Mark Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005 09:03:33 -0700, John David Galt wrote:
>
> > Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> Classic car supremacist thinking. Never mind the known dangers of
> >> sidewalk riding, forget the slower and more dangerous journeys for
> >> cyclists. As long as the Almighty Car is never inconvenienced,
that is
> >> all that matters.
> >
> > That's the classic asshole-biker argument, the bike equivalent of
"playing
> > the race card". Bikers need to be taught -- hopefully not the hard
way --
> > that the universal moral principle that slower traffic must give
way to
> > faster, includes them.
>
> The claim that your position is a 'universal moral principal' is
*very*
> highly debatable. It's not universal, hard to see where 'moral'
comes
> into it, and it's certainly not a principle.
>
> What is not debatable is that it is *not* a _legal_ principal that
slower
> traffic must yeild to faster traffic.

FYI: Look up statutes that use the phrases "slower traffic keep
right," or "keep right except to pass." In addition, in WA state, the
delay of five or more vehicles requires that the slow vehicle operator
turn out to let the faster vehicles pass.

HTH,

E.P.