You should reread Hiibel. The Supreme Court clearly noted that you are only required to verbally provide name and birth date. As I correctly stated, and under Hiibel case law, cyclist are NOT required to produce/show an "ID card".

Except I know a person (cyclist) that wanted a state ID card and was refused because he had a valid Hawaii drivers license. So one of you slipped through the cracks of our Hawaii system.

Perhaps you are correct but I'd bet you dollars to cop's donuts that if you tried to argue with a cop about the minutiae of Hiibel, you'd end up in the back of the squad car. You might be right, but if you don't provide license or ID, you'll be inconvenienced for a while.

Without probable cause for an arrest, if the cops do so, then the city will get sued and will lose. But most cops in large cities have likely been updated on the issue, even if they try and BS you into thinking that they have such power.

How many of you advocating following the law to the letter actually stop at every stop sign? I think I'd rather walk the 3 miles if I had to come to a complete stop at the two dozen or so stop signs on the way to work.

To the OP:
I'm sorry to hear about you getting nabbed like that. Especially for such a silly law. I'd fight it, look for any discrepancies in the ticket, look up the law you violated and might get a sympathetic judge who will at least lower it.

I think you should continue to run stop signs however, just keep a closer eye on things. Think of this ticket as a 'bicycle tax.' . Operating expenses.

Oh, I sure don't. But that's not essentially the jist of the discussion here. We're not saying "you must stop". We're saying that yeah, it's against the law, you got caught, pay the fine and move on. The rest of it is just noise

OR the deviant cyclist causes a comet to swerve towards Earth creating all sorts of problems; the horror, the horror...

Holding you for hours in the back of a patrol car isn't arrest. It's detaining you until they can confirm your identity. Nothing you can do about that.

Yup. That's what 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time' means. If you run the sign in front of a cop...well...that's just asking for a ticket.

Again, reread Hiibel, the Supreme Court intimated a reasonable time of up to about 45 minutes as an outside for detaining soemone to establish identity (assuming you give them a correct name and birth date). With todays computer systems in police cars, linked to databases that can call up your drivers license, arrest record, warrents, convictions, etc.; even 45 minutes would likely be considered excessive by a court.

CB, I sent you a private e-mail. Maybe we can sort out why I was able to get mine and your friend was denied and we can help your friend get that ID.

They give no time. Only the provision that the stop "...permits the officer to stop the person for a brief time and take additional steps to investigate further". The "additional steps" allows lots of wiggle room. And while you might be in the right, that means nothing at the time that you are detained. It might mean something later but at the time of the incident, you'll still be sitting the back of the car or at a station somewhere while someone "sorts things out".

+1

The Hiibell case relies heavily on Terry stop case law and cites the Terry case.

Hiibel opinion directly states: “To ensure that the resulting seizure is constitutionally reasonable, a Terry stop must be limited. The officer's action must be " 'justified at its inception, and ... reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.' " United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 682 (1985) (quoting Terry, supra, at 20). For example, the seizure cannot continue for an excessive period of time, see United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696, 709 (1983), or resemble a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New York, 442 U. S. 200, 212 (1979).”

The Place case cited by Hiibell, directly indicates that 90 minutes is too long to detain a person or property which in effects causes a persons detention:

UNITED STATES v. PLACE, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) 462 U.S. 696

“Although the 90-minute detention of respondent's luggage is sufficient to render the seizure unreasonable, the violation was exacerbated by the failure of the agents to accurately inform respondent of the place to which they were transporting his luggage, of the length of time he might be dispossessed, and of what arrangements would be made for return of the luggage if the investigation dispelled the suspicion. In short, we hold that the detention of respondent's luggage in this case went beyond the narrow authority possessed by police to detain briefly luggage reasonably suspected to contain narcotics.
IV
We conclude that, under all of the circumstances of this case, the seizure of respondent's luggage was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the evidence obtained from the subsequent search of his luggage was inadmissible, and Place's conviction must be reversed.”


Other Terry Stop case law (which I have not had time to relocate, but will work on after Thankgiving) did further limit the stated time considered reasonable for a Terry Stop. The one I saw was around 45 minutes and there may even be other cases which reduce the “reasonable time standard” to even less time (I seem to remember one that exceeded 20 minutes and the conviction was thrown out because the stop was too long). Illinois has gone as far as a 15 minute limit for traffic style stops. The primary guideline seems to be minutes and not hours.


Citations in the Hiibel case and their subsequent citations impacting Terry Stops are part of the Hiibel case, so even though the supreme court may choose to not lay down an exact time, other Terry stop cases provide effective limits.

Cops playing with with Terry Stop rules are just asking for a civil suit.

I was finally able to contact the Hawaii State agency that handles the ID cards. Several years ago, a person could have only a drivers license or state ID card but not both. Currently, in Hawaii, a person can have both a drivers license and state ID card. The state person stated that in the future (unknown when) that under Homeland Security rules, a person will only be allowed one form of ID from one State (back to the old rule).

I'm all for law enforcement. If the cop was issuing tickets to every one he saw who broke the law, that's great. If OP is the only one he nailed, then, well, that would suck.

This is an argument often replayed on BF. I agree with the argument that unsafe driving is far more dangerous than unsafe biking, and therefore motorists should face stiffer enforcement than cyclists. However, that is merely a personal philosophy which allows me, a motorist who ALWAYS stops at ALL stop signs, to also be a cyclist who often runs them with impunity, and yet feel no guilt over that. The rule of law, unfortunately, means that laws get enforced whether they agree with our personal philosophy or not. So you just shrug, pay the fine, and make sure you look around for cops when you get to that particular stop sign from now on. Not much else you can do.

Some thoughts:

One time I was driving on I-8 in east SD County, tracking an AZ plate vehicle, doing 70 when the law was 55. I saw a fast-approaching wide-lights vehicle in my mirror and slowed down. CHP it was. He pulled over the AZ driver, and then maybe signaled me to pull over too (no way this was totally clear). I just kept driving. He got into his car, caught up and gave me a ticket. During this, I saw the AZ driver go by. No way the officer had time to write a ticket, so the AZ guy just got a warning. I decided to go to court and the officer didn't show up, so my case was dismissed. In Cali, you have a right to confront your accuser.

This was ca. 1980. I advised my son to try this in 1995, doing 85 on I-15 in a 70 zone. The officer was there. Cali got smart to this defense tactic.

I'm not sure that bike fines should be less than car fines. No reasonable risk of injuring car occupants. Much less repair-cost damage to cars. Got that. On the other hand, you could severely injure or kill another cyclist, and Boulder has a lot of them.

One could argue that cyclists tend to be more observant and accident-avoidance-alert than average drivers. On the other hand look at races, and read here about crashes. So maybe not. In any case, OP clearly didn't see the cop, so maybe his vision/evaluation of the environment wasn't that good.

I never blow through red lights. I sometimes proceed through them, after stopping, or nearly so (e.g. 2 mph), if conditions are obviously clear. Stop signs are in lower-traffic situations, like back streets and country roads, so my riding is different. Here, I slow enough (10 mph or less) to be able to stop, if a car is close and coming, but if not, I accelerate across.

For clarification, my behavior is situational. If I go downtown on weekdays, which have timed light-changes and traffic is heavy, I always stop, and I wait for the light to change 99% of the time. Cops are out, they can be invisible in dense traffic. On Sundays, lights are still on timed-mode, but there's little traffic. Cops are few, and easier to spot. So here I may come to the light and slow to a crawl, but then hit the pedals against the red.

On some suburban arterials, lights are sensitive to bikes, and on these I wait, because either cross traffic is heavy, or if not the lights quickly change to give me the go. For non-bike-sensitive-signal intersections, I'm not going to wait for a car to trigger the signal if traffic is light. In low traffic circumstances, that could be 2 minutes or more, and sparse cross-traffic makes waiting irrational (except ticket fear). I could go on the sidewalk to push the cross button, but I don't.

I should note that there is this one ped-bike-path crossing I ride, across a boulevard that if you hit the button, the light instantly goes to yellow then red for cross-traffic boulevard cars. Doesn't matter if it's light-traffic Sunday, or commuter rush hour. Niiice.

If I did get ticketed, I'd go to court and point out the numerous bike-sensitive signals, and argue that the (older not updated tech) light I went through was due to a failure in the system that denied me the right to cycle according to the state vehicle code--the signal was defective relative to others, so I proceeded safely. If the cop showed up to the trial, I'd challenge him, "Did my action create any possibility of an accident with another vehicle?"

Truth is, I haven't gotten a ticket ever riding a bike. Mostly due to not being stupid or careless, but good luck is definitely a part of it, because I have made mistakes. In driving I've gotten some, not enough to bump my insurance rates up.

I admit I go through red lights and stop signs AFTER carefully checking the situation (I like my limbs attached and in one piece) and I do my best not be a d**k to pedestrians. I never run through though, I've seen too many people getting hit doing that, often right in front of me.

I do realize it's wrong though, we are to obey the street rules like everybody else. I got ticketed once for running a red light, I shut up, was nice to the cop and paid the ticket. If you want to question the validity and logic of the traffic law there are proper venues for that. Arguing this AFTER you got a ticket is not a valid strategy to get any laws changed.

Adam

Maybe.

I was working at a bike shop years ago. A man in his 20s comes in and says "I want to buy a bike". After talking to him for a minute he confessed "I was sitting in traffic yesterday and had just watched the same traffic light go green-red-green-red three times. Then some dude comes flying by on a bike, runs the light, and disappears over the horizon while I watched the light go red for the forth time. That's when I decided I want a bike."

Also, do you think motorists would be happier if every cyclist (in a big city) cued up at the light with all the cars and waited their turns, then as the light goes green all of the cars behind them had to wait for cyclists to get up to speed? Do you REALLY think motorists would be happier if we all obeyed the law? Really?

Motorists just want us the hell out of their way.

I've been a fan of yours, Joey, but this is the first time I can recall that I can add something to your posts-- you hit the nail on the head! They have attitudes, sure, but all they really want is for us to get out of thier way. We are a thorn. Just like farm equipment or a wayward trash can tetering on the edge of the roadway.

Absolutely! And I can FEEL it. There is a one mile section of my 18.5 mile commute where the road is narrow, bounded by curbs, it is residential and the speed limit is 25 MPH, but it is a major connector from two big highways, so the traffic is bumper to bumper and non-stop. When I hit that one mile stretch I peddle full out. Yesterday I had a tailwind and did the whole stretch at about 22 MPH. See my post yesterday on "How was your commute today?" for that story: cars behind me honking their horns, and yet I was only 3 MPH under the speed limit!

What amazes me is, cyclists are perceived as obstructing traffic, even when we aren't!

In NYC cyclists usually move faster than traffic during rush hours. Anyone thinking we cause traffic must be a lunatic

Adam