The changes to the Massachusetts law were effective April 15, of 2009.

Bicycle violations were never included on your driving record, and could not be used as points on your auto insurance. The current law merely codifies what was already in place. (Prior to 4/15, it was unclear, so because of the uncertainty, the points were not assessed.)

There are essentially four things a police officer can do in Mass. to a bicyclist:
First there has to be either a traffic violation, or a special violation of the provisions of chapter 85 as it applies to bicyclists: helmet, equipment, etc. Then the police may do the following:
1) The police can demand that you identify yourself, and you are obligated to give YOUR name and valid address. You are not obligated to provide a license or other ID. If you are a minor, under 18, then the police can also demand that information from a parent or guardian.
2) If you are 18 or over, you can be issued a citation/ticket for said violation(s). Ultimately, if found responsible, you can be fined up to $20 for each infraction.
3) If you are under 18 and issued a citation for a traffic violation, and/or under 16 and also not wearing a helmet, etc, then in addition to the above, your bike can also be impounded.
4) If you fail to identify yourself to a police officer (or a minor, if you are the parent) (after having committed a traffic violation), then you can be ARRESTED without a warrant. You will also be issued another citation for failure to identify yourself (or the minor, as the case may be). The fine for this is $20 to not more than $50.


It is important to note though, that there is no requirement to produce a license, or other ID.

HTH
zac

Can't say I have actually tried (to get a ticket), but in my neck of the woods, I have had cruisers roll up to me and tell me how fast I was going, then give me the thumbs up. I also have a speed trap on a road that is 35...they know me...and I usually try to go over it when they are there. They always tell me my speed if they are not otherwise occupied...It's kinda fun. So I would say my local police are not too concerned, but on the other hand, I am not hammering through crowds, occupied school zone, or weaving in traffic either.

John, speeding is a non-mens rea type of offense. In other words, you don't have to know you are speeding to be in violation. It is your duty, whether or not you are able to quantify your speed, to maintain your vehicle within the limit. That is why in many jurisdictions, speeding is a civil infraction, and not a criminal offense.

HTH
zac

My one ticket on a bicycle was 2005, Denver, on Quincey Ave on south side of Cherry Hills Country Club. There are several stop signs along this tree-lined street that is one of the light car traffic, east-west bike connectors between the Platte River trail and the Cherry Creek trails.

I slowed and rolled through the stop sign, breaking the letter of the law. Cop gave me a long lecture, approx $40 ticket, and I gave him lots of "yessirs". Had my driver's license with me and showed it as ID. Don't know if it went as points against my license.

Odd thing about it is that there is a bike/walking path along most of that road. But, at that time, the road pavement had fewer hazards and pedestrians than the path, so I chose the road.

Actually, I wish the police here WOULD ticket bikers. There are so many 'salmon' and 'ninjas' (people riding against traffic, or without lights at night) and stoprunners here; not to mention sidewalk riders and unhelmeted children. (In WV, anyone under 15 must wear a helmet; Charleston & most other cities, there is an ordinace against sidewalk cycling.) These practices are not only illegal, they are dangerous. I wish the police WOULD crack down on them.

I agree with this entirely. I would actually like to see warnings and eduction as opposed to tickets at first. There are some cyclists who do observe the rules of the road, but far, far too many that do not, and actually create a dangerous situation. Unfortunately, I suspect, that their interactions with motorists are taken out on me at the next opportunity, as I occasionally encounter enraged motorists for no apparent reason.

zac

Lightingguy, there is nothing wrong with ranting once in awhile. Everyone needs to vent, unless you're vulcan.

I have heard that this "attitude" that the NYPD has towards cyclists started around 9/11, but I wonder. In the 80's, I worked with a young engineer who was a Columbia U. Graduate. One evening (second shift) we were talking about cops in general. This guy said that compared to the NYPD, Boston police were like cultured gentlemen. Yes, he was serious. He told a story of how his then-girlfriend's car had been broken into, and the NY cops treated the incident as though it was her fault for parking where she did. Basically, he felt that the NY cops came across as thugs with badges and guns.

I want to believe that most cops are decent men and women, doing a difficult job. But sometimes, it's hard.

So, let me see if I understand this: In NYC, you are required to be running lights, even in broad daylight?

US Passport card. It's about the same size as a drivers' license. I've never thought to leave my license at home and carry just my passport, though.

No ID?

In a serious accident where you are unconscious, that could prove to be a real (and very unecessary) problem for the emergency crews, and notification to someone who can speak for your rights and actions in a hospital. I would think that a copy of your driver's license or at least a card about who you are and who to notify would not weigh very much. Perhaps .1 ounce??

The law requires you to obey the speed limit. The burden is upon you to find a means to comply with the law. The law does not have to specify a particular means of compliance in order to be a valid law and the fact that most states do not require that bicycles be fitted with speedometers means that it is a rare case of the law giving citizens the freedom to choose the most suitable method of compliance for themselves rather than imposing a state mandated one size fits all solution. Why would you have a problem with that? Rather than ridicule this approach I wish that governments would adopt it more frequently.

To look at the principle another way consider that murder is outlawed virtually everywhere in the world. By your logic a law against murder has no effect unless it also outlaws ownership of every possible means of killing another human being. Do you seriously think one human being should legally be allowed to murder another simply because the law against murder forgot to outlaw private ownership of the hammer the murderer used to smash the victim's skull in? It is perfectly acceptable for laws to regulate behavior without specifying the means by which the behavior is to be produced.

It is not hard to regulate your speed on a 3000 foot descent. If it were you would have gone off the cliff on that tight curve half a mile back. If you can control your speed well enough to make the descent safely you can control it well enough to comply with the law. The fact that you do not simply means that you don't want to. And I'm ok with that, I certainly take a relaxed view of the speed limits when I drive my car as do most other drivers. As long as you do so with proper concern for the safety of others it does not bother me. It is just that if you get caught red handed take it like a man and pay the fine. Don't whine like a little baby about it. By itself speeding does not indicate a lack of good character, the varied methods proposed in this thread to avoid the consequences of speeding on a bicycle do indicate a lack of character. Be a man. I would say be a woman too but there don't seem to be any women expressing any issues with speeding tickets on bicycles so I think the women of this forum are well ahead of the men in this respect.

Ken

The last thing I want to do is to get a speeding ticket, and it's been so long since I received my one and only speeding ticket, any LEOs that were on the force then have surely retired by now. Since that ticket was what I consider a real lulu, I still have it and the officer's report safely tucked away, bragging rights in my ignorant youth, but stark reminder later on in my adult years of how fortunate I was on just receiving a ticket.

I think the real question is, if your not required to carry a specific manner of id, does that mean you need to produce it, unconditionally, upon demand. For example if an officer stops you on a bicycle, is he/she legally permitted to demand your drivers licence at a traffic stop. IANAL, the law is different, in different places. If the law that permits them to demand your drivers licence refers to motor vehicles, then obviously not. If your nice to the officer, and ask them kindly to not record your drivers licence number and explain politely that tickets on bicycles don't count on your driving record (you need to make sure this is the case) and that if it's recorded then it will count against your driving record, when it shouldn't, then many will in fact comply, leaving the DL# space on the ticket blank, or will write that the drivers licence was seen by the officer.

If someone is afraid of getting a ticket while on a bicycle, this is easily resolved for $20-$30 with a cheap bike computer. Most of them weigh almost nothing, and record other information as well, like distance and seat time.

Actually, no, only between dusk and dawn. You must have a bell or audible warning device as well as working brakes.

SB

No, I think the real question is, is this the 50+ forum or the 12- forum??? All these questions and suggestions about evading traffic rules sound like the conversation of a bunch of 12 year old boys! Are you seriously getting enough tickets on your bicycle that this is a real concern? If you live in an area where traffic enforcement against cyclists is that active isn't it simpler to just comply with whatever local cycling regulations are being that heavily enforced and avoid "imperial complications" altogether? I don't think there is a general answer to your question, you will have to ask around and find out the local rules. Whatever they are you have to assume that they could be enforced against you to the letter of the law and all the 12 year old boy schemes in the world are not going to save you from considerable inconvenience if the officer chooses to do so and you are out of compliance. Carrying proper ID could save your life if you have an accident or a medical attack of some kind by allowing medical workers to contact your family and get information they need to treat you safely. Do you really want to prevent that just so you can avoid a black mark on your driving record??? If your local laws do not require you to present a driver's license if you are stopped for a traffic offense on a bicycle then I think it is exceedingly unlikely that the bicycle offense will be recorded against your driving record even if you do present a driver's license as an ID in that situation. As far as I know in Illinois where I live you can have a photo driver's license or non-driving photo ID but not both so the 12 year old plan of getting a second ID to use while cycling is a non-starter here.

Yeah, I bet everyone who raised the speedometer objection has one on their bike already anyway. Even people who want to save 5 grams by leaving their ID at home will want to know exactly how fast they are going so they can brag about it.

Ken

Gee, I think your making a mountain out of a mole hill here. As for proper ID, you probably have some form of card from your health insurance provider, which medical services providers need anyway. As for using your licence, here is what happens, your pulled over on a bicycle, you provide your drivers licence as ID, the officer dutifully fills in the licence number on the ticket, and writes in the comments section that the offence was on a bicycle. The ticket goes to the data entry people at the attorney generals office, where the data entry drones, key all the info from the tickets into their computer. They are really only concerned with 4 pieces of information, the drivers licence number, the offence code, (if speeding the speed), and the ticket number. If they are good the comment goes in as well, if not, then they don't care. Now you have an offence against your drivers licence. Your insurer gets wind of this, and your insurance now costs you 30% more. If the officer instead put in the comments that you presented a driver licence, without recording the number because the offence was on a bicycle, then it doesn't show up on your driving record. Now, realistically, you probably should get dinged, if you disobey the traffic rules on a bicycle, then you probably are not much better about them when driving.

I have personally become more and more thinking that we need a bicycle drivers licence, which can be obtained simply by writing the written driving test, and then you get a special class of licence for bicycles, which those over a certain age, must carry when riding. This licence would also give the same driving privileges as a learners permit for a automobile or motorcycle, except it runs the same length as a normal drivers licence. If you have a motorcyclists or drivers licence, then those automatically include bicycle riding.

This would improve bicycle safety, in that you would no longer have the ability to be anonymous on a bicycle, so the stop sign and red light runners and the sidewalk riders would get tickets. Once you have to pay money for your offence, your less likely to commit the offence a second time. Speeding is probably the least of my worries, with speed limits in the 40-80km/h range and motor vehicles given a 20km/h grace, your unlikely to get many tickets.

Riders who like to brag, are likely to NOT have a computer, then they can estimate, and the estimate is like when they are out fishing

Lots of questions and points about identification. One of you who is more current on the current state of the law can correct me; but I am under the belief that a person has no obligation to carry any form of identification unless specifically required by law for that activity. If walking or biking a simple statement of your name is all that is legally required. A driving license is just that a license to drive. It is not required to be carried at any other time. If flying, for example, a person can provide several other forms of identification, government ID card, passport, passport card, etc. For airline travel I know of one person who uses his concealed carry permit.

Now, is it wise not to carry identification? No, but it is not required by law.

The way it works here in Mid-Michigan:

For most local traffic offenses (and I think that's what we're talking about here) you either mail in your money or the courts will assign you a date for a traffic hearing. (I.E. all of Officer Friendly's cases for last week will be on Tuesday at 9:00 am.) You show up, and you and the officer both make your cases. The officer will usually win, unless the charges are clearly preposterous, like 65mph going uphill on your bicycle. BUT... if the officer doesn't show, you plead 'not guilty' and with no testimony against you, charges will be dismissed. This is actually quite likely to happen, especially if you're the only one on Officer Friendly's list who is contesting the tickets he wrote.

I disagree that the ticket should go against your driver's license because you'd probably do the same thing in your car. In this country we don't convict based on what someone *might* do.

That is what RoadID is for. I have one for home, with permanent information, and one for travel (interactive) where I can adjust the information according to where I am, or where my wife/family are.

From what I understand, first responders are not looking for ID, other than med alert bracelets/dogtag types. Plus, often after a crash you are separated from your bike, and contents of jersey pockets can be ejected, or the jersey is cut off.

Other than commuting, I do not carry a license when I ride, but I always wear my RoadID.

zac

My understanding is that you are correct - however - with the proviso that the police can take you to the station until your identity is somehow verified (and they can confirm that you are who you say you are), which can take a considerable amount of time.

This all seems a bit silly. Why would one not want to be able to be identified?

Not necessarily. Unless the officer has a specific articulable reason to believe you provided false information with the intent to hide your identity, then his mere hunch or suspicion is not enough. I guess what I want to stress is that unless the police has some specific reason NOT to believe the information you gave them, then they must accept it at face value. Note, generally a name and valid address will come back on a check to be valid, if indeed it is. Failure of it, on the other hand, is not necessarily enough of a reason to arrest though. It may be enough to question for further details...but that alone is not enough.

HTH
zac

I guess my thought is that it would not be hard for a police officer to come up with a "specific articulable reason" if he/she so desired to do so.

No, I hear what you are saying, and you are absolutely correct.

However, given the right circumstance I have had clients recover for false arrest. The police are sometimes protected by statute, but sometimes they are not...because of the nature of bicycle and traffic offenses, generally being civil (and not criminal) in nature, it is not prudent for an officer to make an arrest.

Plus if it turns out the information was indeed valid, and the detention and/or arrest was made, then the LEO is going to be in some serious trouble.

zac

The laws the cops choose to enforce are in many ways out of date and inappropriate and here's a scenario.

I commute from Long Island, NY to Brooklyn, thus I'm in NYC when I ride. Some days I ride the 26lbs commuter/touring bike, which is equipped with reflectors and a light if I need one. It doesn't have a bell as the bell is friggin useless 'cause everybody thinks it's a cute sound and pays no attention to it, thus I sometimes wear a whistle, which is great as you can vary the intensity and gets folks attention, but is illegal.

Some day's, when I leave clothes and car at work, I'll ride one of my "go fast" bikes, which I do not keep equipped with reflectors as it's a racing bike.

Thus I'm in violation EVERY time I do a bike commute and I'm riding safely and using common sense (I always carry my license and other ID), but can still receive a ticket or two if I encounter a cop with a bug up their butt. Witness the guy on the single speed in the collision the Police Commisioner was involved in. Was the rider in any way in the wrong ?, possibly not, but the simple act of riding a bike who's equipment is "just" outside what a badly and outdated law states is required, instantly put that rider at risk of further and unwarranted legal action.

SB

Were you the rare young guy who thought ahead far enough to save and frame the citation?

I'm making a mountain? And then you go on with more 12 year old boy schemes to avoid consequences I have never suffered even though I do occasionally run afoul of the local speed trap while operating a motor vehicle. I do have an insurance card. It has my name on it. It has no address, not even the state I reside in, and no ID number that the police could use to try to contact anyone who knows anything about my medical condition. If my injury requires a treatment that could be dangerous if I have some particular condition or use some particular drug regularly they would just have to guess and hope for the best. On the other hand carrying my driver's license has no consequences that I am aware of other than those specified by state law and which I am subject to whether I carry it or not. Carrying your license is the molehill, all the schemes to avoid that are the mountain the rest of you are making.

Besides, an insurance card weighs as much as a driver's license so it would not solve the problem one gentleman has with weighing himself down....

Ken