Originally Posted by
Bekologist
..... How indicative of a general lack of critical thinking in america, when people clamor to clearly false claims about bicycling and the law simply because they come from a mouthpiece of ostensible authority.
so chip. I do hope you ride legally in Ohio, following all rules including the special rules for bicyclists that allow you to take the lane as needed for safety and yield it when safe for faster traffic.
So Bek has now retreated to advocating the version of the cyclist-FRAP law that has exceptions, on the basis that the exception that, under specified conditions, allows cyclists to take the lane, provides a benefit for cyclists. This is akin to forcibly taking a person's bar of chocolate and then claiming praise for returning half of it. Bek has argued that the exceptions in the cyclist-FRAP law enable the cyclist to lawfully operate as a driver of a vehicle. If that is so, then the cyclist-FRAP law is completely unnecessary, because cyclists have always had the right to operate as drivers of vehicles; that is except to the extent that the cyclist-FRAP law prohibited that.
The cyclist-FRAP law serves only one purpose. It establishes cyclists as second-class road users subservient to motorists. This is the anti-cyclist view held by American government and society. The fact that the exceptions, if understood and obeyed, absolutely contradict this view, fails entirely to overcome this cyclist-inferiority superstition that justifies and supports the principle of the cyclist-FRAP law.
Bek is just another of the anti-motoring bicycle advocates who support the governmental and societal program of cyclist inferiority because they believe that it is most effective in producing a big switch from motor to bicycle transport. Absurd as this sounds, they have their reasons for their belief.