Down under ID?

General Discussion about electric bicycles.
Post Reply
mat h physics   100 W

100 W
Posts: 172
Joined: Dec 07 2010 12:49pm
Location: Ral, NC

Down under ID?

Post by mat h physics » Jul 15 2015 9:55am

How close are you guys to this statute passed?
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/photo-id- ... 715-gicgkd
Specialized Hardrock, still conventional.
Schwinn Avenue, still conventional.

User avatar
MadRhino   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5971
Joined: Sep 03 2010 5:28pm
Location: Montreal QC Canada

Re: Down under ID?

Post by MadRhino » Jul 15 2015 10:56am

Soon a walking license required in AUS
Wasn't it a prison in the first place ? :D

Everybody should dress in yellow stripes for a protest day against legislation abuse. :mrgreen:
Make it fool-proof, and I will make a better fool.
Current bikes
Street: https://s20.postimg.org/ewrvugywt/Session_04_2015.jpg
Dirt: https://s20.postimg.org/lbqwr55ml/IMG_0157.jpg

markz   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7578
Joined: Jan 09 2014 11:38pm
Location: Alberta Canada

Re: Down under ID?

Post by markz » Jul 15 2015 2:28pm

I dont know about aus, but everywhere else they just run the name you give them, and you are asked a bunch of questions. If they dont add up, or the cop thinks your lying they haul you in. Here its a CPIC, different levels from 1-3, a company that is hiring will do a level one which is, do you have a criminal record. You answer Yes or No. It doesnt matter if you have 18 indictments (felonies) or 1 summary (misdermeanor). Yes you do have a "criminal record" or No you dont. Pretty generic. Level 3 is in depth only authorities use it. Like when babysitters get run and they go to the copshop to run their finger prints, or you get pulled over. Also list level of danger too. There are provincial data bases too. BC for example, there have been many innocent people who have been harrassed for simply being a witness to a crime. BC however has a public data base that the public can access. Alberta doesnt.

User avatar
wineboyrider   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2662
Joined: Sep 30 2009 9:08am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Down under ID?

Post by wineboyrider » Jul 15 2015 3:08pm

The US constitution says you have the right to remain silent, but the supreme court says you must have an id card on you..... :?
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

LewTwo   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1056
Joined: Apr 08 2014 4:46pm
Location: Houston, Texas
Contact:

Re: Down under ID?

Post by LewTwo » Jul 16 2015 3:56am

"Firstly, just what behaviour would such a law be targeting?"

Perhaps they just want to be able to identify the body after a chance encounter with a larger conveyance.
The more I learn the more obvious the immensity of my ignorance becomes.
Weight Wennie E-Bike https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewt ... 3#p1173723
Shaft Drive Grocery Getter https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewt ... =6&t=90718
...and thanks to Justin!

User avatar
remf   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 627
Joined: Apr 29 2011 7:57pm
Location: NSW Australia

Re: Down under ID?

Post by remf » Jul 16 2015 4:30am

mat h physics wrote:How close are you guys to this statute passed?
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/photo-id- ... 715-gicgkd
Unfortunately very close...in fact it is already here in practice. I was threatened with arrest at my local park for not being able to produce my drivers licence for not wearing a helmet...on my pushbike...in the park.
MadRhino wrote:Soon a walking license required in AUS
Wasn't it a prison in the first place ? :D

Everybody should dress in yellow stripes for a protest day against legislation abuse. :mrgreen:
Exactly. Another example of the nanny constabulary state that is New South Wales...except that when you lose freedoms at this rate it begins to feel like the penal colony it once was. Very sad.

User avatar
kd8cgo   100 W

100 W
Posts: 112
Joined: May 31 2009 3:06pm
Location: Northern Constitution-Free Border Zone, Homeland Security Region 5 - Corporate States of America

Re: Down under ID?

Post by kd8cgo » Jul 16 2015 4:34am

wineboyrider wrote:The US constitution says you have the right to remain silent, but the supreme court says you must have an id card on you..... :?
The SCOTUS says you must provide your full legal name if stopped by an officer (in a state with a stop and identify statute) with reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime. Reasonable suspicion must be articulable in a court of law. If asked your name, you may ask if they have reasonable suspicion, and what that is. They are not required to tell you anything, however, because they are above the law. If they do not or will not provide you with reasonable suspicion at the time of the request, you do not technically have to provide your name. In order to even attempt to mess with the gestapo in this fashion is a good way to get tased, shot, beat down and then arrested (even if you're dead) as they tend to be a vindictive irrational hate-filled bunch with a drastically undeserved sense of superiority. You would need undetectable 3rd party video.audio evidence of the interaction to prove that RS was not established, and the DA can still get the case made with many judges, besides you're now a corpse, let's not forget! The Fifth Amendment can only apply if revealing your name could itself lead to incrimination of the suspected crime directly, and I'm not sure how that scenario would come about.

You do not have to carry ID in the US except for specific circumstances, like operating a motor vehicle or returning an item to a store, or buying alcohol.

The "am I being detained" line that you often hear being loathed by feckless pundits is to determine whether or not the rules of stop and identify are applicable to your situation. If you are not in detention, and are instead involved in a casual or consensual encounter, there is no obligation to provide a name, nor remain in the presence of the officer(s) If you are detained and an officer attempts to search you, it is because they believe they can get away with it, one way or another, legal or no. Resisting is a bad idea for most people in most cases. You can and should say "I do not consent to a search" if being probed about contents or belongings, as saying nothing can and has been shown to excuse a search if the officer claims they felt they had consent. It will only help if the officer cares about the law or repercussions, which is unlikely as there usually are none of consequence.

tl;dr; "Pick up that can, citizen." Followed immediately by: "Papers, please!"

Post Reply