On 12/12/2010 12:26 AM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° wrote:
On 12/11/2010 6:13 PM, DirtRoadie Who?:
On Dec 11, 4:50 pm, Phil W wrote:
considered Sat, 11 Dec 2010 09:17:20
-0800 (PST) the perfect time to write:

On Dec 11, 9:39 am, Frank wrote:
On Dec 11, 2:14 am, Phil W wrote:

But there IS a clear distinction between the use of "vehicles" which
is all encompassing, and "motor vehicles" which is not.
The statute you quote says you must conform to the requirements for
vehicles, but does not say that you must conform to those
requirements
for motor vehicles.
Sadly, (and maybe not surprisingly) English is a foreign language to
Americans, so maybe that's why their lawyers have difficulties in
understanding it.

It is amazing that such a simple point causes confusion, isn't it?

Only for those who have no grasp of how law is written and
interpreted. You would do well to do some reading about statutory
interpretation and how the result of an appellate decision
interpreting a term forecloses rehashing arguments about what the term
means.

Simple example:
Older laws are often referred to as "motor vehicle codes" and
contained references to "motor vehicles." As those evolved typically
they dropped the title "motor vehicle code" in favor of the more
complete and/or accurate "vehicle code" or "traffic code."

But sometimes the older term "motor vehicle" still lingers in sections
of law that were not completely revised or rewritten. But, as we have
seen, the newer laws typically provide that bicycles are subject to
the same rights and responsibilities as any other vehicle. So that,
and an appellate court saying "yes, the term 'motor vehicle' in that
section means bicycles, too," that's the end of it. "Motor vehicle"
means bicycles too.

You can legislate that horses are dogs, but it still doesn't make it
correct.

One does not find typically legislation that dictates the equivalent
of "horses are dogs." But much legislation says the equivalent of
"wherever the term 'dog' appears it shall be understood to include all
four legged animals, including horses."

Wrong is wrong, no matter what seniority of judge said it.

Yes, wrong is wrong and you are wrong.
YANAL. And have proven it.

Legal does not mean moral. Legal means what the authorities impose on
the people.


Laws are intended to be regulations agreed on by the majority with
respect for the rights of the minority, at least based on high school
civics class. When we start trying to legislate morality, things don't
usually work out very well. First issue being who gets to define morality?

Anyway, we're talking about riding a bike here, not the separation of
church and state.