Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you consider your riding style to be vehicular cycling, generally

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 70.00%
  • No

    9 30.00%
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 82
  1. #26
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JRA
    John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.
    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?

  2. #27
    Non-Custom Member zeytoun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    My Bikes
    1975-1980 SR road bike
    Posts
    1,613
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Do you seriously have a problem with that?
    Only that I now can't place the granny on the 3-speed who beat me up Texas street under citizen's arrest for racing.

    Hey, that reminds me of a trick I saw performed at a sideshow at the Kutztown, PA county fair over 40 years ago.
    Are you sure it wasn't Thailand?

    I hope I didn't catch the gay or the HIV too
    I am a mutated sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate and mutate, blah!.

  3. #28
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    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?
    It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
    If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

    Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

    And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  4. #29
    Been Around Awhile I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Burlington Iowa
    My Bikes
    Vaterland and Ragazzi
    Posts
    19,715
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
    You forget which tiny slice of the cycling population Forester really represents. Priority must be given to protecting Forester's cycling club associates from any fear, no matter how remote, of any limitation on their right to paceline and/or conduct a race on public roads, whenever and wherever they choose.

  5. #30
    Senior Member The other Inane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Brisvegas
    My Bikes
    Fixed Gear and Cannondaler R4000
    Posts
    67
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
    I like a lot of the "special" rules for bikes in the road rules where I live. I think they acknowledge that in some ways bicycles are superior vehicles

    Buses, motorcycles, taxi's, trucks and even cars with more than a certain number of occupants have special rules and exemptions for using the road, so why not bikes?

    When riding I am not a "pedestrian on wheels" or a motor vehicle, I am a cyclist on a bike (that is also legally a vehicle) .... and I ride like one.
    Fight Club - "On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."

  6. #31
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sbhikes
    You can have the wooden nickel, but only if you can pick it up without stopping and dismounting from your slow-moving vehicle.
    Piece of cake, white girl.
    "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

  7. #32
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote 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

  8. #33
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,565
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
    If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

    Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

    And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
    Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?

    The typical argument is that motorists pay taxes and fees for the roads... but that is not true when it comes to the surface streets that cyclists use... those roads are paid for by all of us that pay taxes, and the licenses are because motorists are driving a heavy powerful vehicle. So why not laws that give preferential treatment to cyclists... especially in light of the energy issues that we are facing now and in the future.

    Why not "3 foot laws," "stopsigns as yield laws" and "vulnerable road user laws" to give cyclists a certain advantage similar to that advanatage that hybrid drivers get in car pool lanes.

  9. #34
    Al noisebeam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    AZ
    My Bikes
    Cannondale SuperSix, Lemond Poprad. Retired: Jamis Sputnik, Centurion LeMans Fixed, Diamond Back ascent ex
    Posts
    13,902
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by joejack951
    I rode on a sidewalk yesterday on my way to go get water ice. It's the only way to get between two neighborhoods on the way there without going onto the less pleasant arterials (it was rush hour and I felt like taking the quieter, longer route). I also rode on a MUP as part of the same route. I did "take the lane" through the neighborhoods though, at about 10mph.
    My understanding is that Rando is truely non vehicluar in style. He chooses sidewalk even when the road is pleasant (except for lack of shade), such as this example of a lightly traveled low speed limit road with very wide lanes.
    Google Map Link to 14th Street between 52nd and Priest
    Sidewalk bicycling

    This is not at all meant as a negative comment about him. I very much appreciate the honesty and the reasoning.

    The only thing I am curious about is if he uses the sidewalk on same road on colder days or when the sun is down.

    Al

  10. #35
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?

    The typical argument is that motorists pay taxes and fees for the roads... but that is not true when it comes to the surface streets that cyclists use... those roads are paid for by all of us that pay taxes, and the licenses are because motorists are driving a heavy powerful vehicle. So why not laws that give preferential treatment to cyclists... especially in light of the energy issues that we are facing now and in the future.

    Why not "3 foot laws," "stopsigns as yield laws" and "vulnerable road user laws" to give cyclists a certain advantage similar to that advanatage that hybrid drivers get in car pool lanes.

    In the context of California and considering a bicycle a vehicle, how do you think black folks, for example, would have tolerated laws that gave them the same rights and responsibilities as others, but refused stipulate that they were equal human beings?

    Special privileges do not mean equality. You wanna have equal footing with other vehicles, you need to first be considered a vehicle. Anything less is lip service to shut you up and get you out of the way of the 'real' vehicles...which is what HH & JF allegedly oppose in principle but not in deed.

    Once you are a vehicle, laws and regs concerning different classes of vehicles will give you the special treatment you seek.
    "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

  11. #36
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    It sounds an aweful lot like special treatment if you ask me. Which should be something all cyclists strive against when it comes to our rights to the road.
    If cyclists are afforded special rights that would lead to animosity from motorists.

    Is it not easier and better for motorists to understand that we (cyclists) must obey the same rules while on the road instead of them having to take note of our special rights and laws?

    And special rights for a bicycle tend to lead to the belief that a bicycle is an inferior vehicle.
    You're close. It's special treatment, special treatment of MOTOR vehicles.
    Before motor vehicles, it was not against the rules to "tailgate" and race on the roads.
    The MOTORs made those practices dangerous, and, so, they are rightly prohibited, for drivers of MOTOR vehicles.

  12. #37
    Senior Member rando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    2,967
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by noisebeam
    My understanding is that Rando is truely non vehicluar in style. He chooses sidewalk even when the road is pleasant (except for lack of shade), such as this example of a lightly traveled low speed limit road with very wide lanes.
    Google Map Link to 14th Street between 52nd and Priest
    Sidewalk bicycling

    This is not at all meant as a negative comment about him. I very much appreciate the honesty and the reasoning.

    The only thing I am curious about is if he uses the sidewalk on same road on colder days or when the sun is down.

    Al
    Yes, I do!

  13. #38
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,565
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    In the context of California and considering a bicycle a vehicle, how do you think black folks, for example, would have tolerated laws that gave them the same rights and responsibilities as others, but refused stipulate that they were equal human beings?

    Special privileges do not mean equality. You wanna have equal footing with other vehicles, you need to first be considered a vehicle. Anything less is lip service to shut you up and get you out of the way of the 'real' vehicles...which is what HH & JF allegedly oppose in principle but not in deed.

    Once you are a vehicle, laws and regs concerning different classes of vehicles will give you the special treatment you seek.
    I don't want to go down the black and white debate... frankly because bicycles are not equal to MOTORvehicles... the weight is different, the speed is different, the load carrying is different, and we are talking human powered verses motor powered... the differences far outweigh the need to be equal. Therefore we should be beyond equality... and in fact should be treated differently.

    I really don't want equality, I want to be special. I don't use 4 wheels or gasoline, I AM different and want to be treated differently. If I want equality, I could just jump in a MOTOR vehicle and be equal.

  14. #39
    Senior Member LCI_Brian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    in the hills of Orange, CA
    Posts
    1,356
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JRA
    John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.
    In California, the traffic laws make a distinction between vehicles (meaning motor vehicles according to the legal definition) and drivers. The movement laws usually start off with "the driver of a vehicle must....", while the laws dealing with physical characteristics of the vehicle (turn signals, lighting, seat belts, etc.) leave out the reference to "driver" and refer only to the vehicle itself. A bicycle is not a vehicle in California, which is a good thing because that means we're exempt from having things like seatbelts and big headlights permanently attached to our bikes. (There are separate laws dealing with bicycle lighting requirements when riding at night.) But "bicyclists have the same rights and duties as the driver of a vehicle", so they are subject to the same movement laws as other drivers - which is the essence of the "same roads, same rules, same rights" saying.

  15. #40
    your nightmare gal chipcom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The Cracker Factory
    Posts
    24,352
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    I really don't want equality, I want to be special. I don't use 4 wheels or gasoline, I AM different and want to be treated differently. If I want equality, I could just jump in a MOTOR vehicle and be equal.
    Well if all you want is to be special, come my friend, join me on the short bus!
    "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

  16. #41
    Senior Member Brian Ratliff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Near Portland, OR
    My Bikes
    Three road bikes. Two track bikes.
    Posts
    9,478
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Personally, I think we are talking about a difference without a distinction. It is not about how the vehicle is defined. It is about how the law is applied. No more, no less.
    Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
    "If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --the tiniest sprinter

  17. #42
    totally louche Bekologist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    A land that time forgot
    My Bikes
    the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes
    Posts
    18,026
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    since vehicular cyclists like mossy john and helmet head have clarifed that vehicular cyclists can ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, on shoulders of high speed roads, ETC,

    then YES, of course I ride vehicularily. all the semantics surrounding this 'vehicular' debate is largely internet posturing about minuatae.


    I've been taking the lane since 1976. I ride vehicularily, and I also support bike infrastructure. Even mossy john has admitted vehicular bicyclists CAN RIDE VEHICULARILY IN A BIKE LANE.
    "Evidence, anecdote and methodology all support planning for roadway bike traffic."

  18. #43
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by chipcom
    Hear that sucking sound of your credibility going down the toilet?
    Careful, this is almost exactly what I got reported for saying...






  19. #44
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
    Personally, I think we are talking about a difference without a distinction. It is not about how the vehicle is defined. It is about how the law is applied. No more, no less.
    Agreed. The law applies to operators, not to vehicles anyway.

    And if cyclists have the same general rights and responsibilities of vehicle drivers (but not necessarily all the specific extra responsibilities that apply only to drivers of certain types vehicles), what's the problem?

  20. #45
    Senior Member randya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    in bed with your mom
    My Bikes
    who cares?
    Posts
    13,696
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by genec
    Why not special rights for cyclists? We are a non polluting, low impact, highly efficient form of personal transport that is in reality somewhat fragile when compared to the other vehicles on the road. Motorcycles and hybrid cars get certain "special treatment" when it comes to car pool lanes. Pedestrians get preferential treatment when it comes to ROW, why shouldn't cyclists get special treatment?
    Motorists also get to use all those special limited access 'non-motorized vehicles prohibited' roads.

  21. #46
    genec genec's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    san diego
    My Bikes
    custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2
    Posts
    22,565
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by randya
    Motorists also get to use all those special limited access 'non-motorized vehicles prohibited' roads.
    Exactly... We have no access to limited access freeways... therefore we should get preferential treatment on regular surface streets.

  22. #47
    Senior Member wheel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Crystal MN
    Posts
    2,147
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I voted no, I am not much of a label person, nor as I satated really get VC....
    My Youtube Cycling Videos Here

  23. #48
    pj7
    pj7 is offline
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Helmet Head
    You're close. It's special treatment, special treatment of MOTOR vehicles.
    Before motor vehicles, it was not against the rules to "tailgate" and race on the roads.
    The MOTORs made those practices dangerous, and, so, they are rightly prohibited, for drivers of MOTOR vehicles.
    Dude, you seriously can't compare 100 years ago to today, that is totally asenine. Before motor vehicles there was no such thing as a tailgate and racing took place on tracks, not the roads... for the most part. But then again, 80 years ago I was allowed to beat my wife with a stick if I felt I had good reason.
    The roads today are designed with motor traffic in mind first, that makes them the main user of the roads.

    I find it humerous that you have posted several times, "same roads, same rules" yet are all happy and giddy that you don't have to abide by that statement.
    There is a word for people like that
    I am a sig Virus. Please put me in your sig so that I can continue to replicate.

  24. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,069
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JRA
    John Forester, that great champion of "cyclists fare best..." opposed attempting to change California law to define a bicycle as a vehicle. "Why?" you ask. Well, if a bicycle were defined as a vehicle, in the absense of changes to other laws to include exceptions for bicyclists, then bicyclists might actually be required to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey (oh, the horror of it!). That's right. Despite the fact that Foresterites have "Same Roads, Same Rules" as a slogan, the great Forester himself opposes actually requiring bicyclists to obey the same rules that drivers of other vehicles obey. Go figure. So much for the internal consistancy of VC-ism.

    "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson

    We sure don't need any more hobgoblins than we already have.
    JRA, your statement demonstrates that you are either completely ignorant of what went on, or are a compulsive liar. I don't know which, but they are both ugly. For example, had that change been made, cyclists would be limited to knobby mountain-bike tires because normal road tires would be prohibited. That has nothing whatever to do with the rules of the road concerning traffic operations, but it was just one of the many things that would have occurred. Since the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles covers all the rules of the road for traffic operations is entirely sufficient, we saw no reason to change, and many troubles if we did change.

  25. #50
    Banned. Helmet Head's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    13,075
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by pj7
    Dude, you seriously can't compare 100 years ago to today, that is totally asenine. Before motor vehicles there was no such thing as a tailgate and racing took place on tracks, not the roads... for the most part. But then again, 80 years ago I was allowed to beat my wife with a stick if I felt I had good reason.
    The roads today are designed with motor traffic in mind first, that makes them the main user of the roads.

    I find it humerous that you have posted several times, "same roads, same rules" yet are all happy and giddy that you don't have to abide by that statement.
    There is a word for people like that
    Same rules means same rules that apply to drivers of all types of vehicles.
    it does not mean same rules that apply to drivers of particular types of vehicles with radically different physical and operational characteristics of bicycles

    There are rules that apply only to commercial trucks, only to motorcycles, and only to motor vehicles. Those are special rules, not general rules that apply to all drivers of all vehicles.

    It's not that hard. You can get it.


    And I'm not the only one who says "same rules same rights same roads".


    Results 1 - 20 of about 4,880,000 English pages for same rules same roads same rights.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=same+...utf-8&oe=utf-8

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •