Originally Posted by
benjdm
It's very analogous. Stop at red lights, go on green lights when it's safe,
not legally required in Idaho and large swathes of europe. moreover, these laws are ignored by the majority of cyclists (and pedestrians). who benefits from traffic signals? pedestrians? cyclists? skaters?
bzzzzzt! in most states cyclists are not required to signal if both hands are needed to control the bike (duh).
make sure your speed is safe given conditions of traction and visibility and such
true for skaters, roller bladers, equestrians, and even pedestrians.
turn left from a left position on the roadway, turn right from a right position on the roadway, yield to pedestrians...
and it's also often legal to ride on mups, crosswalks, trails, sidewalks, grassy parks, and filter between *vehicles*.
*****************************************************************
arguing that a human-powered bicycle resembles a 10 ton motorized vehicle in terms of risk, safety, and fundamental physics of motion is an absurdly motorist-centric perspective . imo, bikes are considered to be *vehicles* only because they are not viewed as a genuine form of transport that merits separate but equal laws.
and i think what ms. schill is doing is badly needed. challenging discriminatory laws that require a cyclist to read the mind of a leo or judge to determine what is legal and what is not legal is a *good* thing.