When ignorant cops think they know the law
 

Or is the real goal to just run cyclist for warrants?

It's You Tube.

The cop obviously didn't know the law. If he did he wouldn't have looked it up. That part could have been an honest mistake. If you were intent on running roughshod over someone's rights, why would you bother with looking it up? It sounds like the cyclist's reflector wasn't doing its job. The cop said he had a hard time seeing him.

We need mandatory cycling and cycling law education for everyone that uses our roads.

I fully support that rider's right to ride at night without a tail light. Clearly, it will sort itself out in due time.

Actual safety issue.

When you install a rear rack, take care that the rear reflector is not partially occluded by the rack, or by items carried on the rack.

https://i.imgur.com/qKIcl2k.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ccQ5wgN.jpg

-mr. bill

Just get a bloody light.

The cyclist is indeed correct in that no rear light is required, and the cop is wrong. However, for safety's sake, it's an incredibly smart idea to run rear red lights at night, along with reflectors. And with this guy's rear rack, I can see how the reflector is being obscured. He really should put a light on the rear of that bike.

I don't think his rights were being violated, it was a valid stop if the cop was having a hard time seeing the cyclist. But yes, it could have been a pretense for a warrant check, since most cops check everyone they deal with for warrants just as a matter of procedure. Source: My 15 years as a police dispatcher.

So all in all, this is much ado about nothing. Maybe the cop didn't know the law (and should look it up if he's not sure) but he apparently just wanted to warn the guy that he's not very visible to motorists and send him on his way.

I'm red/green colorblind which makes it a little difficult to discern, but do you see a red reflector anywhere on that bike?

In addition to it being a safety issue, it not being visible from behind is an actual legal issue under Illinois law as well:

It requires "a red reflector on the rear of a type approved by the Department which shall be visible from all distances from 100 feet to 600 feet to the rear when directly in front of lawful lower beams of headlamps on a motor vehicle."

"I can't see the reflector" while driving behind is a perfectly valid reason for the cop to make the stop and write a ticket. If the rider wants to be hyper-technical to justify riding around poorly equipped, he should probably know the law better than this. He just got lucky that the cop didn't read it closely enough to realize he had him on something.

I can see the reflector. what am I missing?

Bingo! Fixing stupid will forever be a work in progress. Just add a light when riding at night.

By Illinois law, it has to be red and visible from a car 100 to 600 feet behind. I see what appears to be a white one that may be obscured by the rack bag from the perspective of a driver. Am I missing something? Serious question, as I mentioned, I am mildly red/green colorblind and might not actually see something that is there.

Do you see a red reflector and where?

this thing? no?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...19e7e836ae.jpg

I can't find that in any other frame and think it might be a cop light reflected in the fender. Do you see it in any other frame? Again, I readily admit my colorblindness may be the problem.

hmmm try again I saw it a lot. including on all the frame grabs already posted above

I have both on my bikes

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...621d622634.jpg

there are also lights that include a reflector inside the light (or within the same device). I forget what brand & model that is

I've tried a bunch, and I don't think it's there. No one else posting here seems to think it's there either. "Try again" isn't very convincing. He has what appears to be a shiny fender that could easily reflect up at the angle in your screen grab.

We cannot ascertain from the video whether or not the officer was able to see it from the required 100-600 feet. We do know the officer said he couldn't. I thought the officer was pleasant and polite in his disposition, even if he was wrong about the light being required.

Frankly, if the cop stopped him to tell him he couldn't see him well riding that particular road without a light, I would have no problem with that. And if the guy really thought that he shouldn't give the cop the ID, he shouldn't have done it. There's no constitutional prohibition on the cop asking for it.

My state actually requires a rear light under those conditions, BTW. Illinois law seems rather stupid in this regard.

Things must be very slow in Illinois.

:foo:

maybe I'm wrong, but this red thing looks like a reflector to me

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...3fb1a4241d.jpg

and as he tilts his bike to ride away the red thing (reflector?) even reflects back & we see it shine

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...fc993707de.jpg

but what is that big bright shiny white thing directly above the reflector? would love to see a photo in normal daylight of the guy's bike

Seeing as I physically can't see what red is supposed to be there, I'll have to settle at maybe. Regardless, I still think the guy's a jackass.

hard to know how I would react, especially since the cops in my area are great. I'd like to think that a cop trying to be helpful would be open to a chat, but not a confrontation. I'm more of a "yes sir, no sir" type when I'm stopped by cops, even if I have a different opinion or some kind of defense for an infraction. it's usually best to end the interaction as quickly & peacefully as possible & make any real arguments with other authorities after the fact. we've seen too many police interactions go horribly wrong, real quick

I think it was nice of the officer to stop the guy to tell him he was not visible to others. If that was the reason for the stop. Here too in Ontario, Canada you are required by Law to have a VISIBLE red reflector or light plus red reflective tape on their seatstays.

Cheers

If the cop was such a nice guy, why didn't the cop tell the cyclist that he looked up the law and that the cyclist was in fact correct. That would have diffused the confrontation and then allowed the cop to make a better point of how hard it was for the cop to see the cyclist with just the reflector.

The fact that the cop did not do that, reinforces my belief that the cop simply believes cyclist at night are more often low lives and that the cop thought he might have an easy warrant arrest with the cyclist.

Note that the cop was in more of a hurry to run the ID for warrants before he looked up the light/reflector law.

Lows life. Hopes that help.

I has to admit, you’se has masters the plurals singular, and them singular plurals.

-mr. bill

Guy is biking on an apparently busy road at night in dark clothing and no rear light, which is legal but stupid. Guy starts interchange with cop by going on about his 5th Amendment rights, acting in a highly agitated state, and explains his agitation to the cop by saying he's in a hurry. Cop quickly does the warrant check, checks the law, and tells him he's not writing a ticket, tells him he's free to go. Guy then tries to debate the cop and even tried to insist that a ticket be written. Guy drags out the stop for several minutes.


Cop didn't have to assume anything about night cycling , this guy was sending all sort of dangerous low life signals. After saying he was in a hurry, he prolongs the stop to engage in a roadside debate.

Jackass.