Originally Posted by
Bekologist
John. you're talking about the general SMV law in Massachusetts, that somehow the statute was written from a "cyclist inferiority" bias. That's an interesting perspective to say the least, but not statutorily supported.
clearly you've lost sight of the rudiments of this discussion. A nice bike ride might clear that head.
you are also endorsing operating as far right as practicable to share the lane, a position I applaud to see coming from you.
I like your turn of the phrase "ride FRAP to oblige."
It sounds a lot like my "ride safely right to share the road" doesn't it?
FRAP - say WHAT?
When I wrote that the cyclist part of the Mass SMV law was written from a cyclist-inferiority bias Bek jumps in to say that my statement is not "statutorily supported". Bek here claims that the style and wording with which a statute is written has to have statutory support. That's ridiculous; the statute is the statute. Each statute stands on its own words unless it conflicts with other requirements of the legal system (other statutes, the relevant constitution, etc.) The bias is immediately obvious from the convoluted way in which it expresses the very simple idea that if the lane is sufficiently wide for safe overtaking within the lane the cyclist must ride FRAP.
And again Bek proclaims his generally uniform principle of cyclist inferiority: "Ride safely right to share the road", which is a plain exhibition of Bek's belief that cyclists are second-class road users.