View Single Post
Old 03-14-10, 11:07 AM
  #37  
John Forester
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
I'm talking about bicyclists impeding traffic, and laws that indicate bicyclists are, indeed, capable of 'impeding traffic.'

what exactly are you talking about, john? do you think bicyclists SHOULD be citable under various reiterations of 'impeding traffic' statutes? should impeding traffic laws become 'vehicle agnostic' so that bicyclists could then be citable for 'impeding traffic'?

like you mention, some states clearly define only motor vehicles as being capable of 'impeding traffic'. perhaps state laws should clearly define impeding traffic as only being possible by motor vehicles' and cyclists should work to clarify state laws so only motor vehicles can be capable of impeding traffic.

what do YOU think, john forester?

directly related to this texas case, are texas bicyclists citable for instances of 'impeding traffic?'

how about california bicyclists? are bicyclists able to be cited for impeding traffic in california? and, philosophically,

should bicyclists be able to be cited for 'impeding traffic?

feign your personal confusion about bicyclists impeding traffic all you want, john forester, don't associate me with your misunderstanding of the topic at hand.
I wrote that in your ideological desire to criticize me you have confused the impeding traffic law with the traffic behind backed up law. These are different laws with different applicable conditions. You still don't seem to realize that, or else you are pretending not to realize that; I can't distinguish the states of your mind.
John Forester is offline