I don't know which I enjoy more:
A tricycle isn't a cycle, or a cycle isn't a vehicle.
Classic /qotw.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Wed 22 May 2013, 8:43, 1 reply)

How did you get that?
My opinion is that a rickshaw is a form of bicycle and that a bicycle is not a vehicle under standard legal definitions, but a class of its own.
( MatJ LOOK, Wed 22 May 2013, 18:40, closed)

Your opinion is wrong on all counts...
Anything with other than two wheels is, by definition, not a form of bicycle.

Also, a bicycle is definitely a vehicle, as is a rickshaw.
(Kyzia was here on, Wed 22 May 2013, 21:38, closed)

My point
(As also made by benzyl, below) is that the law views bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles identically, and views them as a separate group from motor vehicles. Some of the same laws apply in that a cyclist is propelling a something on the highway, but my point is:

In law, cycles and motorised vehicles are treated differently.

In law, it doesn't matter how many wheels it has. It's all the same.
( MatJ LOOK, Thu 23 May 2013, 3:59, closed)