Originally Posted by Blue Order
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
Every person operating a bicycle or motorized bicycle at less than the posted speed or slower than the flow of traffic upon a street or highway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe...
Don't they teach basic logic in law school?
A OR B = NOT ( NOT A and NOT B )
The law does not specify compliance. This law specificies the conditions under which the restriction applies.
The law states the restriction applies when either condition applies (because it says OR).
Don't tell me I have to go to law school to understand statutes and unlearn basic logic.
Well, if you don't believe that "or" means either condition satisfies the legal requirement, yes.
I don't know if you're pulling my leg or if you're serious. Of course I believe that "or" means either conditions satisfies the legal requirement. The issue is about what the implications are if the legal requirement is satisfied. You seem to think it means compliance is not required if the requirement is satisified. But the language clearly states if the legal requirement (traveling at less than the posted speed
or slower than the flow of traffic) is satisfied, the cyclist "shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as safe".
And nobody has accused legislatures of always being unambiguous. But in statutory construction, "or" means "either condition," while "and" means "both conditions."
There is no dispute about that.
now....
A= speed limit. The law is saying "if not A" (that's what "at less than the speed limit" means).
B= flow of traffic. The law is saying "or not B" (that's what "or less than the flow of traffic" means).
C=ride to the right. The law is saying "then C." (that's what "shall ride" means).
Right. If (not A)
OR (not B)
then C.
Meaning:
IF "at less than the speed limit"
OR "less than the flow of traffic"
THEN "shall ride".
The law isn't defying basic logic. You and Al have applied the wrong values to A and B.
If you say A=speed limit, then you can see from the language that the statute is saying "if not A."
And if you say B=The flow of traffic, then you can see from the language that the statute is saying "or if not B"
I used your values above.
If you apply the right values to A and B, the illogic vanishes.
For your sake, I hope you're kidding.
If you're not, I can't help you.
If you are, you're carrying this on for way too long.