skills to create than I have and more skill than it takes to enter data into a spreadsheet.

        I suppose it’s just my own laziness in collecting the data.

        I ride with dual video cameras recording to a DVR and have too frequently forgotten incidents from the very day I rode. I now have to carry a digital audio recorder to make verbal notes to check at day’s end, in order to find the specific video clips of note.

        Now that I’ve said that, I realize that the digital audio recorder would be a great benefit in collecting the data you need.

        I’m going to email you offline to find out the correct information to make this work. It does mean only four months of data from this year and I hope that there won’t be many data points.

        • Web based forms that collect data sound good at first blush, but each field adds to the complexity of the data collection process. The longer the form and the more detailed the information requested, the more likely things can go wrong.

          Nobody likes filling out a long HTML form only to get an error message when the “Submit” button is pressed. Well, I sure don’t, but saying “nobody” is too maybe too broad?

          So unless the data is something like less than 5 or 10 fields, you will notice that web folks don’t use that type of data collection anymore. They learned the hard way.

          • Mark sent me his xls files and they both upload fine to Google Docs. Once they are there, they can be modified and data can be added or changed in them by a registered user.

            So there is no need to use any software on a PC to use Mark’s file. It can be used in “the cloud” as in Cloud Computing. The only downside to Google Docs is that the data can be seen with a mobile telephone, but no changes can be made.

  11. Suggestions appreciated, folks, but at this point the project has been underway since early this year, and for better or worse I’m “committed to the maneuver” in its current form. I’m not going to mess with trying to run it two different ways at once.

    Participation merely involves filing and maintaining a very simple one-page .xls worksheet, and one e-mail message that you attach it to, and sending them once at the end of the year. The file sizes are small. You don’t have to use your browser at all. It’s dirt simple.

  12. (not specifically in response to this case; just a general observation)
    The trouble with relying on the “I’m folowing the law” defense is that laws can change, such as with our mandatory bike lane amendment. There needs to be a better understanding at all levels of why we ride as we do, why we don’t want impatient motorist accommodations, and why the laws that protect our rights to use the road safely are good, or our victories will disappear at the next legislative session.

  13. By the way, I really like the use of the modified Niemoeller quotation, Keri. Very apt.

    As a long-time anti-fascist, I am given to that sort of rhetoric myself. I sometimes describe the segregationists as Vichy bicycling advocates (if you don’t know what I mean, google ).

    I am also given to mentioning Bertholt Brecht’s play “The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui”, which is about the rise of Hitler, and fascism generally, told through a story about a fictitious Chicago gangster who rises to political power through hatemongering against “Jews and bicyclists”. This was intended as comedy of the absurd when it was written, with the message that hatemongering could target any group, no matter how wholesome and non-threatening. Sadly, what was comedy of the absurd half a century ago is a real threat to us today.

    • Some people get touchy about comparing discrimination, but the bias is really undeniable.

      There is a standard script a bicyclist hears when a cop pulls him/her over for legally controlling a lane:

      That’s not legal (cyclist explains the law)

      You’re going to get run over (cyclist explains the safety of being visible vs being sideswiped)

      Motorists are going to get angry and someone might assault you (… um, isn’t it your job to protect law abiding citizens from illegal behavior, rather than the other way around?)

      ^ the above is most telling because it is said as if it is understandable for a person in a car to assault a person on the bike for getting in the way. THAT is bias.

      I do believe the most egregious harassment is a form of hate. It almost never has anything to do with the cyclist causing inconvenience to the harasser. My personal feeling about hate is that it is a force of its own looking for a target. Haters are miserable for their own reasons and they are essentially cowards, so they look for socially acceptable targets. In the culture of speed, it is perceived as socially acceptable to hate bicyclists and that perception is continuously bolstered by the justification stories motorists tell themselves (all bicyclists are scofflaws…).

    • Mark, I’ve been using the Tour de Vichy France to describe the segregationists. Glad to know we’re on the same page!

  14. Small town thinking and actions “demonstrates a chain of bad decisions made and protected by each level of a corrupt system.” Got that right.

    “The bicyclists who ride on {these roads} are extremely reckless in my opinion, says elected leader Brazil, “they don’t care about the motorists they just care about themselves and its selfish.”

    Forget state laws, “we” {Brazil & Friends} define safety: http://www.fox2now.com/news/ktvi-st-charles-bike-ban-081810,0,6493731.story

    • That Brazil character can’t see the forest for the trees. Dangerous road? Disregarding the semantics many of us enjoy, the road may be considered a dangerous place for riding a bicycle, because of the motorists. The cyclists are reckless and selfish? Who is using the road that wants to travel at ungodly speeds?

      I was pleased to see that the MoDOT was going to file a lawsuit if the color-code was put into effect. Sheesh, green, yellow and red roads? How about green red and yellow motorist markings?