Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Pretty close.
If a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to CERTAIN other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of MOTOR vehicles must obey (like no racing and no tailgating).
Defining a bicycle as a vehicle technically makes racing your buddy to the top of the local hill illegal. That makes sense if you and your buddy are racing Ford vs. Chevy, but not if Trek vs. Specialized, or your horses 9 to 5 vs. Annie pulling buggies.
Truly, in states like CA we have the best of both worlds. We have the same rights and responsibilities that apply of drivers of all types of vehicles, but not those rights and responsibilities that apply ONLY to drivers of MOTOR vehicles.
Do you seriously have a problem with that?
No...as long you you don't try to export your BS VC politics anywhere outside of California, I could care less if you sleep in the bed you made. You want special treatment, like any other dependent class. The inferiority complex is yours, so next time you think about spreading that BS to others, you are going to get called on it - Pot-Kettle-Black.
Interesting that after all the blather from you and Forester about 'transportational' cycling...it turns out your biggest concerns about being considered a vehicle have to do with racing. Hear that sucking sound of your credibility going down the toilet?
__________________
"Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws" - Edward Abbey