I have just come from a meeting that has left me disturbed at the arbitrary action of police. This is the second instance within a week. Let me explain.
There is "community concern" about the "non-compliance" with cyclists wearing helmets, which is required by law here (Tasmania, Australia). There are two suburban areas where these helmetless riders may be more conspicuous. The "concerns" have been expressed by the "community", which unfortunately, may comprise four or five residents active in committees, usually retired, and with the ear of community leaders.
As a result, road safety funding has been obtained for a campaign to promote helmet-wearing. OK, that's fine. But the police have been enlisted to become more proactive in enforcing the law. OK. That's fine (pleeeeeease, put aside the philosophical arguments for and against helmet-wearing -- that is not the issue).
Part of that "policing" process, it has been revealed, is confiscation of bicycles by police officers.
This has troubled me since I heard about it a week ago. Sadly, it was reinforced tonight -- in a separate forum -- by a police inspector attending a municipal council bike committee meeting.
When I challenged her as to which law provided police with the power to do this, she said the Australian Road Rules provided police with the power to confiscate an instrument used in the commissioning of an offence.
I expressed a philosophical problem with property confiscation without conviction (even drug dealers get that privilege).
I was left high and dry at the meeting as everyone nodded approval around the table to the police action. I even asked whether police confiscated motor vehicles when drivers broke the law. The inspector's reply was "yes" but only under the "hoon" legislation introduced recently to cut down on illegal drag racing.
Well, Madam Inspector, I knew there was something fishy about this, and having on-line laws really helps. My original reading of the law, that the police were stepping way beyond their powers, seems to have been confirmed.
For a start, the list of ARR penalties provide for an $80 fine for not wearing a helmet (again, I couldn't give a stuff about your idea of whether helmets are good or not -- here it's the law -- so don't comment on that side of it). There is *no* suggestion in the penalties about confiscation of a bicycle.
There *is* provision for confiscation under two quite defined circumstances. The first is the aforementioned "hoon" provisions, which cunningly are under the Police Offences Act, but relate to dispersal of crowds, and producing undue noise and smoke.
The second relates to "wheeled recreation devices".
Unfortunately for the police, I think they have taken bicycles to be wheeled recreation devices. BUT and this is a big BUT, under the controlling Australian Road Rules, a wheeled recreation is clearly defined and DOES NOT include bicycles (although oddly does include a unicycle). Wheeled recreation devices do include in-line skates and skateboards, and their users are classified as pedestrians, not vehicles.
Now, all this might seem a bit passe to the average cyclist. But my job requires promotion of legal bike riding. The issue, to me, is what appears to me to be illegal police behaviour which is then presented publicly as a legitimate solution.
Ironically, I had to point out that lack of lighting on bikes was a much more serious problems coming into winter. Oh well... we'll see about that one.
CommuterRun
05-10-05, 04:34 AM
I don't really know how the Australian Government is specifically set up, but it sounds to me like a well crafted letter to the governing body of Tasmania is in order. In addition to the legal research. I also don't know your occupation, but if a couple of cycling attourneys got involved it certainly wouldn't hurt. :)
It also sounds to me like some self-centered cagers (the "community concern") are trying to get cyclists out of their way and using the local PD as their stooge. :mad:
If things were equitable the police would be able to confiscate cars for any minor infraction.
lilHinault
05-10-05, 02:41 PM
Look for the hidden hand of your friendly local car sellers and gas co's.
mmerner
05-10-05, 03:10 PM
what happens to the bicycles after they are confiscated? Do they sell them or are you free to pick them up after paying the fine and getting a helmet?
Trek Al
05-10-05, 03:21 PM
The same thing is going on here in the USA with drug dealers or people the police suspect of being drug dealers. People stopped with large amounts of cash in their vehicle has it confiscated by the police. They have to sue and prove it was legally obtained to get it back. Lots of times the person will pay the police a percentage of the cash to get it back and avoid the hassle. A law with a good aim has been twisted and allow the authorities to run over the citizens.
Al
Chris L
05-10-05, 03:35 PM
There is "community concern" about the "non-compliance" with cyclists wearing helmets, which is required by law here (Tasmania, Australia). There are two suburban areas where these helmetless riders may be more conspicuous. The "concerns" have been expressed by the "community", which unfortunately, may comprise four or five residents active in committees, usually retired, and with the ear of community leaders.
Translation: People with nothing better to do.
This has troubled me since I heard about it a week ago. Sadly, it was reinforced tonight -- in a separate forum -- by a police inspector attending a municipal council bike committee meeting.
<snip>
I was left high and dry at the meeting as everyone nodded approval around the table to the police action.
This is supposed to be a bike committee?
There *is* provision for confiscation under two quite defined circumstances. The first is the aforementioned "hoon" provisions, which cunningly are under the Police Offences Act, but relate to dispersal of crowds, and producing undue noise and smoke.
The second relates to "wheeled recreation devices".
Unfortunately for the police, I think they have taken bicycles to be wheeled recreation devices. BUT and this is a big BUT, under the controlling Australian Road Rules, a wheeled recreation is clearly defined and DOES NOT include bicycles (although oddly does include a unicycle). Wheeled recreation devices do include in-line skates and skateboards, and their users are classified as pedestrians, not vehicles.
Sounds like it might be time for letters to one or two government officials at least seeking clarification on this (not the least the chief commissioner of police for the state). It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the police inspector you spoke to is ignorant on the wording the law herself. If that's the case, it seems that she (as well as one or two others) might need some reminding on the wording of the law. It's worth remembering that police inspectors are usually taking their orders from someone higher up the command chain
Now, all this might seem a bit passe to the average cyclist. But my job requires promotion of legal bike riding. The issue, to me, is what appears to me to be illegal police behaviour which is then presented publicly as a legitimate solution.
In that sense, your job hasn't really changed. The law regarding the wearing of helmets is still exactly as it was, and the behaviour of the police only becomes important if people are not doing this. The issue that really needs clarification at this point is the way the police apply that particular law, but the instructions people need to follow to stay within the law are unchanged as I see it.
Ironically, I had to point out that lack of lighting on bikes was a much more serious problems coming into winter. Oh well... we'll see about that one.
I can't really comment much on this without starting another helmet war, so I'll just say that this last sentence doesn't surprise me.
Rowan
05-10-05, 05:09 PM
what happens to the bicycles after they are confiscated? Do they sell them or are you free to pick them up after paying the fine and getting a helmet?
Under the law being used for this, the bike is retained for seven days, then can be picked up. If the bike is not claimed within 30 days, it is sold off at auction. Supposedly, the bike is only returned if a helmet is presented when picking it up. This is all so out of order it seems unreal.
My big beef is that the police are in fact acting against the interests of the community, because the victims of confiscation will lose all respect for the law when the guardians of the law cannot act within the law.
oknups
05-10-05, 06:34 PM
Gee I thought the good ole us of a was the only nation on a path of intolerance, headed towards a police state...
Chris L
05-10-05, 09:05 PM
Gee I thought the good ole us of a was the only nation on a path of intolerance, headed towards a police state...
They still are. Rowan and I just happen to reside in state # 51.
Dchiefransom
05-10-05, 09:22 PM
[QUOTE=Rowan]which unfortunately, may comprise four or five residents active in committees, usually retired, and with the ear of community leaders.
This would be a great time to fire back about older drivers needing to be tested annually, both written and driving on the road, with mandatory medical certification provided by a doctor as to fitness to drive. I'm wondering how the retirees would respond to that.
Rowan
05-10-05, 11:45 PM
They still are. Rowan and I just happen to reside in state # 51.
:roflmao:
Dutchy
05-11-05, 12:04 AM
Rowan, I believe you are correct. The Police can not confiscate a bike just because the rider is not wearing a helmet. They can only issue a fine. Your argument seems very solid to me. I would assume the officer does not know her laws. Good luck.
CHEERS.
Mark
lilHinault
05-11-05, 01:07 AM
I bet they can make a rider walk ...... I had a cop make me walk my bike because I didn't have a light on it. He told me to walk until I'm well out of his sight and get on home.
bluebottle1
05-11-05, 08:13 AM
To give you a lawyer's take--albeit not an Australian lawyer--it sounds to me like the police are hopelessly stretching the meaning of the law and, in particular, the definition of whether an instrument is "used in the commission of an offense." The most obvious analogy to this seizing of bikes is that the police should be able to confiscate a car if the driver isn't wearing a seatbelt. That's obviously an absurd result, just as seizure of bikes is absurd in this instance.
Kestrelman
05-11-05, 08:19 AM
When I lived in Amsterdam, there was a lot of concern over people riding at night without lights. The Dutch police solved the problem in a very clever way: They set up "roadblocks" at key areas manned by police and a mechanic from a LBS. People stopped with no lights had a choice pay a fine (about 30.00) or pay the mechanic to install a light on their bike (about 20.00). Problem solved. Maybe in your case the cop could just keep a bunch of helmets in the trunk and offer to sell you one.
DieselDan
05-11-05, 07:50 PM
When I lived in Amsterdam, there was a lot of concern over people riding at night without lights. The Dutch police solved the problem in a very clever way: They set up "roadblocks" at key areas manned by police and a mechanic from a LBS. People stopped with no lights had a choice pay a fine (about 30.00) or pay the mechanic to install a light on their bike (about 20.00). Problem solved. Maybe in your case the cop could just keep a bunch of helmets in the trunk and offer to sell you one.
Flordia used that approach with child seat laws in the '80s.
lamajo25
05-12-05, 07:31 AM
Rowan I'll give a bit of insite on my side. Most road regulations, rules, laws, whatever you want to call them, allow for the seizure and or confiscation of vehicles when an offense has been committed. Now, I'll explain what happens to that vehicle or in this case bicycle. It is placed into impound until the case is adjudicated then it is determined during sentencing as to whether the vehicle or bicycle is returned to the owner. Here in Arizona we can seize vehicles for Aggravated D.U.I. and Drug crimes depending on whether it has a lien or not.
Now you need to dig a bit more. Get with the commission or council or committee and see if they can set down some rules as to whether they seize the bike right away or after warning, ticket, second ticket/seizure. I could probably bet that they have rules of seizure and it includes those three things or something similar. I couldn't see them just jumping straight to seizure. I also look at it this way. If you can't obey the law why are you allowed. Not you personally, but the others that are having the problem with seizures of their property.
Good luck.
CB HI
05-12-05, 06:02 PM
Rowan I couldn't see them just jumping straight to seizure.
Why not, the head of the Honolulu Police Department Bicycle Patrol went stright to seizure for bicyclist without the required county license. He could not explain in resonable terms why the same policy did not apply to mopeds, motorcycles, cars or trucks.
Dchiefransom
05-12-05, 06:08 PM
Rowan I'll give a bit of insite on my side. Most road regulations, rules, laws, whatever you want to call them, allow for the seizure and or confiscation of vehicles when an offense has been committed. Now, I'll explain what happens to that vehicle or in this case bicycle. It is placed into impound until the case is adjudicated then it is determined during sentencing as to whether the vehicle or bicycle is returned to the owner. Here in Arizona we can seize vehicles for Aggravated D.U.I. and Drug crimes depending on whether it has a lien or not.
Now you need to dig a bit more. Get with the commission or council or committee and see if they can set down some rules as to whether they seize the bike right away or after warning, ticket, second ticket/seizure. I could probably bet that they have rules of seizure and it includes those three things or something similar. I couldn't see them just jumping straight to seizure. I also look at it this way. If you can't obey the law why are you allowed. Not you personally, but the others that are having the problem with seizures of their property.
Good luck.
The problem people are having is that the police don't seize cars for the exact same offenses. That's discrimination.
aiguy
05-13-05, 11:59 AM
Gee I thought the good ole us of a was the only nation on a path of intolerance, headed towards a police state...
Wow - a police state! Have the local police forces been nationalized? Brownshirts out marching?
If not, what specifically should we be on the alert for?
2mtr
05-14-05, 12:44 AM
i'm just glad you're keeping an eye out. no government is perfect — in fact, they're all broken beyond belief. And it's our job to keep them in check, even if they bitcn and moan and threaten, just like this.
I agree that they seem to be over-steping their authority... by the way you described the laws.
Thank you for doing your part.
brokenrobot
05-14-05, 12:53 PM
Wow - a police state! Have the local police forces been nationalized?
In New York, yes: the local police force is violating civil rights regularly at the will of the ruling national political party.
Dchiefransom
05-14-05, 06:33 PM
Have they issued the NYPD new toilet plungers yet?
oknups
05-14-05, 07:03 PM
Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen. Henry David Thoreau from "Civil Disobedience"
Just thought I'd throw this one out there.
Certainly have not seen that sort of behavior lately.
lilHinault
05-15-05, 12:11 AM
CB-HI it was in Waikiki I was told to walk the bike until I was out of the cop's sight, haole cop too hehe. At least I was able to get home without the cost of a ticket which I could ill afford, and I went and got a light the next day.
It amazes me that Hawaii is not a bike-centric state, since it would make so much sense there. Instead, they're more infatuated with cars than most places I have experience with on the Mainland.
brokenrobot
05-15-05, 08:24 AM
Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen. Henry David Thoreau from "Civil Disobedience"
Just thought I'd throw this one out there.
Certainly have not seen that sort of behavior lately.
It's worth noting that what we've got in the States is NOT a democracy - it's a democratic republic. IMO, if we could ditch all the districting and electoral-college bull**** in favor of a more direct democratic process, people's votes would count for a lot more and participation would go right up.