From: Ray_L_Curry@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles,rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: BICYCLE CRASH
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 09:20:24 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <ku2l5eINNfm2@bovina.cs.utexas.edu> <1992Apr8.175759.3654@island.COM>
  <tr.702843546@samadams>

>$ You'll have to explain this a bit. Are you saying that in all states, 
>$bicycles are treated the same as motor vehicles? This is assuredly NOT 
>$true.  
>The law defines bicycles as vehicles and grants them the same rights 
>as motor vehicles.  There are a few small addition responsibilities, such
>as staying as far to the right as is practicable -- a word left to
>interpretation -- and carrying lights at night, etc.  There are a few
>rights taken away also, such as riding on Interstate roads.

Drivers pamphlets that are passed out by the DMV are not law books and 
contain recommendations which are customs, not laws.  The book containing
motor vehicle laws has been mentioned before and people should read it a  
little more before being so sure that the "law" treats bicycles a certain
way.  I have researched more than one case where a car has pulled out from
a stop sign or through a red light injuring or killing a bicyclist.  The
law did not say the car had to yield the right of way and right of way 
could not be used by the cyclist or survivors in law suits.  There are a
few laws that specifically mention "non-motor vehicles" which include
horse drawn wagons or what ever.  The main fact is that down in the nitty
gritty, a lot more laws are applied to bikes by custom rather than specific
wording.  When dealing in the fine print, unless the law is worded as applying
to non-motorvehicles, it does not apply.  This does not keep a cop from 
giving a bicyclist a ticket and the magistrate from charging a fine.  It
might come into play in a law suit.

In my own humble opinion, the automobile in this country is totally spoiled.
Some inattentive teenager turns around in a car on a very wide part of a
mountain highway with lots of sholder, swerves totally off the road killing
several bicyclists, and all the newspaper can come up with is should
bicycles be allowed on such a dangerous road where they might inconvenience
a car.  No matter how infirm or incompetent an automobile driver is, the
law, the courts, the cops, and the papers (and the majority of the public)
think that driver has more right to the road than a bicycle or a motorcycle.
Again in my own humble opinion, even though I ride a bicycle only on weekends
and only out away from stop signs and traffic, that stoplights and stop 
signs are designed only to control auto traffic.  Momentum on a bicycle
is very important,  and the speed they travel is dramatically different,
they are ignored by a majority of the traffic planners and traffic lights
and if the cyclist can take advantage of a break in traffic (ie is looking)
by running a light, then that does not present a danger to anybody.  
And in doing so, they may just may a trip that is borderline practical, in
time, practical enough to save that trip in a car.  When I did bike to work
regularly, if I caught the lights green, the trip took 45 minutes.  If I
missed one by it being red, I missed them all and it took an hour an a half.
Just because a motorist who has to stop get jealous, so what.  Now in any 
situation, there are people who don't pay attention on all sorts of vehicles.
We shouldn't make conclusions based upon the fools.  Why should a bicycle
have to wait at a red light until a car comes along to trip it, especially
if there is no traffic in the other direction?
  I just try to remember that nothing is fool proof because fools are so 
ingenious.  
*****************************
Standard disclaimer.
Xref: sparky rec.bicycles:8854 rec.autos.driving:2216 ca.driving:809 rec.motorcycles:12463