Explain

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38677696)

Critical Mass, nuff said.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38678678)

Everyone thinks they have the right to go even when they're in the wrong lane. Drunk drivers kill people every day. Motor vehicle traffic crashes have always been a leading cause of death without taking bicycles and pedestrians into account.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38684282)

TCR is to do like Portland and just put bike paths everywhere. Cyclists in the right lane/shoulder of any road 30 mph or faster that gets moderate traffic are essentially like pedestrians walking in the middle of the flow of traffic on a busy road.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38678683)

Like, there's this dickwad who makes a Youtube video literally every time he gets passed "illegally" or whatever: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPSTR0OiLqkhZD6-wAGo7vg/videos

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38678713)

dipex

1 year ago

I'll just post this again

169.222(1) (A)Every person operating a bicycle shall have all of the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle by this chapter, (B)except in respect to those provisions in this chapter relating expressly to bicycles (C)and in respect to those provisions of this chapter which by their nature cannot reasonably be applied to bicycles.

There are three parts to 169.222(1), which I have noted with (A), (B), and (C). I'll explain what each of them means to you in laymen's terms:

(A). This part says "We do not want to repeat all of the other laws that apply to vehicles in the other sections of Chapter 169, so any other rule that applies to any other vehicle also applies to bicycles."

(B). This part says "But bicycles are different from other vehicles, and as a result more laws need to apply to bicycles as well. Because of this, there may be additional, bicycle only laws found in this Chapter which apply in addition to those laws which apply by virtue of Part (A)."

(C). This part says "But we haven't actually gone back and checked to make sure that all of the laws that bicyclists may be subject to under parts (A) and (B) are actually physically possible for them to follow, so if a law is not physically possible for a bicyclist to follow, then bicyclists are not subject to it despite the fact that they otherwise would be under parts (A) and (B).

So to test and see if a bicycle is subject to a law you do the following check:

Does this law apply to vehicles or does this law explicitly state that it applies to bicycles? If yes, is this law physically possible for bicyclists to follow? If yes, then bicyclists must follow it.

So the reason you are being quoted motorcycle laws is that motorcycles are vehicles within the meaning of 169.222(1). Under 169.974(5)(e) motorcyclists are not permitted to lane split. Not lane splitting is a law that is physically possible for bicyclists to follow.

Therefore, because motorcycles forbidden from lane splitting, bicycles are forbidden from lane splitting as well.

This is why performing statutory interpretation is a bad idea for a person with no legal background. You've built an entire identity around breaking the law, creating a dangerous situation for both yourself and others - and to top it all off you have a penchant for assaulting people as a result of the danger caused by your own illegal activity.

This is not the only activity you have engaged in that you wrongfully believe is legal. A few months ago you were posting videos of you walking across a busy street because you believed you had the right of way at any "intersection". Suffice to say, you also interpreted that portion of the Minnesota code wrong as well.

The section that you were relying on in walking across the busy road was 169.21(3), which gives pedestrians the right of way at unmarked intersections. However, you ignored 169.21(1), which states that pedestrians are subject to the same traffic control signals as vehicles. That means that if an intersection is controlled by stop signs in one direction, and uncontrolled in the other, pedestrians do not have the right of way if trying to cross from the controlled direction, as they are required to stop for the stop sign.

Watching your videos you have come very close to causing numerous, serious collisions both to you trying to cross against a stop sign, as well as due to you stopping in the middle of the road and goading pedestrians to do the same thing. Quite frankly, most of the other illegal stuff that you do is fairly minor (and your videos are full of it). But the fact that you go out of your way to goad pedestrians into creating a patently dangerous situation in violation of 169.21(1) makes you a menace.

15

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3h97duIFLg

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38681119)

not a bikemo, but this is up there for stupidest fucking post of the year. bad drivers cause deaths all the fucking time. cyclists seldom do (and when they do, it tends to be their own).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38681835)

Slowing down to avoid endangering pedestrians is important, as is not cutting ahead of cars in shared traffic, and then biking slowly in front of them.

Otherwise, biking is awesome and you fatasses should fucking try it for once.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38681331)

At minimum a man is 200.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38682869)

Respect to the dude who ran this fag over

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38683054)

It's certainly not cool for the driver to track him down and hit him like that, but the cyclist is the one who instigated it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38684161)

Car blocked the lane. Cars fault.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38684225)

I'm the fucking man.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38684313)

It's literally impossible for him to stop behind the path for cyclists and safely make a left turn across that intersection.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible for the cyclist to cross behind the car and be 100% safe for all parties involved

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38684337)

this guy was looking for a low-risk hit and run video and he found a willing mark.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38685788)

he deserved much worse

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4322073&forum_id=2#38684981)