Originally Posted by
Maelochs
@
livedarklions,
I think you missed my point there .... we are getting into debating minutia, like the meaning of a figure of speech.
You have decided that a bike is not a car .... well, no one is arguing. I am saying that the laws apply to bike s and cars, even if they are separate .... well the text supports that interpretation .... but if we pick individual sentences and try to cobble together a meaning which suits our argument, we are focused on winning the argument, not finding the facts.
Facts seem to be that neither of us can find exactly where an MUP fits into these road codes, and whether road or sidewalk rules would apply. Facts also seem to be that at no pint is there any mention of a cyclist or the operator of any other sort of vehicle needing to give an audible warning before overtaking .... but that only means that we might not have found one. And for all we know there is a big signboard listing the rules of that Specific MUP at every entrance---i have seen such things so it is not impossible .... but WHO CARES.???
You win. Whether or not you have facts on your side you win. You have picked more nits.
Nits are louse eggs. I hope you raise your cop successfully, and provide them with a good home. Just keep them off the MUPs
I have to say I find this pretty obnoxious. You asked for the statute, you argued with me by producing other irrelevant laws, and I showed you why they're irrelevant. You wanted the quibble, I actually put some time in finding the relevant law, and I think it's painfully obvious that a paved "trail" reserved for walkers and bikes is legally a sidewalk in the absence of any other legal specification.
On the practical side, I also think it's odd to complain that people act like you're not there when you pass silently. Preventing that is exactly why announce rules exist. If you don't announce, you're asking for exactly this incident.
I agree your attempt at legal argumentation was lousy. Mine wasn't.