Originally Posted by
wsbob
I can't speak to state's bike specific laws other than Oregon's and maybe New York's, but Oregon's bike specific laws actually are fairly easy to understand and comply with, though for a reliable understanding of them, it does help to read them and think about what they specify. Oregon's bike laws aren't confused, though (2) of 814.420 has some uncertainty that could benefit from clearing up.
ORS 814.420 is actually quite a good law for cyclists in its specifying to some extent rather than arbitrarily leaving to individual interpretation, some of the vast array of situations and conditions creating the need for people that bike to not ride in bike lanes, on bike paths, etc. While I don't know for sure...haven't been able to read about Oregon legislative committee discussion leading to creation of the law...I think outlining for all road users, various situations and conditions people that bike likely would encounter in bike lanes, paths, etc, possibly was part of the reason the law was created.
That argument is plain false, Wsbob. First, it is obvious that there is no need at all to have laws of this nature, describing the actions permitted on roadways, bike lanes, bike paths alongside roadways. All that is needed is no such laws at all; just let the cyclist choose which of the available facilities best suits his travel need, just so long as he obeys the primary law for cyclists, requiring obedience to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. Come on, Wsbob. Provide a reasonable justification for the existence of such laws. Only if there is a reasonable justification for such laws is it reasonable to discuss how well, or how badly, they operate.