On law enforcement, generally.

[scotticeberg]

If people want to ride 2stroke bicycles, they should be mandated to route the exhaust to a full face helmet, worn by them of course. Hell, lets make that the law for all internal combustion engines.

 

[GrayKard]

GrayKard

Got pulled over last night on the way home. The cop said "I didn't know what you were riding, a bike, a moped, or what so that's why I stopped you."

Translation he had NO JUSTIFICATION to pull you over.
Were you taking the lane or riding on the side of the road?
Do bicycles where you are require a rear light?? Where I am they only require a rear reflector.

Yeah, that's how I read it too, no real justification. I was riding on the shoulder which on this road is as wide as a lane so wasn't blocking traffic.

As to the rear light as far as I know they only require a reflector here but encourage lights when you are riding at night which I was.

Gary

 

[Joe Perez]

Translation he had NO JUSTIFICATION to pull you over.

In the US, there have been numerous court cases concerning how and when a traffic officer may stop and detain a driver, and this specific subject has been defined by the courts in great detail over the past 40 years or so.

In general, the standard for making a basic traffic stop is "reasonable suspicion" (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), meaning that the officer needn't have seen you do anything wrong, or even have "probable cause" (a much higher standard) to believe that you have committed some crime- they need only suspect it, and be able to produce a reason for doing so. This is not sufficient grounds for an arrest, but it is sufficient to pull you over and ask you a few questions.

In GrayKard's case, it would seem that this standard was met by the fact that he was riding a motorized vehicle which the officer did not recognize. The officer might have reasonably suspected that this vehicle met the definition of a motorcycle under Texas law, in which case it would have been illegal to ride it without a registration plate, lighting, etc.

So yeah, that's kind of interesting.

 

[Rodney64]

Im In Perth WA every day now I'm seeing bikes with petrol engines. The guys do not pedal and this really stands out. In the past 2 years I've been ebiking I haven't been noticed. I always pedal and most other ebikers do as well. Hope this will still be the case when I get my phasor frame kitted out and on the road.

 

[Lessss]

If an officer doesn't know what something is he should be radioing his dispatch not harassing citizens.

Just remember you may exercise you right to say nothing. and answer no questions.

 

[wineboyrider]

If an officer doesn't know what something is he should be radioing his dispatch not harassing citizens.

Just remember you may exercise you right to say nothing. and answer no questions.

In the US this is known as the 5th amendment.

 

[Joe Perez]

Just remember you may exercise you right to say nothing. and answer no questions.

Almost.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) established that officers in the US may require a suspect to disclose their name, and that this does not violate their rights under the 4th or 5th amendment per-se.

There have been numerous cases in which specific states' "stop and identify" laws (conceptually similar to what's going on in Arizona right now) have been struck down because their wording was too vague, however I'm not aware that one has ever been found unconstitutional.

Be that what it may, I think we can all agree that being obstructionist and rude is never going to endear you to a police officer, and that any sufficiently determined officer is going to find an excuse to write you up for something. The proper venue for challenging such matters is in court, not by the side of the road.