well this is my view any ways
 

Hello all,

I live in Redding CA. The size of town is around 100k people. Last weekend I saw two small boy about 8 years old. They were riding against traffic and wearing no helmet. It is a very busy street. There was no adult with them. Here in Ca kids under 16 must wear a helmet. After seeing this it bothered me as to what I saw. So I wrote a email to the healthy shasta county office and vented and told them what I saw and gave them a suggestion. Here in ca bicycles must follow the same rules as cars. And you have 8 year old breaking the law which tells me that the are not being educated on the rules. So I suggested to them if you want cyclist to follow the rules you must get serious with them other wise they will keep breaking laws. I told them to start handing out citations. If some one don't have a ID inpound their bike. All police cars can be outfitted with a bike racks on the trunks. Tell the rider that they can pick up their Bike at such n such place bring a ID or an adult. And give the cyclist a booklet on the laws and rules. People are like kids they will something as long as they can get away with it. Until they get in trouble. And my point inthe whole email was why have laws if you don't enforce them.

How many police cars do they got?

A bunch

You don't need to carry ID on your person. I often don't, and see no reason why I should. It isn't against the law.

Hmm if you get hit and unconscious how will anyone know who you are? Well. Here a bicycle can get a ticket same as a car fo4 a moving violation.

Well for one thing, my biggest pet peeve for biking is people who go against traffic, its not only unsafe, but its ridiculous. People should be able to realize that you go with the flow of traffic. Maybe its okay for kids to not understand, but for where I'm at on a college campus people should know by that age to not go against traffic. But in all honestly, people should know the rules if they're to bike on roads with cars. I'm fine with kids biking around and doing whatever at a park because there's not a giant piece of metal going much faster than you that could potentially hit you.

The one thing that I've noticed about cyclists, in my locale, that break the law, I seldom see the same ones doing it for very long, therefore I leave alone the cyclists that I do see breaking the law. The bad part is that I see lesser infractions being regularly done by motorists, but have far more potential of causing harm to other road users.

Let's throw them in jail! That'll teach 'em!

I hope they don't cycle onto your lawn, you'd have to shake your fist at them pretty hard.

Two 8 year-olds cycling the wrong way alone on a busy street without helmets need better parents, not to have their bikes impounded.

this.

my 5 year old understands the concept that riding bike = helmet at a minimum. she might not get the riding with traffic idea yet, though she has got the 'get off your cell phone beep beep' concept down.

your 5 year old has a cellphone? lol

impounding bikes is a great idea. really would teach those bike ninjas a lesson. around here, we have a bike sharing plan. someone buys a walmart bike. then it is repeatedly stolen, ridden to a destination and dumped in a vacant lot, ditch etc. for the next person to use. occasionally the cops have an auction of impounded bikes and sell the almost worthless scrap metal. amazingly, they bring good money and later show up on craigslist for an exorbitant price. not sure anyone wins except walmart.

the only people that care about bike safety are the ones who just got hit by a car.

BF Dudley Do Rights are active today as well as the helmet nanny crowd; must be a gathering of 5 year olds.

I saw probably a half dozen kids cycling the wrong way on sidewalks, etc. yesterday. It never occurred to me that they were doing anything wrong...they're kids. Kids do silly things. I just wish they had better places to ride their bikes so they could be kids and not get run over.

OP -You would be offended 24-7 where i live and ride. Ever try M.Y.O.B. ? It is quite a liberating philosophy.

OP's got some valid concerns. He says the two 8 yr olds were riding without helmets, not on a sidewalk, but on a busy street, against the flow of traffic. Those are unsafe riding practices in a particularly unsafe situation for kids. If the OP is an adult with a sense of responsibility for the welfare of others, kids unsupervised, out in the public, doing something unsafe is his business, as it's the business of any responsible adult seeing kids involved in doing something unsafe.

Some of his ideas may not be so good though; having the police wholesale issuing citations to kids for breaking rules of the road that apply to them, and confiscating their bikes probably wouldn't be the wisest or the most constructive approach to have kids be safer riding bikes on the street.

They won't.

But you're confusing "no law requires it" and "it's a good idea".

It's a good idea to have ID with you. And your medical insurance card, some money, a cell phone if you've got it, tools to change a flat, etc.

But it's not against the law to not have these things with you.

Talking about carrying ID specifically, if the police don't stop you (and you don't end up unconscious), it doesn't matter. If they do stop you, they might ask who you are. Lying might earn you a trip to the local jail. But they certainly still can give you a ticket without ID.

The ID might be convenient in such situations (especially for the police), but there's also the benefit of "flexing your rights" (to not carry it) that might not be valuable to you, but could be valuable to others.

I'm rather curious about what legal justification the OP has for impounding a bike. ( i.e., as in being able to point to a specific law under which the confiscation is part of his local codes )

You are correct that there is no law requiring that you carry an ID card (with the exception that when motoring you must have your drivers license on you , and military must carry their military ID at all times).

That said, carrying a government issued ID in California when cycling, may be a get out of jail card. Traffic violations in CA are criminal offenses. CA law requires that a cop unable to identify a person who they are giving a traffic ticket must take the person to the nearest judge. Cops can easily ID a person with their in car computers with a simple name and birthdate, but some cops are jerks that will just arrest someone without checking the computer.

It is unlikely cops, even in CA, are allowed to arrest an 8 year old except for a felony.

None, but lots of cops in several states do so regardless.

I am curious just how many hours have you volunteered teaching bicycle safety classes at your local schools?

Confiscation of personal property is always a bad idea, usually originating in questionable (illegal) laws, and carried out by misinformed LEOs. The less of this we have, the better we are as a society.

No, but it might work to get kids off of bicycles entirely. A lot of parents would not accept their personal responsibility in the case and "punish" the child; or, not go and pick up the bike at all.

This would work well to convince parents that bicycles are not only dangerous (they probably knew that in the first place) but will do nothing but land their kid in trouble with "the law." Further, in a poverty stricken area like Northern California, it will cost the family money they really can not afford. Most will see the best route will be to be getting rid of the bicycle.

Without doubt the child is doing what they were told. You can waste money on child, rider, education programs all you want; but, as long as the parents do not ride for transportation they are going to tel the child that if they, the children, are ever seen riding where they "can't see the cars coming at them" then both will "I tan your hide" and that it will be the last time that they see the bicycle, by their mother, then they are going to make what appears to be the rational decision. They are going to ride facing traffic.

For reference, I worked as a Welfare caseworker in Shasta County (Redding, CA) and as a Child Protective Services Investigator in a nearby county (Modoc). Northern California is not San Francisco; or, the wine county you see on TV. It is a deeply impoverished area soaked in alcohol and meth, with the corresponding violence that comes from economic frustrations.

As far as the helmet goes, the children will wear a helmet if it is 1. Given to them by the police after completing a training program (as a reward) and 2. They see the police wearing them when they ride bicycles. The parents will seldom purchase one; or, when they purchase it, they will do so with such a derisive attitude that they will signal to the child that it is silly.


One of the funniest/sad things happened when, as a CPS Investigator I mentioned a bike helmet to one parent. She told me that the child had fallen off his bike and broken it and they couldn’t afford to replace it; and, “it’s just a piece of Styrofoam, it isn’t going to do him any good anyways.” . . . Yep, low cognitive utilization. . .

Yes, I went and got him a helmet and talked to both him and his parents about safe bicycling (I think I used a brochure that the DMV publishes on safe riding, I kept a stack of those in my car box.). Having a CPS Investigator doing safe riding counseling is expensive and outside of the normal duties of an investigator; however, if the family is not involved in the training, the training is a waste of time. The child will be told to “never do that.”

All that being said, a punishment based system will leave the child severely punished and the bicycle banished. If the goal is to break the interest in cycling at an early stage, insuring a lifelong disdain, the recommended approach may work well. Certainly children will not be injured, on bicycles, if we just keep them off of bicycles. However, if the goal is to promote safe cycling than there needs to be a non-punitive, whole family, education based approach.

Showing ID may be mandatory
 

Contrary to the popular belief that you do not have to show ID to a cop, a few states and quite a few localities have laws or ordinances requiring that a person not only show ID on demand, but possibly other details as well. For example, in Alabama, a person can be required to provide an "explanation of his actions".

It's called a "Stop and Identify" law and when certain circumstances exist, a LEO can legally demand you provide ID or else detain/arrest. Here is a list of states that require a person to at least verbally identify themselves when asked.

Alabama Ala. Code §15-5-30
Arizona Ari. Rev. Stat. Tit. 13, §2412 (enacted 2005)
Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. §5-71-213(a)(1) (loitering)
Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. §16-3-103(1)
Delaware Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §§1902, 1321(6)
Florida Fla. Stat. §901.151 (Stop and Frisk Law); §856.021(2) (loitering and prowling)
Georgia Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-36(b) (loitering)
Illinois Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 725, §5/107-14
Indiana Indiana Code §34-28-5-3.5
Kansas Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-2402(1)
Louisiana La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 215.1(A); La. Rev. Stat. 14:108(B)(1)(c)
Missouri Mo. Rev. Stat. §84.710(2)
Montana Mont. Code Ann. §46-5-401
Nebraska Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-829
Nevada Nev. Rev. Stat. §171.123
New Hampshire N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §594:2, §644:6
New Mexico N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-22-3
New York N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §140.50
North Dakota N.D. Cent. Code §29-29-21 (PDF)
Ohio Ohio Rev. Code §2921.29 (enacted 2006)
Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §12-7-1
Utah Utah Code Ann. §77-7-15
Vermont Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 24, §1983
Wisconsin Wis. Stat. §968.24