Southern California - Bicycle licence?

The recent LACBC email says the LAPD are ticketing cyclists for not having a bicycle licence, California Vehicle Code (LAMC 26.01).

Anyone have any additional information? Is there a $ fine? Is this for real?

See the following link. The city of Los Angeles has a license requirements available at retailers (see bottom of page).

http://www.bicyclela.org/law.htm

It is kind of vague. Does it mean only for bikes purchased in Los Angeles, or for all bikes riding in LA?
I would find it stupid in the latter case as a rider traveling from Santa Monica to LA may have no clue of such license. It would also mean that we would have to check the laws in each town we are planning to ride for such licenses. So I guess if a cop in LA ask you for your license just tell him/her that you bought your bike in a different city.

39002. (a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing
ordinance or resolution, (which LA does) may provide in the ordinance or resolution
that no resident shall operate any bicycle, .....,
unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=38001-39000&file=39000-39011)

That's pretty clear, in any case the fine is only $10.

I got mine :)

http://i37.tinypic.com/vryq9z.jpg

Got it from: https://www.bluesabreinc.com/ $3.50 each.

china is less communist than america.

Custom ones are up to $4.50 now. The disadvantage of having an uncommon name: even my first name is custom!

It is kind of vague. Does it mean only for bikes purchased in Los Angeles, or for all bikes riding in LA?
I would find it stupid in the latter case as a rider traveling from Santa Monica to LA may have no clue of such license. It would also mean that we would have to check the laws in each town we are planning to ride for such licenses. So I guess if a cop in LA ask you for your license just tell him/her that you bought your bike in a different city.

Bicycle Licenses Required (LAMC 26.01) Requires a bicycle license for all bicycles purchased and ridden in the City of Los Angeles. Available from a bicycle dealer when a bicycle is purchased in the City of Los Angeles by the bicycle retailer or from local Los Angeles Police Stations. (source: http://www.bicyclela.org/law.htm ) There's your answer. Remember, when concerning the law...ignorance is not an excuse. Really all this is is another revenue generator. $10 for the infraction and another $3-$5 for the license.

Bottom line with this, don't ride in LA.

Purchased and ridden is different from purchased or ridden.

Is this a new thing?

I got mine :)

http://i37.tinypic.com/vryq9z.jpg

Got it from: https://www.bluesabreinc.com/ $3.50 each.

And the attachment came from...Bevmo??!! :thumb:

Purchased and ridden is different from purchased or ridden.

+1
The law is written poorly and can be fought if need be.

Sale of Bicycles (LAMC 80,75) Prohibits the sale or rental of bicycles from any public or private property which is not the place of business of a duly licensed bicycle dealer.

Now this one is a bit more interesting seeing as how many ppl sell bikes on craigslist.

Purchased and ridden is different from purchased or ridden.

Gotcha, now I understand what the issue was. Thanks for clarifying. :thumb:

Define "city" of Los Angeles. It's pretty dang big. Are we talking all the cities within the city itself like Chatsworth (where I work) and the entire SFV, or just downtown? The SFV is still technically the city by map. Bunch of BS personally considering the larger volume of bicycles now being ridden all over (which is probably part of the reason in the first place). Another way to make a dollar from the people trying to save one. What's next, needing a license to walk? ;)

It's an archaic Los Angeles municipal code that hasn't been enforced in any meaningful way for decades, if ever. Very few bike shops include licenses with new bicycles, as they are technically required to do under that law (I've never been offered one), and quite a few LAPD stations, which are supposed to have them on hand, do not--and sometimes the desk sergeant won't even know what you're talking about if you ask about it, as some folks have been doing over the last month or so since word of the recent citations got out.

So why are we even talking about this? Long story short: a couple of LAPD Central Division officers used it as a weapon during an incident on a group ride last month when some cyclists questioned the way officers were treating another cyclist whom they had detained and handcuffed. When the onlookers asserted their right to observe and videotape the scene, Officer R. Alvarez and his colleagues, apparently unable to counter their argument, began to go over their bicycles in search of something--anything--to cite them for. Thus it came to pass that (probably) the first bike license tickets in Los Angeles since the Nixon Administration were issued. The citations also included written warnings for alleged violations of 21210 VC ("Bikes blocking ped traffic on sidewalk"), even though it was near midnight on Main Street in downtown LA and the only people on the sidewalk for blocks were the cyclists and the officers.

Oldest cop trick in the book, in other words. A motivated police officer can almost always find something to cite the operator of a car, truck, or bicycle for. That's what happened last month, and word gets around quick in the urban cycling community these days.

I don't really think there's a crackdown going on. It's just a matter of some LAPD officers being aware of an ancient, almost universally ignored law, and being willing to use it aggressively against people who offer them any backtalk. In any case, it's as good a reason as any to lean on the City Council to take LA's mandatory bike licensing law out behind the barn and put it out of its misery.

Go to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on this. There are many Latino riders who use their bikes to go to work.

Times are hard and cities are looking for any legal means to balance their budgets. Issuing speeding and parking tickets have been always popular. With increased bike traffic and higher bike thief rates because of the high fuel prices, it's natural the local governments started targeting cyclists.

In one respect, it may be a good thing to pay the $3-10 and be in the statewide system just in case someone steals your bike and it's good for 3 years. Just shop around to find the lowest price. Santa Monica is popular for it's $3 fee and you can just mail it in instead of having to show up personally with your bike or waiting for the 'right weekend' for the local LAPD station to announce they are registering bikes that day or going to some campus and paying $7-10 (unless you went/like that school and want their logo on your bike). Bike licenses are recognized and accepted as valid by other cities and counties.

Edit to add:

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_7/vc39002.htm

License Requirement

39002.
(a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing ordinance or resolution, may provide in the ordinance or resolution that no resident shall operate any bicycle, as specified in the ordinance, on any street, road, highway, or other public property within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as the case may be, unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division.


(b) It is unlawful for any person to tamper with, destroy, mutilate, or alter any license indicia or registration form, or to remove, alter, or mutilate the serial number, or the identifying marks of a licensing agency's identifying symbol, on any bicycle frame licensed under this division.


Amended Sec. 8, Ch. 674, Stats. 1996. Effective January 1, 1997.

License Requirement
39002.
(a) ... no resident shall operate any bicycle... unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division.

Seems that resident is the key. If not a resident but riding through, this doesn't apply. Yay.

Anaheim is $3 every two years and takes nothing more than a visit to your local fire station and a few minutes of time.

This passage from the Vehicle Code states that a city may make license rules for residents. A non-resident of LA could challenge the validity of the ordinance on that basis im(not speaking as a lawyer)ho.


39002. (a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing
ordinance or resolution, (which LA does) may provide in the ordinance or resolution
that no resident shall operate any bicycle, .....,
unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance with this division. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=38001-39000&file=39000-39011)

That's pretty clear, in any case the fine is only $10.

Define "city" of Los Angeles. It's pretty dang big. Are we talking all the cities within the city itself like Chatsworth (where I work) and the entire SFV, or just downtown? The SFV is still technically the city by map. Bunch of BS personally considering the larger volume of bicycles now being ridden all over (which is probably part of the reason in the first place). Another way to make a dollar from the people trying to save one. What's next, needing a license to walk? ;)

The City of Los Angeles is very well defined. One of the easiest ways to tell is by the street signs.
Chatsworth is not a city, but a neighborhood within the City of Los Angeles
Most of the SFV is part of the City of Los Angeles.

City of Los Angeles includes all these neighborhoods:
http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm

It's an archaic Los Angeles municipal code that hasn't been enforced in any meaningful way for decades, if ever. Very few bike shops include licenses with new bicycles, as they are technically required to do under that law (I've never been offered one), and quite a few LAPD stations, which are supposed to have them on hand, do not--and sometimes the desk sergeant won't even know what you're talking about if you ask about it, as some folks have been doing over the last month or so since word of the recent citations got out.

So why are we even talking about this? Long story short: a couple of LAPD Central Division officers used it as a weapon during an incident on a group ride last month when some cyclists questioned the way officers were treating another cyclist whom they had detained and handcuffed. When the onlookers asserted their right to observe and videotape the scene, Officer R. Alvarez and his colleagues, apparently unable to counter their argument, began to go over their bicycles in search of something--anything--to cite them for. Thus it came to pass that (probably) the first bike license tickets in Los Angeles since the Nixon Administration were issued. The citations also included written warnings for alleged violations of 21210 VC ("Bikes blocking ped traffic on sidewalk"), even though it was near midnight on Main Street in downtown LA and the only people on the sidewalk for blocks were the cyclists and the officers.

Oldest cop trick in the book, in other words. A motivated police officer can almost always find something to cite the operator of a car, truck, or bicycle for. That's what happened last month, and word gets around quick in the urban cycling community these days.

I don't really think there's a crackdown going on. It's just a matter of some LAPD officers being aware of an ancient, almost universally ignored law, and being willing to use it aggressively against people who offer them any backtalk. In any case, it's as good a reason as any to lean on the City Council to take LA's mandatory bike licensing law out behind the barn and put it out of its misery.

PC. Where have you been?

Gone. I'm back now.

No license for me. I don't need the extra weight.

This was being discussed by someone and there are in fact other vehicular codes that trump it, and therefore really out dated. I suggest you call your local councilmember and ask them why they allow archaic laws like this to exist. It is the equivalent to the roman language... dead., useless and not funded. It is my understanding that Councilman Zine stopped it from being deleted because he thinks that having the licenses will help cops located missing kids on bikes.

FYI, Redlands has a similar requirement, though I have yet to see any bikes with a license.