When The Law Doesn't Say What The Court Thinks It Should Say...
Imagine you’re driving your car on a road with multiple lanes. You’re in the right lane, and for some reason, the lane to the left of you backs up, and traffic stops. No problem, your lane is still open, so you continue driving, passing all of the cars stopped in the lane to your left.Then you see the lights in your rearview mirror—you’re pulled over by a law enforcement officer, who issues you a citation for passing on the right. Later, in traffic court, you explain to the Judge that traffic in the lane to your left was stopped, while your lane was open, and that is why you were passing on the right. Despite your defense, the Judge decides that you were in violation of the law, and tells you that you should have either merged into the left lane, or stopped in your lane and waited for traffic in the left lane to begin moving again.
An absurd interpretation of the law? Absolutely. The decision is not only contrary to what the law actually says, it also leads to a result so absurd that any Judge should realize that it is obviously not the law.
Now imagine that you’re on a bike [and something similar happens].
<a href="http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/12/9/When-The-Law-Doesnt-Say-What-The-Court-Thinks-It-Should-Say">http://www.bicyclelaw.com/blog/index.cfm/2009/12/9/When-The-Law-Doesnt-Say-What-The-Court-Thinks-It-Should-Say</a>;
What's Related