[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

Well, I guess if that's your "ultimate conclusion", then I cannot help you. This is all clearly over your head. Let me try, anyway.

The primary purpose of our public road system is that of providing routes of transportation, for whatever purpose. Including recreation. Recreational uses, however, are a lower priority than others uses, including commuting, commerce, farming, etc.

We make allowances for vehicles travelling far below the posted limit when dealing with farm equipment, heavy trucks on grades, and that sort of thing. We do so because their use of the road is somewhat of a priority. They are feeding us, transporting our goods, and that sort of thing.

Bicyclists can make none of those claims. Their only reason for being out there is purely their own enjoyment - society benefits in no way whatsoever from these recreational cyclists. That would all be well and good, if only they could keep up, if only they posed no hazard to other road users. The problem is, they cannot keep up, and thereby pose a very real hazard to other uses.

As such, they have no legitimate claim to the road. They pose a very real hazard to motorists with no benefit in return. They are merely recreating. Again, if their chosen form of recreation posed no danger to anyone else, more power to them. That's not the case, however.

Why, thank you for the enlightenment! The scales have fallen from my eyes, and your response wasn't even the slightest bit condescending. Thank god for smart people like you to tell me what is really going on.