Originally Posted by
Bekologist
oh, don't be coy. your assertions are that vehicular cycling is prohibited in all 50 states because of the 3 discriminatory edicts.
you claim your method cannot be engaged in without breaking the law.
and claims picking a safe road position, and sharing the road safely with faster traffic is 'so amorphous' that somehow you cannot ascertain if CVC 21202 allows legal safe road positioning in the primary/secondary road positioning method?
I'm demanding a legal argument about a concept, you mean, road bicycling?
yes, this confusion you possess about traffic statues is readily apparent.
Don't be silly, Bek. Obviously my claim applies to all jurisdictions in which any one of the three discriminatory laws is in force. That's 46 or so, as has been published here recently. If the mandatory side-path law is in force, any cyclist who uses the roadway adjacent to one of these is breaking the law. If the mandatory bike-lane law is in force, any cyclist who is not in the bike lane on a road that has bike lanes is breaking the law unless his action complies with one of the exceptions. If the mandatory far right law is in force, any cyclist who is not as close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway is breaking the law unless his action complies with one of the exceptions.
My description of the amorphous concept applies to your phrasing: "taking the lane and sharing roads while safe." That can mean almost anything, and has no legal meaning for the basis of a legal argument, which is what you demanded.