drcuriosity: (0)
drcuriosity ([personal profile] drcuriosity) wrote in [personal profile] james_davis_nicoll 2011-04-09 10:11 am (UTC)

This set of rules seems to make sense:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/pubs/cycling-guide/section5.0.shtml

It's also quite close to our rules for the same, as it happens.

Following the principle of "keep simple things simple, and manage complexity where it arises", treating a bicycle as a vehicle by default would seem to make sense. There are considerably fewer exceptions than there are common rules. Having a totally new set of laws to define something already mostly covered elsewhere seems pointless.

Post a comment in response:

(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org