🚀 go-pugleaf

Király wrote:
> If that's not proof that nickarama and DiscoDuck are the same person,
> then I don't know what is.


Yes I am aware of IP address's, etc.  But I am not he.  Not sure how it

works.


> > Just come out and admit (at the very least) you were mistaken.  That
> > indeed the two have different rights and obligations AND there are
> > other differences.

> The MVA says they are the same.  DiscoDuck says they aren't.  The MVA
> prevails.  It's right there in black and white.  You can argue and
> disagree all you want but it doesn't change the law.

No it doesn't  Must I quote you again?  Even the law shows differences.
 I've provided other examples.


> > That the law you quoted pertained to highways only. You were wrong.

> Highways is what we were talking about.  We weren't talking about riding
> in your backyard or on mountain trails.  We were talking obligations
> and rights about riding bikes vs. those of driving cars.  Pretty much the
> only place where you'll find both riding together are on highways.

No, we were talking about whether the the same or not.  AND they are
not.


> > Or do I have to come up with examples too?  I got one immediately off
> > the top of my head.
> > OK, here it goes (since I know you'll not admit you were wrong).
> > Cars by law are required to have insurance.  Cyclists are not.
> > Want more?


> Insurance is a legal requirement of operating a motor vehicle in a public
> highway, yes.  So it a helmet for a cyclist.  Heavy trucks are also
> subject to additional exterior lighting requirements that are required of
> neither cars nor bikes.

Thank you for pointing further differences.

Actually insurance is required for cars no matter where you are.  Yet
helmets are not required for motor vehecles but are voluntary
(interesting no one wears them).


> But neither the car insurance, nor the helmet, nor the truck lighting make
> any difference on how the vehicle is to be driven/operated on highways,
> which is what we were talking about, and to what the "same rights and
> obligatins" refers.


No, this conversation was not about just on highways.  You're wrong,
again.  Shall I go back to initial post?
See, here is the initial post, by Jack on Sun, Jun 4 2006 2:32 pm
http://groups.google.com/group/bc.cycling/msg/f5ef995e4558b6f1?dmode=...

"Nothing to be enlightened about. The law is the same for motorist and
cyclist.
The both have the same rights and the same privileges. "

Which as I proven is not true.