🚀 go-pugleaf

Király wrote:
> nickarama2005@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Let me pipe in, here.
> > The MVA section 183 is talking about a specefic place .  a highway.
> > Not everywhere else.
>
> It seems that you haven't checked out what "highway" means under the
> MVA.  It does not refer to something very specific, it is about as wide
> an encompassing definition as one can get.  Pay particular attention to b):
>
> (a)	every highway within the meaning of the Transportation Act,
>
> (b)	every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for
> or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
>
> (c) every private place or passageway to which the public, for the
> purpose of the parking or servicing of vehicles, has access or is
> invited, but does not include an industrial road.
>
> So if it is a road, and it is not a private industrial road,
> then it is a highway upon which cyclists and drivers have the same
> rights and obligations.
>
> > I can go places on a bike that cars are not allowed.
>
> Both drivers and cyclists have the same obligation, the obligation to
> observe the bylaw that restricts a roadway to a certain type of vehicle.
>
> > You do not need a licence to operate a bike - a car you do.
> > Car use gasoline and are much more expensive to operate than a bike
> > Plain & simple.
>
> What do these have to do with having the same rights and obligations on
> how those vehicles are to be operated on public highways?

Bikes can also use pathways, and side roads that cars cannot.
The point is they are different - anyway you slice.
I have a right to cycle as do you.  I do not have a right to drive, nor
do you.
IN addition to other difference.  Therefore they do not have the same
rights and obligations.

> --
> K.
> 
> Te tetted e tettetett tettet? Te tettetett tettek tettese, te!