Ed,
You are right. I read your link and the legal opinion seems to disregard the law just as the city prosecutor did in my case, to suit his own belief of what the law should say, rather than what it actually says.

In the legal opinion the AG actually says the section of the statute that expressly only covers “motor” vehicles applies to bicycles even though he admits that bicycles aren’t motor vehicles. He/she disregards the fact that 28-812 states that portions of the chapter, “that by their nature can have no application” don’t apply to bicycles. In the slow moving vehicle section there are 3 paragraphs one, which deals with “motor” vehicles, and one, which deals just with vehicles. How this AG can form the legal opinion that they both apply to non motorized vehicles is beyond me. Clearly the legislature recognized that motorized and non motorized vehicles are different and may, as in this case, need slightly different laws.

Since a bicycle is by definition not a motor vehicle, a section of a statute which applies only to motor vehicles but has a section dealing with non motorized vehicles can’t apply to non motorized vehicles. Seems pretty simple. Maybe Erik can give a better explanation of what I’m trying to say, but it seems pretty simple to me that this AG and my city prosecutor just don’t like bikes and they are trying to make the statutes fit their opinions instead of reading and applying the plain language and intent of the law.
Jeff