Originally Posted by ShannonH
What discrepancies are you referring to? I do live in the Twin Cities and would like to see even more lanes for bicycles all over.
Shannon
Shannon, Take a look at, pgs. 35 and 36 in the Minnesota State Drivers Manual(it had a green cover for this year), then, take a look at:
Minnesota State Statutes
Chap. 169(Traffic Regulations)
Sec. 222
Subd. 1
Subd. 4
Subs. 3
Part (a), (c), (d) and (f)
The Parts, is where the ambiguity starts because, they are exceptions to, riding 'as close to the curb as possible'
In Part (a), they use the phrase 'reasonbly necessary'. The use of this phrase, calls into question, the judgment capabilities of a cyclist, compared to a motorist. Why define a bicycle as a 'vehicle', in the state's drivers manual then, call into question their judgment capabilities at the same time?
In Part (c) it says that a cyclist shall ride within a single lane, without impeding traffic. This particular exception, in and of itself, is intimating that a cyclist impedes traffic so, therefore, a motorist should not have to care about a cyclist being on the road, in the first place. The definition of 'Impede' is, 'to interfere with or slow the progress of'. A cyclist is not impeding traffic if, there are a bunch of cars behind him, with an open lane on the left. Also, That a cyclist shall ride in a single lane.
In Part (d) it says we are not supposed to ride on the highway, unless, we can get one foot on the ground. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND, WOULD RIDE A BIKE ON I-35!!!!!!
In Part (f) it says that, we shall have all the rights and, responsibilities, applicable to a pedestrian. One minute, the bike is considered a vehicle, the next....a person!!
Under the states' drivers manual, it says that, we should ride, as close to the curb 'as possible'. You might say, that, I am 'splitting hairs' but, the phrase 'as possible', leaves a lot of discretion up to the individual cyclist.
Also, In the state statutes, a bicycle is 'defined' as, a vehicle.