Originally Posted by
Iride01
Interesting right off the bat that a bicycle in the State of New York is apparently not considered a vehicle. That's one difference I don't think I like at all. Being considered a vehicle is what gives me more rights to ride my bike where I desire and follow a standards set of rules with less if's and's or but's that both motor vehicles drivers and I will be aware of.
How so?
Originally Posted by
Iride01
How likely is it that a motor vehicle driver will know the differences a cyclist is supposed to follow on the road? Dumb motorist's notwithstanding.
Most motorists (most people) likely believe that a bicycle is a vehicle legally. So, enshrining this belief in the law won't change people's understanding.
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1231
Every person riding a bicycle or skating or gliding on in-line skates upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this title
This law says it doesn't matter (most, if not all, states have this law).
Originally Posted by
Iride01
Really surprised at that one as New York city seemed to play a big part in the history of bicycle laws being established way back when. This is actually the first time I've looked at any other states laws and found that a bicycle is not a vehicle there. Most other states a bicycle is a vehicle.
It doesn't seem that uncommon that bicycles are not defined as vehicles. I suspect the reason comes down to avoiding needing to rewrite the traffic laws. Again, the law quoted above makes it irrelevant.