1) Never once have I supported bicycle licensing because it is always a pretext to put money in government coffers with absolutely zero benefit to the licensee.
2) This group of kids clearly are riding in the oncoming traffic lane when there is oncoming traffic on several occasions.
3) My term "misdemeanor dumbass" refers to things that are so petty that they should result in a simple warning. And that is what happened in this case.
4) Their riding on the MUP clearly forced other users into the wall.
5) Claiming "racism" for everything and anything dilutes the value of the term when there is genuine incident.
6) For me the desired outcome would be that these kids find a safe venue to further hone their fairly impressive bicycle handling skills. It looks like Rhaway Avenue Park which is about 10 miles from their home town of Edison has a fairly nice facility. Or the Jersey Exposition Center if they just want to ride trails off roads. Or ride the roads, but not in a dangerous manner.

That's what I've been saying. Warn them. Using a pretext to arrest them is abusive.

Did I claim racism?

The cops didn't seem at all interested in cuffing these kids and impounding their bikes until the kids failed to be submissive enough. Which is pretty typical cop behavior, in my experience.

The funniest part of the video is at the end, when one of the cops is telling the kids, "You think I don't have better things to do?" When the answer is clearly no, she didn't have anything better to do -- if she had, she wouldn't have been hassling those kids.

So much intelligent legal analysis :rolleyes:

It's just my view of the situation; I never claimed any special insight.

And I can acknowledge that others may watch the same video and reach different conclusions without accusing them of ignorance. After all, the kids were not blameless, either.

You are either imagining this or making it up.

​​​​​​No one here suggested bicycle licences were "fine".

I said they were dumb. One can't be any clearer than that.

And you still managed to get it wrong.

Our world is full of laws and regulations that attempt to control behaviour through some seemingly unrelated artifice. This is usually intentional to give the authorities leverage when they feel that it should be applied. I won't say that such strategies are horrible; I think they can be applied in an effective and fair manner. However there are many times when they are used too frequently and for the wrong reasons.

We have what we have. Remember that the folks who brought you such laws were voted into office by a majority of your neighbours.

A license to ride a bicycle! Go to hell Perth Amboy. If the kids were intentionally breaking laws, they should be charged with that crime. Being told to ride on the sidewalk is a really bad idea. According to a female officer they were riding on the wrong side of the road. That is illegal and dangerous to them and anybody else entering the road. The Police likely were following up on a complaint. If I drove my car against traffic would the police confiscate my car. I would like to see the police be honest in there dealings with people on bicycles. Evidently this is to much to ask.

Yes. Of course.
If you intentionally drove against traffic in your car and then argued with the police that pulled you over, your car would get confiscated/impounded.
What part of that can you not comprehend?

I understand very well. I just want the rant that went on without all the info to wake up. The kids were being dangerous. They needed to be approached by the police. The police were right to approach them, but did not explain the law they were actually breaking. The get out of the road approach that the police took is typical of the uneducated, ignorance I have seen toward people riding bicycles all my life.

There is no legitimate theory of jurisprudence to support this idea, that you have laws to control behaviors unrelated to the law. Any "authority" who makes a habit of applying "leverage" as "they feel" when the behavior is outside of the legal framework is engaging in textbook abuse of office. He needs to be stripped of office and, in egregious cases, prosecuted for abuse of power.

And to the poster who opines that I made it up, here is an explicit example of someone who thinks repressive ordinances are fine as a pretext to give someone a comeuppance when the law doesn't or isn't applied.

Progress in human society moves at a glacial pace.

You do realize that such laws would violate the Fourth Amendment, right? And so there probably aren't very many of them.

Now, if you want to adjust this argument, you could suggest that police sometimes misuse their authority to try to control people's behavior even when they have no legal authority to do so.

Had they actually obeyed traffic laws the police would not have shown up. Stupid kids could have killed someone.

Careful. Some people in this thread do not appreciate common sense and think that nothing was amiss because the kids were just acting like jerks :rolleyes:

Their crimes are they are dangerous dbags while riding in the streets and on the MUP's. Their crimes have already been well explained in the other posts.
These are kids? They look pretty big and hairy to me.
About their "amazing skills"- my nine-year-old grandson does them, when he thinks he can get away with that crap.
As for the license, I'm all for it on a statewide basis, otherwise I'd just hit them for obstructing traffic.
And you don't want to know what I did as a child.

Discussions are moving to fighting. How about taming it down some before it gets too personal? Thanks

Well there are theories of law, and then there is reality. Do you really think that it is rare that the intent of the law is unrelated to its language? Right or wrong, it's human nature to employ ruses to achieve an outcome, and legislators are not so honorable to resist. For example, jaywalking laws were not written with the intent to protect pedestrians,. One only has to look at the many recent controversial laws in many states to see that this is the norm.

You really ought not to make assumptions, especially when it borders on an ad hominem attack. You assume that I support the use of such laws; however I condemn them as strongly as you, mate. I think the use of such artifice in legislation is an outright cowardly way to govern. The fact that sometimes those strategies are effective may make them somewhat acceptable, but it does not make them less bogus.

Undoubtedly many laws are overturned for this reason. How many more never come before the courts?

Did the police in this video not have legal authority to do what they did? I'll answer that for you:

§ 158-9 Violations and penalties.
[Amended 5-21-1991 by Ord. No. 648.91]

A. Any bicycle being operated or propelled in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, upon the personal observation of a law enforcement officer, is subject to immediate confiscation. A confiscated bicycle shall be returned upon payment of any fine imposed or upon any final adjudication.

This one is pretty clear to me.
The kids were riding in a manner that would get any auto driver arrested. Wheelies? No big deal. Riding on the wrong side of the road playing chicken with cars? THat's an issue. Running from the police and endangering other road users? THat's an issue.

There were several cop cars involved in the initial chase. The boys were lucky to have stopped for one of the officers that was willing to let them go without applying the law (reckless driving, no license, etc.. things that WOULD get an auto driver a tix) as long as the kids listened to his advice.

After the other cops arrived, it's unfortunate that the fella started to run his piehole. He ruined the chance for generosity, for the cops to look the other way from the infractions. People need to learn when not to run their mouth.

I teach my boys to stand up for what they believe, but also be smart about it. I learned almost the exact same lesson when I was about 14 and got my BMX bike confiscated. I remember thinking it so funny how my buddy said to the cop, "but your trunk will get all muddy!" We laughed until we explained to our fathers what happened. It was a good lesson for me, and hopefully it will be a good lesson for these boys. Belligerently arguing with the cops will NEVER end well for you, as we've seen time and time again. Learn the lesson young. File a formal complaint if you feel you've been wronged.

Anyway, the boys had ticketable offenses and are lucky just a few had bikes impounded. Hopefully they'll be wiser as a result

EDIT: I checked out the video kid's YouTube channel. They have videos of riding wheelies in the mall and through shopping stores. Not cool. Has had several run-ins with the police, and doesn't seem to be learning

You've confused me with the people who think that a bunch of bike-riding kids in New Jersey are worth arguing over. I'm merely here because I find it amusing to watch people get lathered up over something so trivial.

I actually just wanted to bring this thing called the "Bill of Rights" to your attention.

Guess I missed the part that justified the handcuffing.

Nope.
I don’t think you missed it.
You simply chose to ignore it for your lost cause :rolleyes:

Glad I ride in rural Texas nobody cares about bike riders and are safe and courteous. Though I ride where there is no through traffic that may be the difference. And county cops don’t give a flip about people riding their bikes. It is never an issue.

Theory of jurisprudence IS the reality of courts. Laws must be specific and explicit in what they prohibit for example, otherwise they are challenged in court as illegal and the cases fail.

Jaywalking laws were intended to keep traffic moving smoothly. That's how jaywalking laws were intended and are applied, and in fact there are exceptions in many jurisdictions allowing crossings at places where it does not disrupt traffic. That's not a good example of a ruse to punish something else.