On Dec 10, 1:08*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
DirtRoadie considered Thu, 9 Dec 2010 14:41:14
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 9, 3:13*pm, Phil W Lee wrote:
Jay Beattie considered Wed, 8 Dec 2010
18:00:24 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

So, putting them together,

Why put them together?

First the disclaimer that you forgot - YANAL
Second, *Jay IAL.

Third:
ORS 811.130(1), 814.400. State v. Potter (2002) 57 P.3d 944,
185 Or.App. 81.

Fourth:
814.400 reads "Application of vehicle laws to bicycles. (1) Every
person riding a bicycle upon a public way is subject to the provisions
applicable to and has the same rights and duties as the driver of any
other vehicle concerning operating on highways, ..."

If that was actually intended to cover more than the usual things like
obeying stop signs and traffic signals, it would mean you also need a
driving licence to ride a bicycle on the highway.
Do you?
If not, it is clear that there are differences, and it is equally
clear that the difference is stated in statutes by the use of
"vehicle" (which applies to ALL vehicles, and "motor vehicle" which
applies to only those vehicles which are mechanically propelled.
If they'd wanted 811.130 to cover all vehicles they would not have
included the word "motor", but they chose to do so.
Any decision which disregards this is flying in the face of the clear
intention of the legislators, as well as linguistic accuracy.

Or to put it another way, it is wrong, and could only be made by
someone with inadequate literacy for the position they hold.

Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon and your
argument lost.

No surprise if some legal decisions are wrong, but no excuse not to
right them.

You don't make any sense at all.
As I said "Argue your head off, the issue has been decided in Oregon
and your
argument lost."
I didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to do so.

DR