Originally Posted by
Commodus
I'm not really understanding how a bicycle can be a excepted from being a vehicle by definition, but then be 'exempted' back in to vehicle status in terms of rights and responsibilities. If you have all the rights and responsibilities, how does it make sense that a bike is not a vehicle in terms of the law?
bikes are exempt from much equipment, registration and insurance regulations relevant to other vehicles.
Its much easier and cleaner, statutorily, to define bikes as not vehicles than change every single statute in vehicle code written to regulate vehicles to not include bikes...
I think you need to look into British Columbia law a little bit closer, commodus.... not only are bikes prohibited from operating two abreast, but bicyclists are also regulated like Hawaii and New Jersey, with the rights and duties of drivers of vehicles, but clearly not vehicles under BC traffic code.
