johns inchoate rebuttal about traffic laws is quite flagrant.

John thinks he can use sophistry to erode the long standing common law and statutory duty of vehicles to share roads by turning out to the right, as far to the right as is safe. he has failed, utterly failed to form a convincing argument.

bluff denial of long standing traffic standards that are also codified as traffic laws really begs to wonder why?

why such a bluff misstatement of the laws governing traffic?

Why the incessant, forum disrupting drive to suborn cyclists to much more restrictive SMV laws?

Why so incessant with the deceit, john, in a thread asking about FRAP case law? What a waste.