John Forester

Bek, you have never provided legal argument or legal opinion to the question of the slow-moving vehicle law. That is, you have never argued the meaning of the law as it appears in the statute, according to standard legal principles; neither have you provided an appellate opinion supporting your argument. In short your claims about legal force are entirely false. Like I said before, provide the legal support or cease claiming that you have it. Furthermore, in your answer to Brontide's posting you don't provide the law, but only what some official motorist says that the law is.

You also accuse me of running a "duplicitous effort that aims to take away cyclists' rights." It should be obvious that we vehicular cyclists are aiming for the exact opposite, to ensure that cyclists are allowed to exercise the full rights of drivers of vehicles, instead of having them reduced by the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws that you so strongly advocate, laws created by motorists to make motoring more convenient.

Yes, indeed, we vehicular cyclists oppose the American superstition and policy regarding bicycle traffic, which has for more than seventy years reflected the motorist-superiority, cyclist-inferiority superstition. And we, although only I say it here, are proud of fighting for the better cause of cyclist equality instead of the current cyclist-inferiority status.