Originally Posted by
genec
John, I understand what you think you are trying to say, but my argument is the general public no more knows of the exceptions than they do the laws themselves... and those that do know the laws (such as the judge in San Diego on the Wooley case) tend to misinterpret the laws.
I used to have the laws for cyclists posted outside my cube at work... and to a person it was expressed by those that read them that they had no idea at all that cyclists had any rights to use the road at all.
When I go to public places where I am not known as a cyclist, I ask folks (in casual conversation) what they think of cyclists on the road... and most comment that cyclists should not be on roads built for autos, and those folks that do accept cyclists on the roads do so because they think they are doing cyclists a favor.
Share the road campaigns don't help either... as again it implies that motorists should share (or worse, cyclists should share) that which doesn't belong to cyclists.
While legally you ARE correct that such laws are discriminatory and in effect should be removed and cyclists should just have the same rules and rights as all other road users, the laws do not really matter as the public has in their minds that bicycles do not belong on the roads, and that there are no laws granting or denying cyclists any rights to the road. The general public just doesn't know. So changing the laws will not affect the way cyclists are treated.
BTW speaking of DREAM WORLD... you are the one that expects cyclists to be treated fairly based on rules of the road... and that just doesn't happen... and this thread is a fine example of what happens in the real world. Cyclists are shoved, intimidated, honked at, yelled at, and harassed whenever a motorist feels they are in the way... regardless of the the cyclists, legal standing on the road.
Keep in mind that the most of the CA driving public received their licenses before there was any mention of cyclists in the CA drivers handbook... and even now the mention is minimal at best and doesn't go in to great detail about cyclists having nearly the same rights as motorists. This is where many folks have developed their misunderstanding of the real rules... do you really believe that drivers are out there checking the CA DMV site for information on rules of the road? No, they drive along with their minimal knowledge and make up whatever rules they feel they need.... which is why motorists have to be reminded to yield to peds at right on red... DRIVERS DO NOT KNOW THE LAWS and often fail to comprehend the rules of the road. Drivers know just enough to pass the test, period.
It is your belief, Genec, that the public believes that cyclists are not legitimate roadway users without having any legal basis for that belief. You express astonishment that you think that I believe that motorists regularly check the CA DMV for information on rules of the road. Don't be silly, of course they don't do that at all frequently, and I have never so argued. My argument is that most everybody recognizes the anti-cyclist laws, which is your argument as well, even for the judicial branch. It is that which they remember, that cyclists are supposed to stay far right, to clear the way for motorists, which is the obvious content of those anti-cyclist laws. Repealing those laws will at least prohibit the enforcement and judicial operations from trying to enforce that prohibition.
You say that repeal of those laws will not affect the public's actions, because the public operates on nothing but superstition. I say, first, that what the public does is of much less importance than what government does. And I add that over time, once the anti-cyclist laws are no longer effective, the public will discover that it has no legal excuse for being nasty to cyclists, and without that excuse the expressions will diminish.
Genec, you have been arguing out of both sides of your mouth, that the laws have no effect and that they are the excuse for governmental mistreatment. You can't have it both ways.