In America (the USA), being the first and most motorized and richest
nation, bicycling came to be almost entirely a childhood activity
and society ignored the few adult cyclists. Therefore, when the
motorists, having the political power in traffic affairs, wanted to
protect themselves from childish bicycling activity, they enacted
laws that shoved cyclists to the side of the roadway, or off it
entirely if a usable path was nearby. And the motorists preserved
their do-good political status by arguing that this was all done for
the safety of those child cyclists. Well, nobody was going to fight
against the safety of children, and the adult cyclists probably
never knew what had happened in the legislatures, for in those days
they did not feel a need to protect their rights by keeping tabs on
the legislatures.
So that is why, today, even cyclists who obey the rules of the road
for drivers of vehicles have to be able to justify that they have
the right to obey those rules by proving that one of the exceptions
to the discriminatory child-safety, motorist-convenience laws
applies to their specific circumstances.
The anti-cyclist discriminatory laws must go!
On 5/4/2012 4:23 PM, Ebeling, Jr., Herman F. wrote:
On 04-May-12 17:56, Michael Graff wrote:
Yes, attitudes among law enforcement are probably getting
better on average, and adding more/better exceptions probably
helps somewhat, but it's still a fundamentally flawed law that
leaves cyclists at the mercy of individual officers.
Michael,
And sadly cyclists are about the only group of road users
who have to justify why they were riding where they were. I
mean when was the last time that a person driving a car had to
justify why they were driving where they were driving? Why is
it only us cyclists that have to do that???