Originally Posted by
livedarklions
Yes, really hard to believe this exception was intentional.
I live in NH. NH RSA 265:54applies the school bus rule to "drivers of vehicles", and "vehicles". "Vehicles" in NH includes bicycles, so this exception doesn't apply..
Legislative history says the exception carve outs were intentional.
For example, a proposed bill, again, this year:
"In passing a vulnerable user the operator of a motor vehicle shall pass at a safe distance of not less than 3 feet when the motor vehicle is traveling at 30 miles per hour or less, with 1 additional foot of clearance for every 10 miles per hour that the vehicle is traveling above 30 miles per hour."
(And even here, the drafting geeks could whine, with justification, about the parallel construction of the clause and the missing third "motor.")
Another bill deals with e-bikes. (Currently, e-bikes are in a legislative vacuum in Massachusetts. Like a person riding a bicycle in a crosswalk, they don't exist in this commonwealth's laws.)
Not that it matters, again.
All these bills went to a virtual death in the Committee on Transportation A YEAR AGO, and in the unlikely event that they make it out of transportation next WEEK (they haven't even been scheduled for a hearing in the Committee), they don't have time to make it through Ways and Means, let alone reach the floor, before the legislative session ends.
Again.
This is part of the reason why bills to rewrite "poorly drafted" but functional laws NEVER go anywhere. Real work isn't getting done, so wonking out about style points is absolutely going no where.
-mr. bill