Originally Posted by Helmet Head
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 of the the legal requirement being 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".
Absolutely bass-ackwards.
Here's where your error lies: There's not one legal condition, there are two. If either is satisfied, then the cyclist is not required to ride to the right.
You've changed the formulation to one legal requirement, and said if that legal requirement is satisfied, then the cyclist is required to ride to the right.
And contrary to your claim, that is not what the language says. It says just the opposite.
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).[/quote
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".
I used your values above.
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.
Believe what you want then.