• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

ID required when riding a bicycle?

EL TJ said:
In other words, you're not allowed to do whatever you want on a bicycle on a public road; you have to follow the rules of the road.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why the other half of the same sentence you were responding to says, "must adhere to the same traffic laws..." I would take that to mean the same thing as "have to follow the rules of the road..." yes?
 
s-girl said:
Right, that's why the other half of the same sentence you were responding to says, "must adhere to the same traffic laws..." I would take that to mean the same thing as "have to follow the rules of the road..." yes?
Click to expand...



Bicycles must stop at stop signs, turn from the proper lane, signal turns, stop at red lights, generall not ride on the sidewalk and pretty much follow the same rules cars follow when on the street.
 
afm199 said:
Bicycles must stop at stop signs, turn from the proper lane, signal turns, stop at red lights, generall not ride on the sidewalk and pretty much follow the same rules cars follow when on the street.
Click to expand...

OK, we're beating a dead horse here, the whole point is (and what EL TJ is trying to say) is that it isn't "pretty much follow the same rules...". The LAW is that bicycles MUST obey the same traffic laws as cars and motorcycles (with the exception of those that simply do not apply)
 
a friend of mine did manage to speed on the freeway (err, may not technically be a freeway there but US101 with a speed limit of 65) once, I would love to get ticketed for 67 in a 65 on a bicycle though...
 
cardinal03 said:
There seems to be some confusion arising out of the fact that the average person may not know why an officer is stopping them, and may not believe the officer has the right to stop them.
Click to expand...

Question: They key point seems to be whether there is a consensual encounter or a detention. In the latter case, is the LEO required to so state if asked?

Cheers

Lou
 
The first could lead to the second.

If I stop someone for a consensual encounter, and they want to leave I can detain them if I have PC. If I don't they can leave.

bellisan said:
Question: They key point seems to be whether there is a consensual encounter or a detention. In the latter case, is the LEO required to so state if asked?

Cheers

Lou
Click to expand...
 
Rel said:
The first could lead to the second.

If I stop someone for a consensual encounter, and they want to leave I can detain them if I have PC. If I don't they can leave.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Rel, but it didn't answer my question. Does a LEO have to state if they are performing a detention if asked?

The other question it brings up is if asking if one is being detained constitutes PC for being detained. (Not kidding or tongue-in-cheek, just want to know.)

TIA.

Lou
 
If its a consensual contact then no. If they want to leave, and I dont want them to, I have to tell them that they are being detained.

bellisan said:
Thanks, Rel, but it didn't answer my question. Does a LEO have to state if they are performing a detention if asked?

The other question it brings up is if asking if one is being detained constitutes PC for being detained. (Not kidding or tongue-in-cheek, just want to know.)

TIA.

Lou
Click to expand...
 
JPM said:
Now you can't just be stopped and asked for ID for no reason, but if you break any law you are required to properly identify yourself.
Click to expand...

Which is when vehicle code section 40302 applies, right?

Is there a similar statute that applies when the subject is not operating a motor vehicle?

40302 is specific in regards to the operation of a motor vehicle so if you are walking down the street, there would need to be a law that obligates a citizen to provide proof of who they are. Is that correct?
 
moto-rama said:
Is there a similar statute that applies when the subject is not operating a motor vehicle?
Click to expand...

Consensual contact? No obligation. You just answer "Am I free to leave?"
Yes? --> You move on.
No? --> You are being detained. LEO should have probable cause reasonable suspicion .
If you're detained you are required to identify yourself to the satisfacton of the LEO.

^^^^

Cliff notes from mulitple threads in LEO forum [updated].
 
Last edited:
Ahh... one of the great things about BARF: it *is* school (in so many ways).
 
Razel said:
Consensual contact? No obligation. You just answer "Am I free to leave?"
Yes? --> You move on.
No? --> You are being detained. LEO should have probable cause.
Probable cause? If you're detained you are required to identify yourself to the satisfacton of the LEO.

^^^^

Cliff notes from mulitple threads in LEO forum.
Click to expand...

Technically it is the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion that is required for a detention. :nerd
 
moto-rama said:
Which is when vehicle code section 40302 applies, right?

Is there a similar statute that applies when the subject is not operating a motor vehicle?

40302 is specific in regards to the operation of a motor vehicle so if you are walking down the street, there would need to be a law that obligates a citizen to provide proof of who they are. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

827.1, 853.5 and 853.6 of the Penal Code.
 
my biggest problem with the CVC requiring bicycles to follow ALL of the rules that a car would is that currently in california we have a roadway system that doesn't allow for a bicyclist to do so:
for instance most traffic lights do not detect bicycles.
I regularly take lefts on reds arrows and run red lights (from minor roads onto major routes that only change when a car is detected) on my bicycle since its either that or go up on the sidewalk and cross as a pedestrain walking your bike or wait until a car comes along to actuate the light.
Simply put if your biking the current roadway system does not accomodate you. I don't expect to get ticketed but If I were I'll fight it for sure.
 
Last edited:
hyperducky said:
my biggest problem with the CVC requiring bicycles to follow ALL of the rules that a car would is that currently in california we have a roadway system that doesn't allow for a bicyclist to do so:
for instance most traffic lights do not detect bicycles.
I regularly take lefts on reds arrows and run red lights (from minor roads onto major routes that only change when a car is detected) on my bicycle since its either that or go up on the sidewalk and cross as a pedestrain walking your bike or wait until a car comes along to actuate the light.
Simply put if your biking the current roadway system does not accomodate you. I don't expect to get ticketed but If I were I'll fight it for sure.
Click to expand...

Interesting point, especially when you consider that our current road system in California barely accommodates motorcycles (your example of the lights not changing is perfect)...but try to take that one to court. I would imagine that you will need to do the same thing as on a moto with respect to the lights; contact your signal office, and have them adjust it - though on a bicycle a court will probably tell you to use the pedestrian access rather than run red light...I think you will have a harder time defending that.
 
Amazing.....

So, when you get knocked out cold by some drunk asshat, how do we find out who you are? How do we go about the process of family notification.

Dr. Evil said:
FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

This is America, not the Soviet Union.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top