It makes one wonder many things, such just how difficult is it to flunk the psychological exam to become a cop.

I answered CR's question with my previous reply... A 'bent or 'bent trike IS a bicycle, because it is a vehicle propelled solely by human power.

The reason for the 25" on the motorized bike section, is to remove "pocket bikes", "mini scooters" and the like from the definition of a bicycle.

A little more insight might help you.

The LT cop called all his buddies to the scene because he was getting ready to arrest the cyclist using a full on body slam, face first to the ground, just to teach the cyclist a lesson of jack booted justice. Having his attorney wife show up with camera is what put a quick end to that idea.

The cyclist handled the situation well.

For you and others who would just bend over and take it, with this cop you had better be ready to keep bending over and taking it, over and over again.

If the judge is even remotely honest, it will be the cop taking it in the court room.

This is correct. The problem is that many of these changes in the law were so poorly written that they are now very confussing.

That is true -- Texas law does define a bicycle as "a device that a person may ride and that is propelled by human power and has two tandem wheels at least one of which is more than 14 inches in diameter." That's from 541.201, and that definition applies to that subtitle.

HOWEVER, the laws (at least in Texas) are not written to say that "only motor vehicles and bicycles may use the roads". Instead, there are some laws that apply specifically to bicycles, some that apply specifically to motor vehicles and most apply to any vehicle. If you were riding a tricycle (which wouldn't be a bicycle, but would be a vehicle), you could claim to be not subject to any bicycle-specific law by reason of not being on a bicycle -- and that might even work.

(And for the record, Texas law doesn't really cover bike lanes -- it acknowledges that they might exist, but leaves them to the local area. At least in Austin, the ordinance for bike lanes prohibits motor vehicles (except under some circumstances) but doesn't say your vehicle has to be a bicycle to use it.)

So at least here, the idea that Texas law defines a bike as having two wheels doesn't really matter at all in practice -- though you might be able to get out of a ticket for no lights at night if you were riding a trike at the time. (Though really, I'd just suggest having lights.)

Agreed. The apologists are doing a bang-up job, though.

My friend in high school had an MG B that had a seat well under 25" from the ground.

Were you there, watching and reading minds? Were you that cop?. A cop isn't going to call more witnesses for him to commit a wrongful act. Cops call for backup because they're taught not to underestimate people.
I don't just "take it," I do what the circumstance calls for; something only a reasonable person could understand, and it's served me very well up to this point. You have to know when to pick your battles, and picking a fight with a gun carrying dick with ears is not situation you should pick a fight in.

All I was saying was that I think he would have saved himself some trouble by not bringing wifey into the situation, no matter how many cops were on scene. Disagree all you'd like.

Based on how the cop was described, it seems extremely unlikely that he would be interested in reading the copy of the vehicle code.

If you try to explain the vehicle code to the cop and he won't listen, trying to SHOW him the vehicle code, will just exaserbate (sp?) the situation.. (Tread carefully)..
Best bet is not to explain, and just keep quiet and show it in the first place.

Agreed. Four cruisers called to the scene? The Loot was having a power trip and the arrival of an attorney with camera put an end to that... that's why he screamed at her. The OP handled the situation perfectly ... I hope he follows up with a formal complaint about the time-wasting, public-fund squandering jackass that had a mangina convulsion when he saw a recumbent on the road.
Rights are made and defended. They're not enshrined in words on paper. Anyone that hasn't learned that lesson needs a good long course in history.

Big thumbs up to the OP.

I think SpecialX is right. The definition in the Florida Statutes is not clear, and I fully understand CommunterRun's position. But in trying understand the definition as a whole, I think that the phrase "The term does not include such a vehicle with a seat height of no more than 25 inches from the ground " probably relates to motorized bikes. Because this trike is "propelled solely by human power" and the definition includes "any device generally recognized as a bicycle though equipped with two front or two rear wheels," I think under Florida law it's legal.

I read it with a grain of salt... and I'm glad I did. I think he seriously wrote it an attempt to put himself in a flattering light through the incident, not that it probably didn't happen very similar to how he described. My gut instinct says he prolly was a lot more mouthy with the cop then he alludes to but he was snarkier with the cop then I would have been even in his version. It's very easy to be polite, note a concern, make sure he doesn't think it's a law, and move on. But hey who knows till the dashcam footage or the youtube video?

Edit: Just noticed the OP is the writer! No offense meant man.. but that's just how it comes across to me. I'd really like to see the footage though.. I've seen cops that bad.

Now that is one ambiguous, rambling statute! I'd read it the same as you, that "such a vehicle" encompasses everything described in part 2, and the lower than 2 foot seat vehicle is excluded from being a "bicycle." But it could be read the other way.

too much TV education? sorry but I've condensed everything you've said into:
Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaaa baaaaa and the cop would have, maybe, probably been inclined to let the good sheep go.

I agree. And while I am not a judge, to me this law indicates that any pedal powered vehicle with less than a 25" maximum seat height is not a street legal vehicle. However, just as some motor vehicle laws do not apply to bicycles, this is one that does not apply to motor vehicles, because motor vehicle is not specified in the definition.

(2) BICYCLE.—Every vehicle propelled solely by human power, and every motorized bicycle propelled by a combination of human power and an electric helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle at a speed of NOT more than 20 miles per hour on level ground

Wrong.
That would indicate that every vehicle propelled solely by human power is a bicycle. A skateboard is now a bicycle.

Nutshell: If it is pedal powered and it has helper motor capable of propelling the vehicle over 20 mph on level ground and the maximum seat height less than 25" it's not a street legal bicycle.

(WRONG)
You and No. But not for the reason you think. A skateboard is not a vehicle (although propelled by human power).. A skateboard is considered either a device or toy (forget which one) and not a "vehicle".

(NUTSHELL)
Correct, except for not more than 20 - I think that's what you meant.
(any vehicle capable of over 20 isn't a bicycle anyways, regardless of its seat height)

I've had the "I'm going to arrest you for standing by the curb in the street" thing too.

Best line ever with a cop is this one: "am I free to go?"

I think had you asked that at the right time, like when he was trying to figure out something to ticket you for, you might have gotten to carry on your way without the hassle of the ticket.

If he doesn't know what he's going to ticket you for, he has to say "yes" or find a real reason to arrest you.

+1

.....and I doubt that many LEOs would be interested as well. If anything, it would probably digress into vehicle code touting match, with the LEO ending up trying to find a way to take you downtown.

From the description in the OP's blog post/article "LT Chowderhead" had indicated that he was going to do something to confirm the OP's identity. After patiently waiting a reasonable amount the OP started to stand up, and at that point noticed that he now had a number of police cars converging on his location. Where upon he did the right thing in pulling out his cell phone and calling his lawyer who also just happened to be his wife. IF "LT Chowderhead" was just checking his ID then why call backup? And really, just how dangerous do you think that an "overweight, middle aged" chiropractor is going to be?

From the OP's description of "LT Chowderhead," I would say that he reminds of "Dirty Lyle." In that "Dirty Lyle" thought that because he was a cop that that was all the authority that he needed to do whatever he wanted. His "closing" words sum that up "I am the law. Don't you understand, I represent the law."

Sadly, that IS an attitude shared by way too many police officers. Even if it's just 1% of the total LEO's nationwide that is 1% too many. And in dealing with such LEO's it IS best to have witnesses on one's side to back up their side of events.

If you (or anyone else) don't know who "Dirty Lyle" is I suggest a Google search.

And again, I ask does a cop really need to call out the "cavalry" just to check someone's ID?

It may not be a "bicycle" as defined in F.S. 316.003, but I do NOT see anything in F.S. 316.003 that prohibit their use on the roads. That is unless I missed something.

By your reasoning a unicycle would not be "street legal" because it only has one wheel.

Good blog. I enjoyed reading that. Sadly I think that this behavior from police officers either becoming more common or is coming to light more often because of all the media tools we have.

The emphasized part applies only to motorized assistance and is not relevant here. If it was intended to apply to solely human powered bicycles, there would be an additional comma in that sentence.

I find it very interesting several of the politicized ......[to keep this from starting some kind of war here, this comment has been edited by admin. Please keep politics in P and R]