Old 08-26-13, 08:52 AM
  #40  
dpeters11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 477

Bikes: 2010 Trek FX 7.5, 2011 Trek 2.1

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ItsJustMe
Actually, if the idiot knew the law, he'd know that actually bicyclists (and any muscle powered transport) does actually have a RIGHT to be on the road. "Right" means it's not revocable. You can't by law stop anyone from using the public roads if they're walking or on a bike - even restricted access roads must have a reasonable alternative route for pedestrians and cyclists.

By contrast, ALL non-muscle-powered transport (IE cars, trucks, busses) are only allowed on the road as a privilege which can be revoked as the state sees fit.
But that can be changed in law, can't it? It wasn't until 1954 I believe that the final state in the lower 48 started requiring motorists to have a license. I'm not saying it should be, but nothing is absolute and impossible to change. It just gets harder as you go up the line.
dpeters11 is offline