Originally Posted by
John Forester 
Njkayaker is correct. The cyclist far right law is either the same as the slow moving vehicle law, in which case it is redundant, or it is different. The phrasings are much the same, for they were taken out of the same lawbook, but the fact that there is a separate law for cyclists means that it can be enforced in an entirely different manner than other drivers, meaning motorists, would accept being applied to their misdemeanors. Furthermore, this is the law that most people seem to consider the most important law for cyclists, largely ignoring most of the other laws that apply to all drivers, the exceptions being stop signs and traffic signals.
That's what's wrong with American traffic law for cyclists; it treats them as second-class roadway users, so that the public believes that they are only second-class roadway users.
What makes you think that that concept is contained in what I wrote? My statement concerned only one specific point in the discussion, somebody's criticism of Njkayaker's statement that the cyclist FTR law is either redundant or different. With added to that, the fact that the cyclist FTR law is enforced according to anti-cyclist, motorist-superiority superstition rather that to the normal standards of law.
I will add one more thought. That is, most of this line of discussion is largely about ephemeral nonsense, what lawyers consider moot, without facts.