Genec, you just don't understand how the law works. The argument you have presented about the power of what you call a semantic dodge has never, to my knowledge, been upheld by courts, while the opposite argument, that the statute giving cyclists the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, has been upheld many times by courts holding that cyclists are to be held to the duties of drivers of vehicles and, also, that cyclists have the rights of drivers of vehicles. You need to recognize, Genec, that traffic law is not like maritime law. Maritime law gives vessels rights and duties, but traffic law gives drivers rights and duties.

The legal power to have laws for drivers of different types of vehicles is not limited to those drivers whose vehicles are not classed as "vehicles", such as horses or bicycles. Nobody would consider that the typical motor vehicle is not a vehicle, but drivers of motor vehicles are required to obey a law applicable to them alone: they are prohibited from following so close as to constitute a danger. So, it is in the legal power of the state to enact laws that apply only to operators of bicycles, whether bicycles are defined as vehicles or devices, or anything else.

This issue has been gone over for decades and there is no expert or court opinion to the contrary.