I-Like-To-Bike

Nothing is likely to change your belief in the character of cops who have any interaction with bicyclists. Your search for specific type of YouTube videos on this topic to post on BF are only meant to reinforce your unshakeable "beliefs" on police-bicyclist relationships.

Paul Barnard

Are you certain that the cop found what he was looking for in the short time he thumbed through his phone?

He could have run the info first so that he could wait for the results while he was looking up the law. That's more respectful of the subject's time.

CB HI

Your accusations are false.

sheddle

The cyclist was acting dumb but I support his mission to disrespect police officers.

(that said, everyone knows you don't talk to cops)

Miele Man

What would people be saying if the officer had noticed the reflector was NOT visible from behind, never said anything, and then the bicyclist was struck from behind? Would people be on the officer's case because he had not stopped the bicyclist?

Cheers

CB HI

Then that would be between the cyclist and the motorist who hit him as to who was at fault.

Should the cop go around stopping pedestrians at night, claiming they are breaking the law by not having a flashing light to make them safer? Or is it just OK to do that to a cyclist?

Miele Man

I don't know of ANY jurisdictions in either Canada or the United States where a pedestrian is required by LAW to have either a red reflector or a red light (visible from a certain distance) on them. Can you show me one? Otherwise you've set up a Strawman argument.

I DO wish that more officers would stop AND ticket the bicyclists in Ontario (Canada) who persist in riding at night with neither reflectors or lights AS REQUIRED BY LAW! I've nearly hit a number of them over the years often missing them by mere inches or a foot or so as they suddenly appeared in front of my either from dropping off a sidewalk or coming out of a side street or driveway without slowing or it appears even looking for traffic. Far too many times those no lights no reflector bicyclists are wearing dark coloured clothing and riding a dark cololured bicycle and that makes them darn near invisible and a hazard to other road users.

Cheers

Daniel4

Dark clothing is cool. Just look at all the black cycling jerseys there are at bike stores.

And just try to lobby the government to have the fashion industry apply reflector strips on all their designer jackets, coats and shoes.

CB HI

How did you miss the point that a cop stopping a pedestrian for a law that does not exist is just like this cop stopping the cyclist for a rear light law that does not exist?

genec

Jackass that will become a Darwin statistic soon enough. Cop will be able to identify the body. Sheesh.

Ross520

"Illinois 725 Ill. Comp. Stat.
5/107–14
Sec. 107-14. Temporary questioning without
arrest.
(a) A peace officer, after having identified himself
as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public
place for a reasonable period of time when the
officer reasonably infers from the circumstances
that the person is committing, is about to commit
or has committed an offense as defined in Section
102-15 of this Code, and may demand the name
and address of the person and an explanation of his
actions. Such detention and temporary questioning
will be conducted in the vicinity of where the
person was stopped."


And just what is considered an" offense" under Illinois state law?


"Current through P.A. 101-0591 (2019-2020)

bakerjw

There was a feminine cleaning product on one of the firearm forums that I moderate who would go out in public and do things within the the content of laws just trying to get pulled over by cops. He knew the laws and would then file suit against the jurisdiction that his "rights" had been violated. He even threatened to kill me when I called him a attention seeking cheap call girl.

I agree that depending on how laws are written, you may not be not required to provide identification if you are not driving a vehicle. If you are going to take that angle whenever you get stopped, then you had better know the law and be able to quote it or have the pertinent state code reference at hand. As for rights being violated? Maybe with the right lawyer.

In the OP video, I saw a reflector. Was it positioned well enough to be seen from behind? There is not enough evidence IMHO to support that assertion one way or the other. I've ridden with people with blinky lights on their helmets and jerseys that are so poorly adjusted only an aircraft might ever notice. From the riders perspective, they have a light but the reality is it is ineffective.

The take aways are that if you have questionably operating equipment, you are likely to get pulled over at some point in time.
If you do, know the law and be able to cite it.

KraneXL

Totally not the issue. This is about unnecessary stops when no LAW has been broken.
And yet he was stopped, detained and questioned? Not nothing after all.

CB HI

Or if you live in a jurisdiction that the cops do not know the laws or they make up their own laws, you are likely to get pulled over at some point in time.

dedhed

It's a LE body cam video.

Lemond1985

But what are his damages? 10 minutes of his valuable time spent chatting with a couple cops. That's gotta be worth upwards of $15-20 bucks.

The cops could have frisked him, had him sit on the curb, yelled at him to keep his hands out of his pockets, sobriety tested him with bright lights in the eyes and reciting the alphabet backwards. They could have made all kinds of outrageous false accusations against him ("how long have you been involved in illicit child sex trafficking?") and expected him to exonerate himself right then and there. I saw none of that, just a routine stop. Maybe the patrol cop was under orders to check unusual-looking people in the area, maybe a crime had just occurred nearby with a suspect on a bike, maybe the cop thought he recognized the guy from a previous encounter, we will probably never know the exact reason for the stop, but it was probably NOT the light.

Other than the guy's pride being a bit bruised for being detained a few minutes, I see no harm and no foul. Cops question innocent people all the time, it's part of the job.

dedhed

"In general" without "reasonable suspicion", you are not required in the US to provide ID, just name. But... you should then be prepared to wait as long as it takes for them to verify your information.
Driving a motor vehicle is a different ball game with a license required.

See "Stop & Identify" laws

See also "Terry Stop"

Daniel4

This thread reminds me of carding. It's a big issue in Toronto especially in some neighbourhoods but not necessarily restricted to those neighbourhoods.

KraneXL

The cop said it was the light, so the light is what the discussion is based on. The rest of your suppositions sounds like the irrational logic typically used in a puerile attempt to win an argument is rubbing of on you. Using your badge to detain someone and question them about their personal information is very harmful. Policing is not about stopping people randomly to question them for reasons to arrest them. That type of policing sets a terrible precedent. Particularly after he learned the stop was for no good reason.

This is about the rear light after the cop was informed that there was no violation of the law. At that point the questioning should have ended with an apology not a sidestep in the man's personal information.Policing by intimidation? I can wait a long time.

SactoDoug

Law enforcement look for any pretext to stop a person that they see as suspicious. They don't have to be correct about the law to detain someone if they are doing so in "good faith". It is automatically assumed that they are acting with good faith unless it can be proven otherwise, such as if this officer had recently cited someone for missing a rear reflector at night then he obviously knew the law. They can detain you and then figure out what you did wrong while you are being detained as song as they saw something that they believed might have been against the law. They can even arrest and process someone into jail erroneously. In which case, the person sits in jail for a few hours until the DA sees the error and orders them released. Law enforcement perform traffic stops this for many reasons including looking for warrants, probation violations, other violations (dui, weapons, contraband, etc.), encouraging road safety, and frankly, revenue generation. The best thing to do is exercise your rights and remain silent. Let the process work its way through and if your rights were violated, you can take that up with your lawyer and sue for damages.

Most states require you to identify yourself if asked by law enforcement. That does not mean you are required to carry identification. As far as I know, there are no states that require anyone to carry identification cards. Licenses while doing the licensed act is a different matter. For identification you can state your name, date of birth and address. Check with your local laws.

IMO, in this video, I don't see anything the officer did that is illegal. As I stated at the beginning of my post, it is legal for an officer to detain someone erroneously. If the officer pulls the cyclist over again or repeatedly for the same thing, knowing that the cyclist is not breaking the law, then the cyclist will have a civil rights violation case.

Clyde1820

So do I. More or less.

Until doing so in roadways attempting to share the space with other vehicles, at which point that person's really just another vehicle and should (at least IMO) be subject to the same essential safety regulations that exist. Follow the right of way, be in the correct lane, have appropriate means of being seen, etc.


The ninny who jogged across the street in the dark, this morning, against the red light, in dark clothing, without any hint of reflection or lighting ... well, that person almost got creamed by me, all ~4000lbs of car+driver. Perfectly within his/her rights to be in the roadway without any concern for the ability to be seen.

Of course, that guy was right. He had every right to not be seen. But as the old saying goes: You can be right ... dead right.

I-Like-To-Bike

Oh Puhleeze! No snowflakes were melted in the making of the video.

The cyclist/amateur legal beagle/videomaker got just what he wanted- attention and something "Harmful!" to post on YouTube in order to stir up the the emotional response of others of his ilk.

Ross520

Regarding the first thing I bolded, no, unless you're being suspected of a misdemeanor or a felony, they have no right to detain you.

Also, most is a misnomer, 24 states are "stop and identify", making that law a minority, rather than a majority.

As for the second one, Illinois IS a "stop and identify" state. However, just like my first point, one must first be suspected of committing a crime (misdemeanor or felony). See my first post for most details.

It's worrisome that so many people are mistaken about what law enforcement may, and may not do when making contact with someone.

SactoDoug

What you are saying makes no sense. Infractions, such as speeding and not having correct lights on your bike, are the lowest level of crime and are below misdemeanor. If an officer cannot detain a person nor ask for ID for an infraction, how are they supposed to write a ticket?

Ross520

If the officer decides to write a ticket, he's accusing, not suspecting, someone of committing a violation.

I'll add that the rules are different when operating a motor vehicle. You're required to identify no matter what in that case.