EXACTLY!!!!!

Believe it or not, you are actually agreeing with me..

Let break it down a bit, shall we?

First let's start with your original thought that a bicycle is not considered a "vehicle".
(Specifically for NJ law)

1.) When NOT on a roadway, a bicycle it NOT a vehicle.
(This is not under contention).

2.) When ON a roadway, a bicycle IS considered a vehicle and has ALL the RIGHTS (allowed to use the roadway AND any protection from law that any other vehicles have) and ALL the DUTIES (must follow traffic rules) of a VEHICLE..
(I have proven this as I gave you the "Exemption to the Rule" statute).

If you don't believe me ask anyone else.


So the next thing is the actual case...
(Which, by the way, has NOTHING to do with whether a bicycle is a "vehicle" or a "device" or whatever).

1.) She was riding on the shoulder.
(This is not in contention).
WHILE riding ON the SHOULDER, she hit a pothole/depression and fell and a few days later she died.

CORRECT...
1.) "Clear" because the county is responsible for the care of a bicycle lane and/or a bike path and because of that (the intended use for a bicyclist), he would have won the case.
(This is not in contention either)

2.) It would have been "UN-Clear", if she was riding ON the ROADWAY, had an "emergency" AND pulled over ONTO the SHOULDER (NOT part of the roadway) which IS for that "emergency" purpose AND THEN hit the pothole/impression.
(This would have made the case, much more difficult to fight out in court... But it wasn't the case, so that's not important for this particular discussion.. ALSO, even though the roadway is not intended for bicycle use, bicycle use IS allowed.. As also shown in the "exemption to the rule" statute... Also see #3 below)

3.) She was RIDING ON THE SHOULDER..
(Which is NOT intended NOR ALLOWED to be "RIDDEN ON", AT ANY TIME, by ANY Vehicle, Device or anything else as it's ONLY intended use is for pulling over for "emergency reasons", which was NOT what she was doing.. (Reference from #2)


A.) If she was on a bike path (intended for bicycles) and this happened, the case would have been won.
(Not in contention)

B.) If she was in a bicycle lane (also intended for bicycles), the case would have been won.
(Also not in contention)

(In BOTH A and B, Since the county is responsible for keeping a bike path (and bicycle lane) clear of dangers FOR bicycles (and this is part of the case as well), because bicycles are more "fragile" than most other devices or vehicles and need special care, just for that reason, they would have won the case)

The county is ALSO responsible for keeping the roadway clear of dangers for BOTH..... Automobiles(by default) AND bicycles (because bicycles are allowed to use the roadway.)

Now HERE'S where the case was lost...

Since the shoulder is NOT part of the roadway (remember the county is responsible for "roadway clear of danger"), NOR is the shoulder for any other use BUT "emergencies", AND since the plantiff's wife was RIDING on the shoulder AND since the county is NOT responsible for keeping the shoulder clear of dangers that might effect bicycles (in this particular case, having more fragile tires/rims than a car) they are not responsible for her death.
I bet you a million dollars the above paragraph was probably the county's lawyer's closing argument. Or at least, very close to it.

Please, please, please, tell me you understand everything I just showed you..
I spent over an hour typing this up as it is NOT a troll, but me TRYING to explain everything to you as specifically as possible!

So, in recap...
1.) Bicycles ridden on the road are considered "vehicles".
And
2.) No bicycles should be ridden on the shoulder of a highway.
And
3.) The unfortunate and untimely death of another bicyclist is really sad.