Advocacy & Safety - Enough! Don't play ID games with cops.

The following is a comment that pops up from time to time, I left it blank because I want to pick on the idea, not the person who made it:


I didn't read the whole thread - but i have to ask - did he try to ticket your DRIVERS liscense?? He shouldn't have been able to because you were not operating a motor vehicle. You do not need a drivers license to ride a bike and if I were you and the trooper wanted to issue me a citation, I would not have provided anything to him but my first and last name NOTHING else. If he was a real bad adititude case then I wouldn't have even provided him with that information.

No matter what you think of how cyclists should ride on the road, it's just plain stupid to play ID games with cops when pulled over, even when you are right and the cop is wrong. Basically, if the cop has reason to think you've violated the law, the cop has has the right to identify you. If you play ID games, you can end up in a holding cell while the cop tries to figure out who you are. If you lie, you can turn a minor traffic infraction into a serious crime (ask Martha Stewart).

The only exception is true civil disobedience. Even then, you should expect to pay the price for your silence--time in jail until they figure out who you are.

if you don't have a drivers license and you are pulled over what do they do

if you don't have a drivers license and you are pulled over what do they do
That's one reason it's a good idea to carry some sort of ID that you think a cop would respect. If I didn't have a license, I'd carry a work or school ID. If I got pulled over with no ID, I'd just do the best I could to convince the cop I really didn't have an ID and that I am who I am. I'd be especially polite and respectful, saying "Yes, officer," "No, Officer," "Thank you, officer" a lot. But having an ID is better.

Also, I don't know about other states, but the BMV in Ohio issues state IDs, that have the same function as a driver's license for identification purposes, but don't give any privileges.

This has nothing to do with A&S.

This has nothing to do with A&S.

I have frequently seen the ID game come up in A&S threads. Some people seem to believe that playing ID games with cops is a form of advocacy.

if you don't have a drivers license and you are pulled over what do they do

The law usually allows an officer to take you into custody for the offense if your identity cannot be established. This might require that you be photographed, fingerprinted and have to post a bond for your appearance in court. Local laws may vary so it is best to check.

Gee, then why not carry ID when you're out walking, or at home in the bath too. If not required to by law, then please yourself is my opinion.
The only good reason for carrying ID is so they can identify your mangled body a little easier. Even then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if their day was slightly more complicated by my lack of ID.

Yes, but you need to be a resident of a state. Some of us are citizens who maintain no residency in the the US. No way am I taking my US passport on a bike ride.


Also, I don't know about other states, but the BMV in Ohio issues state IDs, that have the same function as a driver's license for identification purposes, but don't give any privileges.

I've always wondered this.

I have a military ID. Suppose I was pulled over on my bike and presented my military ID. Cop says "Do you have a drivers license." I say "I don't have it with me."

What would or could the cop do? Would they be able to ticket my drivers license?

Out here, if you don't have a driver's license, you get fined and points go on your record for two years and when/if you get a license, the points are there.

I've always wondered this.

I have a military ID. Suppose I was pulled over on my bike and presented my military ID. Cop says "Do you have a drivers license." I say "I don't have it with me."

What would or could the cop do? Would they be able to ticket my drivers license?


It would only take a very short time for a computer check to reveal whether you have a drivers license or not. Whether the violation applies to your license or not depends upon how the state law is written.

The only good reason for carrying ID is so they can identify your mangled body a little easier. Even then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if their day was slightly more complicated by my lack of ID.
This is reason enough for me -- I carry ID and insurance info whenever I ride. If you wipe out at high speed, get hit by a car, or whatever, having this info easy to find could prevent delays in your treatment or notification of key people.

You do not need to have your ID to get a ticket. I cannot think of any downside to being able to positively identify yourself except if you get ambushed, the attackers would know where you live and they might clean your place out. and try to steal your identity. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I also carry a modest amount of cash and a credit card. You could be asked to show ID if you need to use the CC if you needed to make an emergency purchase on the road.

In many places a traffic stop of a car or bike is the equivalent of other "Terry" type stops. In those stops police can force you to identify yourself. You can be arrested for failing to comply with these stops.

In many places a traffic stop of a car or bike is the equivalent of other "Terry" type stops. In those stops police can force you to identify yourself. You can be arrested for failing to comply with these stops.

Identifying yourself (name,birth,address) and producing a license to drive a motor vehicle are two very different things. I'm speaking more generally than being stopped for a bicycle traffic offense, because popular opinion seems to be that citizens must yield unconditionally to the nonsensical and abusive requests of the authority. My god, we used to decry the soviets for this behavior and denounce it based on the principles of the American Republic. How things have changed. Thomas Jefferson was right, our country has been headed straight to the ****ter once we signed off on the constitution. But I think he used the word "downhill."

Papers please!!

Basically, if the cop has reason to think you've violated the law, the cop has has the right to identify you. If you play ID games, you can end up in a holding cell while the cop tries to figure out who you are.

And said cop is to presume that you are lying when you share your personal information without giving him an ID? Is that really the road you want to follow?

I've always wondered this.

I have a military ID. Suppose I was pulled over on my bike and presented my military ID. Cop says "Do you have a drivers license." I say "I don't have it with me."

What would or could the cop do? Would they be able to ticket my drivers license?

Your motor vehicle driver's license is used to identify you as someone with the priviledge of driving a motor vehicle. Your military (or other state issue ID, or passport for foreigners) is plenty to identify yourself for any other purpose, such as in a traffic stop while riding your bicycle or to buy alcohol or cigarettes. You don't need a driver's license to ride a bike so you shouldn't ever HAVE to produce one. You might need to ID yourself though and if all you have is a driver's license, that's what you'll end up using (which is what I had to do).

The only exception is true civil disobedience. Even then, you should expect to pay the price for your silence--time in jail until they figure out who you are.

Not only that, but expect to get pepper sprayed and tasered. I was somewhat suprised how many times the cops pepper sprayed or threathen to spray on uncooperative people on the "cop" show, even people already handcuffed who refuse to get finger printed or whatever.

Makes me wonder if we can use pepper spray and taser legally when we interrogate terrorist suspects.

Gee, then why not carry ID when you're out walking, or at home in the bath too. If not required to by law, then please yourself is my opinion.
The only good reason for carrying ID is so they can identify your mangled body a little easier. Even then I'm pretty sure I wouldn't care if their day was slightly more complicated by my lack of ID.

This very issue has been challenged in court also. The problem is YOUR day becomes more complicated until you can prove who you are. Carry ID, be it state issued, or a passport, otherwise you may be detained until you can prove who you are.

The following is a comment that pops up from time to time, I left it blank because I want to pick on the idea, not the person who made it:



No matter what you think of how cyclists should ride on the road, it's just plain stupid to play ID games with cops when pulled over, even when you are right and the cop is wrong. Basically, if the cop has reason to think you've violated the law, the cop has has the right to identify you. If you play ID games, you can end up in a holding cell while the cop tries to figure out who you are. If you lie, you can turn a minor traffic infraction into a serious crime (ask Martha Stewart).

The only exception is true civil disobedience. Even then, you should expect to pay the price for your silence--time in jail until they figure out who you are.

I'n NOT advocating giving false information, just not giving them my drivers license for an issue regarding a bicycle. Since one does not need a drivers license to ride a bicycle - then the police have no business trying to issue me a ticket on my drivers license. I can always show them my Colonels ID card.

I'm not one of those whackos who like to block an entire lane with my bike either. I keep to the side of the road and try not to get too mixed up with the cars. I've never had a run-in with a motorist while on my bike. nor vice-versa. Car vs car that's another matter entirely.

I'm not one of those whackos who like to block an entire lane with my bike either. I keep to the side of the road and try not to get too mixed up with the cars.

Yeah, you tell those whackos! :D

Interesting, here's a story that was running on slashdot (usually a tech site) today:

http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/

I think these laws may vary highly by state, but my understanding is that the cops can NOT require you to provide any sort of documentation (something about the whole Nazi Germany thing sort of puts people off to that). He CAN require you to identify yourself.

As a practical matter, I put my license in my under-the-seat pouch so they can identify my body should the need arise.

Oh, and OT but @cadillacguy - those of us who take the lane aren't 'whackos' when the lane is 9 feet wide. Do the math.

if you don't have a drivers license and you are pulled over what do they do

The same as if you're driving a car, walking down the street, or doing anything else. They'll ask you for your name, date of birth, maybe your address, then look up the info in their computer or contact dispatch. With the above information, they can get your DMV info, see your drivers license # and status, any vehicles registered in your name, driving history, arrest record, etc. As long as you're polite and they think you're being honest with them there shouldn't be a problem.

Whether or not you show them a drivers license, if they want your drivers license # they'll get it.

Identifying yourself (name,birth,address) and producing a license to drive a motor vehicle are two very different things. I'm speaking more generally than being stopped for a bicycle traffic offense, because popular opinion seems to be that citizens must yield unconditionally to the nonsensical and abusive requests of the authority. My god, we used to decry the soviets for this behavior and denounce it based on the principles of the American Republic. How things have changed. Thomas Jefferson was right, our country has been headed straight to the ****ter once we signed off on the constitution. But I think he used the word "downhill."

Papers please!!

I make no statement on whether that is good or bad, merely state the fact that once you enter the realm of a "Terry" stop (and often traffic stops qualify), the police have much more authority over you than in a lower rank "consensual" stop.

But it is true that a Terry stop or a traffic stop needs at least some minimal basis of suspicion to be executed. A mere hunch is not enough, as the courts have said in the past.


As a general matter:
What may be causing confusion is the difference between a "consensual stop" and a "Terry stop". The Terry stop requires a floor level of reasonable suspicion that "criminal activity may be afoot". The consensual stop is where the cop may say "hey can I ask you a question" or "can I talk to you?". The courts have said in the past that this sort of thing is akin to one citizen asking another to talk. If the person complies it's deemed "consensual". There doesn't have to be a suspicion of anything for that to happen. Whether or not people really do feel free to leave in these "consensual" stop situations is often a very vague matter.

Again- I'm not saying anything either way in terms of whether this is good policy or bad, just that this is sort of what goes on.

From the original post: "it's just plain stupid to play ID games with cops when pulled over, even when you are right and the cop is wrong. Basically, if the cop has reason to think you've violated the law, the cop has has the right to identify you."

I don't think the original post was talking about consensual conversations with police officers. Once the officer has ordered a person operating a vehicle to pull to the side of the roadway (either by using flashing lights or a verbal command), and a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave the area, that is enough to establish a detention.

I hope everyone discussing this has read the previously linked story (http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/) that took place this holiday weekend.

Michael is fighting it and I think should no doubt win his case. I believe we need people like him to stand up to abuse of authority.

If you're not doing anything you need a permit for you do not need to provide documentation. Yes, it may inconvenience you. It will also help us keep our freedoms for a little longer. Until we need a permit to breathe artificial air they charge us for because we let them nuke our atmosphere to prolong our lavish lifestyles is what I'm thinking (tongue-in-cheek).

I'll be reading the updates and am interested to hear Circuit City's response. I get annoyed at people wanting to check my receipts after they just saw me getting checked out and paying. I've ignored a few of them, they get frustrated but let it go, never had one follow me out.

I hate shopping at big-box stores, and I grew up with them, didn't know any ma and pa stores. I love Internet shopping, the couriers address me by name with a smile.

Texas law says that you must give a LEO your name, age and current place of residence. You can be detained until that information is confirmed, but no one is required to provide any ID if stopped while not operating a motor vehicle.

Obviously, voluntarily presenting ID would prevent verification delays.

If I had a drivers license, I would be concerned that any traffic stop on my bicycle would be applied to my motor vehicle record. While I had a CDL (commercial driver's license- I was an over-the-road truck driver for a decade), even violations on jet skis were applied to your driving record. If a cycling ticket were applied to your license, it would increase the penalty substantially.

With that in mind, I would avoid taking a drivers license with me on a ride. I would find some other form of ID, and be careful that my drivers license info was not attached to any ticket issued.

I hope everyone discussing this has read the previously linked story (http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/) that took place this holiday weekend.

Michael is fighting it and I think should no doubt win his case. I believe we need people like him to stand up to abuse of authority.

If you're not doing anything you need a permit for you do not need to provide documentation. Yes, it may inconvenience you. It will also help us keep our freedoms for a little longer. Until we need a permit to breathe artificial air they charge us for because we let them nuke our atmosphere to prolong our lavish lifestyles is what I'm thinking (tongue-in-cheek).

I'll be reading the updates and am interested to hear Circuit City's response. I get annoyed at people wanting to check my receipts after they just saw me getting checked out and paying. I've ignored a few of them, they get frustrated but let it go, never had one follow me out.

I hate shopping at big-box stores, and I grew up with them, didn't know any ma and pa stores. I love Internet shopping, the couriers address me by name with a smile.

Hahahahahaha. Wait a minute. Now why didn't he show his receipt to the nice store clerk?

To quote the poor victim, Michael:

"As I began to walk towards the doors Santura said, “Sir, I need to examine your receipt.” I responded by continuing to walk past him while saying, “No thank you.”"

Best I can determine is that he chose not to show his receipt because he's an idiot.

This is what I don't get about this kind of attitude. What's the problem? There was 2 seperate transactions, something which is somewhat unusual for just two items purchased. Why be offended at showing a receipt? You get pulled for a violation on your bike, and you think you are going to scape the consequences if you aren't carrying identification? While I think it's silly that a violation on a bike equates to a violation against your driver's license, you aren't going to avoid that by not carrying your license. In fact you are less likely to ride away with a warning. I don't understand this ignorant arrogance of "I don't need ID to ride a bike, so I'm not gonna carry it."

"Best I can determine is that he chose not to show his receipt because he's an idiot. "

He has no legal obligation to show a receipt, just like he has no obligation to submit to a strip-search if that's what they are doing to customers on their way out.

He was probably offended that he was being treated as guilty (of shoplifting) and asked to prove his innocence. I applaud him for standing up and asserting his rights.

I sometimes don't carry ID when I'm less than a mile from my house, e.g. riding to the pool or to visit a neighbor.

I can't imagine the police asking me for proof of ID in such a situation, but if they did, what are the odds I could talk them into following me to my house to retrieve it?

I think I will probably make some laminated copies of my health insurance card. If one of those winds up at the bottom of the pool or goes through the washer and dryer, I won't be concerned about it.

With that in mind, I would avoid taking a drivers license with me on a ride. I would find some other form of ID, and be careful that my drivers license info was not attached to any ticket issued.

I know that when you get a ticket say for a barking dog in Texas if you refuse to provide ID they'll get your info from the water department if they have to and ticket the property owner, since they are responsible for what goes on at their place regardless of if it was their dog.
If you provide your name/address as you must they will have access to your DL# and can add it to the ticket. I might ask on the way home tonight if I see one of my local police officers. I have to ask them a few questions anyhow about their current opening :)

Where does this conception that a ticket goes to your driver's license come from? It goes against you. It's personal. Your license is simply the means of identification. Thinking that if you don't have it, the ticket or infraction will somehow not be connected to your driver's license, if the local law in fact connects it that way (not all states do) is just silly.

Let's take a simple, common example. You run a red light on your bike. You get a ticket. It goes against your driving record. Why? Because YOU ran a red light. Not your driver's license, it just sat there (or not) in your pack or your pocket or whatever, totally in the dark and oblivious to the adventure you were taking it on. It did nothing. You however demonstrated that you were willing to make the decision to run the red light. Therefore, if your state laws allow cycling infractions to be connected to your driving record, it's going to take the hit whether you had your license with you or not. Your license number is not the only means of identifying you that they have.

If you happen to get pulled over while driving without it, they may ticket you for not having it, but if you can establish your name and address with the officer, he can cross reference that information and establish that you have a valid license. Then, if you don't behave like these ****** bags, you walk into court (or call the station and arrange to meet the officer well before the court date) and produce the license for him, and that charge gets dropped. I've had it happen for me that way twice, in different states. Attitude can save or cost you a lot of time and aggravation, whether you make a deposit or a withdrawal is up to you.

I hope everyone discussing this has read the previously linked story (http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/) that took place this holiday weekend.

Michael is fighting it and I think should no doubt win his case. I believe we need people like him to stand up to abuse of authority.

If you're not doing anything you need a permit for you do not need to provide documentation. Yes, it may inconvenience you. It will also help us keep our freedoms for a little longer. Until we need a permit to breathe artificial air they charge us for because we let them nuke our atmosphere to prolong our lavish lifestyles is what I'm thinking (tongue-in-cheek).

I'll be reading the updates and am interested to hear Circuit City's response. I get annoyed at people wanting to check my receipts after they just saw me getting checked out and paying. I've ignored a few of them, they get frustrated but let it go, never had one follow me out.

I hate shopping at big-box stores, and I grew up with them, didn't know any ma and pa stores. I love Internet shopping, the couriers address me by name with a smile.

What does Michael think of the surviellance cameras in use at almost any store you go in to these days? Does Michael realize that he's on private property when he's inside a store?

I hope everyone discussing this has read the previously linked story (http://newsite.michaelrighi.com/2007/09/01/arrested-at-circuit-city/) that took place this holiday weekend.

Michael is fighting it and I think should no doubt win his case. I believe we need people like him to stand up to abuse of authority.

If you're not doing anything you need a permit for you do not need to provide documentation. Yes, it may inconvenience you. It will also help us keep our freedoms for a little longer. Until we need a permit to breathe artificial air they charge us for because we let them nuke our atmosphere to prolong our lavish lifestyles is what I'm thinking (tongue-in-cheek).

I'll be reading the updates and am interested to hear Circuit City's response. I get annoyed at people wanting to check my receipts after they just saw me getting checked out and paying. I've ignored a few of them, they get frustrated but let it go, never had one follow me out.

I hate shopping at big-box stores, and I grew up with them, didn't know any ma and pa stores. I love Internet shopping, the couriers address me by name with a smile.

Id like to slap Michael for putting kids through that crap just to try and prove some point. While true you you do not have to provide id the cops also have the legal right to arrest you for suspicion. So all Michael really proved is hes a glory hound. If he had not had children there that would be upset by this then fine but if there are kids involved you don't act like a idiot.

Don't know whats wrong with people today. The needs of our kids and our friends kids etc should always come first. What ever happened to parents working multiple jobs to provide for their kids? My dad worked 2 jobs and did auto body work on the side to make sure we had what we needed. Now we got parents on welfare who have no reason why they can not work.


Sorry for the rant but this kind of crap really irritates me. ?I don't care if a kid is related to me or not i ever see some one abusing a kid ill put the scum in the hospital and i do not give a damn what happens to me because of it.

"Best I can determine is that he chose not to show his receipt because he's an idiot. "

He has no legal obligation to show a receipt, just like he has no obligation to submit to a strip-search if that's what they are doing to customers on their way out.

You have the right to do all kinds of things, but if you needlessly and intentionally make life difficult for others, expect people to reciprocate. Has this guy never been to a big box electronics store? Checking receipts is common practice.

Having said all that, we should envy him. It only makes sense to fight such petty injustices when you don't have much bigger fish to fry (unless you are an idiot :D)

I suspect the dude has no life but he does have a chip on his shoulder. On that particular day, I'm guessing he was bored silly and needed to make a big deal out of some tiny interaction.

Even The Dude carries a Ralph's card.

...You could be asked to show ID if you need to use the CC if you needed to make an emergency purchase on the road.

According to the merchant agreement, merchants cannot ask for additional ID if your card is signed and your signiture on the receipt matches the one on the card.

From the original post: "it's just plain stupid to play ID games with cops when pulled over, even when you are right and the cop is wrong. Basically, if the cop has reason to think you've violated the law, the cop has has the right to identify you."

I don't think the original post was talking about consensual conversations with police officers. Once the officer has ordered a person operating a vehicle to pull to the side of the roadway (either by using flashing lights or a verbal command), and a reasonable person wouldn't feel free to leave the area, that is enough to establish a detention.

Right- I assume since the original post was in the vein of "pulled over" that we're talking a Terry stop. All a cop needs is the basic reasonable suspicion that you've violated some law. Once you've got that much you can be asked to produce an ID.

The "free to leave" test is basically when you're trying to figure out if which you have: consent or Terry. But I think we're in Terry world with a "pulled over" scenario for sure.

So I agree with the post's title in the context of a Terry stop: if you're asked to identify in a Terry stop, the law of most jurisdictions says you have to.

According to the merchant agreement, merchants cannot ask for additional ID if your card is signed and your signiture on the receipt matches the one on the card.

And they rarely even make sure it matches (http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/). :D

EDIT: Part two (http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit_card/) is hilarious! :roflmao:

According to the merchant agreement, merchants cannot ask for additional ID if your card is signed and your signiture on the receipt matches the one on the card.
I have heard this, but I get asked for ID all the time. What constitutes "matching" is certainly a gray area (especially since it's hard to sign with your normal signature on a strip that's just a few mm high).

Frankly, I prefer that they ask. Security on cards is stupid loose already. This is one of the reasons why fraud is such a big problem.

I have heard this, but I get asked for ID all the time. What constitutes "matching" is certainly a gray area (especially since it's hard to sign with your normal signature on a strip that's just a few mm high).

Frankly, I prefer that they ask. Security on cards is stupid loose already. This is one of the reasons why fraud is such a big problem.


One problem is you have people asking for ID before they even check your signiture, or instead.

I imagine that it wouldn't be hard for John Smith Jr. to use John Smith Sr.'s CC illegally.

I am astounded by this thread.

There are so many people who believe so strongly in cyclists' rights who are saying that Michael (from the article) should just roll over and accept the fact that he has to prove himself innocent of shoplifting!


You have the right to do all kinds of things, but if you needlessly and intentionally make life difficult for others, expect people to reciprocate. Has this guy never been to a big box electronics store? Checking receipts is common practice.

I mean no offense when I say this, but this sounds like something a motorist might say about a cyclist taking the lane. "You maybe have the right to take the lane, but you're needlessly and intentionally making life difficult for me, the motorist. You should expect me to reciprocate. Have you never driven on the roads? Can't you see that you're slowing me down? It's a common practice for bicycles to stay on the sidewalk!"

If we don't assert our rights, we lose them. Again, I applaud the guy in the article.

Security on cards is stupid loose already.
Stupid loose you say??
I made a $68 purchase at a location I have never been to and they didn't even require a signature yesterday. It has gotten common for <$25 charges to not require signatures in my area. Now there was somewhere that required a thumbprint for a >$1000 sale. That was probably against the cardmember agreement too perhaps I should have refused?

I walked out of a store without a bag with about 20 items in my cart and security didn't say a word to me. Must be my nice bicycle helmet and mirror on my glasses :D I personally see no reason why a person who just bought items in a store would object to providing a receipt for said items. It isn't exactly a stip search or some huge takeover bid from the electronics society to take peoples rights away. They are just trying to keep costs low and stop thieves.

I am astounded by this thread.

There are so many people who believe so strongly in cyclists' rights who are saying that Michael (from the article) should just roll over and accept the fact that he has to prove himself innocent of shoplifting!



I mean no offense when I say this, but this sounds like something a motorist might say about a cyclist taking the lane. "You maybe have the right to take the lane, but you're needlessly and intentionally making life difficult for me, the motorist. You should expect me to reciprocate. Have you never driven on the roads? Can't you see that you're slowing me down? It's a common practice for bicycles to stay on the sidewalk!"

If we don't assert our rights, we lose them. Again, I applaud the guy in the article.

I would to if he had not had children present so small? Take your id out and show it. When you refuse to do so you make your self look guilty of something. Maybe you have a bench warrant out for you and are refusing to show id so you can keep from being arrested. Not showing a id in this case just makes the cops wonder why you refuse to show id. Maybe you are John smith with a warrant for burglary and are saying your Michael so and so to avoid the arrest on said warrant.

The cops have no way of knowing. It is SOP for the police to ask for id when you call them for what ever reason. Even if the store had no right to detain you or ask for proof of purchase the cop would still ask for id.

This is what I don't get about this kind of attitude. What's the problem? There was 2 seperate transactions, something which is somewhat unusual for just two items purchased. Why be offended at showing a receipt? You get pulled for a violation on your bike, and you think you are going to scape the consequences if you aren't carrying identification? While I think it's silly that a violation on a bike equates to a violation against your driver's license, you aren't going to avoid that by not carrying your license. In fact you are less likely to ride away with a warning. I don't understand this ignorant arrogance of "I don't need ID to ride a bike, so I'm not gonna carry it."

I don't get that attitude either. I mean, hell, you may as well take the "fight the power" BS it to the next level...DON'T pull over to the side of the road when requested to do so by law enforcement...see how far THAT gets you!

I am astounded by this thread.

There are so many people who believe so strongly in cyclists' rights who are saying that Michael (from the article) should just roll over and accept the fact that he has to prove himself innocent of shoplifting!



I mean no offense when I say this, but this sounds like something a motorist might say about a cyclist taking the lane. "You maybe have the right to take the lane, but you're needlessly and intentionally making life difficult for me, the motorist. You should expect me to reciprocate. Have you never driven on the roads? Can't you see that you're slowing me down? It's a common practice for bicycles to stay on the sidewalk!"

If we don't assert our rights, we lose them. Again, I applaud the guy in the article.

Big difference between asserting rights on a public right of way (that are codified in law) to protect yourself and "asserting rights" on private property in an arguably gray area about a meaningless issue to boot.

I personally see no reason why a person who just bought items in a store would object to providing a receipt for said items. It isn't exactly a stip search or some huge takeover bid from the electronics society to take peoples rights away. They are just trying to keep costs low and stop thieves.
If verbal affirmation is all that's necessary to verify a purchase, seems like businesses could save a lot of money by not printing unnecessary receipts.

I think it's important to stand up for your rights without any regard for what makes sense. Don't forget that stop signs and other forms of traffic control in private areas like parking lots have no legal force over you. When you are not on work time and are in a public area, don't let your freedom of speech be suppressed -- tell your boss exactly how it is. You may safely ignore all policies prohibiting photography or food in any private business or area you may wander into you. They can do nothing to you if you fail to comply. If you kowtow to such infringements of our rights, you will put us on the path to tyranny.

I carry a water protected photocopy of my DL for ID.
I've used it twice and it was happily accepted by the law enforcement officers as I was not in any 'trouble'. It helped in the long run and gave the appearance of me being a well prepared cyclist.

Al

If verbal affirmation is all that's necessary to verify a purchase, seems like businesses could save a lot of money by not printing unnecessary receipts.

I think it's important to stand up for your rights without any regard for what makes sense. Don't forget that stop signs and other forms of traffic control in private areas like parking lots have no legal force over you. When you are not on work time and are in a public area, don't let your freedom of speech be suppressed -- tell your boss exactly how it is. You may safely ignore all policies prohibiting photography or food in any private business or area you may wander into you. They can do nothing to you if you fail to comply. If you kowtow to such infringements of our rights, you will put us on the path to tyranny.

:roflmao:

Unfortunately, someone's going to take that seriously... wrap that in [sarcasm] tags. ;) :p