No Gene, no two people are equal. The rights of all people, however, are equal. That's what my analogy is based on: "Same roads. Same rights. Same rules". That cyclists have the SAME rights and responsibilities as do vehicle drivers. So, yeah, Cars != bikes (! means NOT). But, in the respect that white=blacks that matters, with respect to rights, cyclists = drivers of vehicles.

That's what my analogy is based on. Are you contending that cyclists should NOT have the same rights as vehicle drivers?


It doesn't matter Gene. I already addressed it (40 minutes before you asked if I missed it, and 50 minutes before you "answered it for me"). Your question is moot. I'll explain why again. Please read this carefully, and consider how it applies to your question:

Would non-mandatory separate water fountains be acceptable to you? How about a law that said blacks couldn't use the whites' fountain, unless they had a good reason, like the blacks' fountain was out of order?

The insidious separatist nature of such "facilities" (be they water fountains or lanes) remains, even if their use is not mandatory (without exception).


What, by the way, would be wrong with separate lanes off to the side for a certain class of people, as long as exceptions were made to allow "them" to use the main lanes when necessary? Think about the answer to this question, and let me know why it's clearly wrong when the separate class is some particular race, but not wrong when the separate class is cyclists.