Road Cycling · Public discussion

CVC 39002

Started by Schpok · · Last activity · 9 posts · 356 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
7 August 2006
Last activity
8 August 2006
Original author
Schpok
Posts
9
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
356
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–9 of 9
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. a) A city or county may adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or
    resolution providing that no resident shall operate any bicycle on any
    street...

    Does anyone know if this is excersized anywhere in SoCal? I know
    Glendale used to, and am not sure if it still does

  2. "Schpok wrote: (clip) resolution providing that no resident shall operate
    any bicycle on anystreet... (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I guess that means that non-residents are okay to ride on the streets. I'm
    no lawyer, but that seems unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.

  3. Schpok said:

    a) A city or county may adopt a bicycle licensing ordinance or
    resolution providing that no resident shall operate any bicycle on any
    street...

    Does anyone know if this is excersized anywhere in SoCal? I know
    Glendale used to, and am not sure if it still does


    In other words, this means that they can pass a law banning bicycles?


  4. Quoted message said:

    In other words, this means that they can pass a law banning bicycles?

    No, read the entire cite (which the original poster neglected to provide):

    39002. (a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing ordinance or
    resolution, may provide in the ordinance or resolution that no resident
    shall operate any bicycle, as specified in the ordinance, on any street,
    road, highway, or other public property within the jurisdiction of the city
    or county, as the case may be, unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance
    with this division.

    Chris Neary
    [email hidden]

    "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
    you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
    loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

  5. Are there any parts of the state that excersize required licensing to
    ride?

    Chris Neary said:
    Quoted message said:

    In other words, this means that they can pass a law banning bicycles?

    No, read the entire cite (which the original poster neglected to provide):

    39002. (a) A city or county, which adopts a bicycle licensing ordinance or
    resolution, may provide in the ordinance or resolution that no resident
    shall operate any bicycle, as specified in the ordinance, on any street,
    road, highway, or other public property within the jurisdiction of the city
    or county, as the case may be, unless the bicycle is licensed in accordance
    with this division.

    Chris Neary
    [email hidden]

    "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
    you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
    loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

  6. Schpok said:

    Are there any parts of the state that excersize required licensing to
    ride?

    A few years ago the local police (East Bay) recovered a stolen bicycle
    of mine. I had made a report with the serial number and description a
    few weeks earlier. The officer who recovered the bike said he observed
    the thief simply fall over in traffic, recognized the signs of a stolen
    bike (tape covering decals, etc) and wanted to run the serial number but
    needed reasonable cause to do so. He said that since the bike didn't
    have a city license sticker the rider was in violation of the municipal
    code and that gave the officer the authority to check the serial number
    and of course it came up as stolen.

    Ironic that if I HAD registered the bike, I wouldn't have gotten it back.

    Completely unenforced but apparently on the books.

  7. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Schpok said:

    Are there any parts of the state that excersize required licensing to
    ride?

    _ Palo Alto intermittantly enforces something like this, although
    I think all you get is a "fix-it" ticket.

    _ Booker C. Bense

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: 2.6.2

    iQCVAwUBRNfNsGTWTAjn5N/lAQFuZwP/cA5GHabd4/LXhfinQkTefjTw30Mqx49l
    fbhiY9gEUGNCCT6QtyaISGyiLEQzYfbGYs1qPWKmgKBTEI122sG0lkK05czdXSEQ
    orVS/41Q4LINGRF7KFtcfcxL/EcWa7P5+/uSZ5I1j8U2b9ZB9ZUWXSzqvptxf2g0
    Awg24PmJZtQ=
    =sIIh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  8. "Diablo Scott" wrote: (clip) Ironic that if I HAD registered the bike, I
    wouldn't have gotten it back. (clip)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    I don't think that's true. The officer needed a reason to make a stop. Had
    the bike been licensed, he would have been able to check the number.
    (Certainly you would have included it in the police report.) Then again,
    the thief might have taped it or removed it, which would have would have
    lead to the same outcome.

  9. "Chris Neary" quoted the ordnance: (clip) unless the bicycle is licensed in
    accordance with this division.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    This is quite a bit different from the OP's version, that no resident may
    operate a bicycle on the streets. And, reasonably, it exempts
    non-residents--else, out-of-towners would be screwed.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.