The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them.

There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced?

If I say everyone needs to wear clown shoes to work on Wednesdays, is that a rule? It doesn't mean jack-shit because I can't enforce it.

Drivers are held more carefully to the rules of the road, but given that they're ensconced in a protective metal shell, they have a lot more leeway with the law of the jungle. With cyclists it's the other way around.

> The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked. It's really obvious that bicycles are not cars, you can tell just by looking at them.

The same as with Idaho stop, it does not matter. Looking at something that approaches the intersection, do I have to think what that is? What if it is a bicycle with electric assist? Moped? Scooter? Is it electric? Is it with ICE? Something in between the moped and the bike? Where do I draw the line? That is way more thinking than just following the rules of all-way stop/or main road/yield.

> There are differing levels of enforcement in different places, but I've made thousands, possibly tens of thousands of infractions on my bike in 35 years of commuting, sometimes right in front of the police, and I've never had a ticket. Is a rule really a rule if it isn't enforced?

Rules are there for your benefit, not police's.

> Drivers have to obey the rules of the road. Cyclists only have to obey the law of the jungle.

This quote right there pretty much explains why there is so much anger towards cyclists

The rules are definitely not there for my benefit, the bearing they have on my safety is incidental. I've got more important things to look out for than the traffic signs. The roads were designed for cars and any attention given to cyclists, the rules they shod obey, or design features to accomodate them is largely an afterthought.

It really doesn't matter how cyclists behave, the anger will still be there, because cyclists are part of the wrong tribe, their presence on the roads in any capacity is viewed as a violation of the natural moral order.

When I'm cycling, whether or not I'm obeying the rules has little material effect on a driver's ability to get from A to B, I'm courteous, but their blood pressure still goes up. My advice to them is to see a doctor and get it fixed.

According to the laws of New York State, bicycles are vehicles. They are required to follow the laws and traffic patterns, not make their own.

This is a reasonable post undermined by a ridiculous last sentence. Cyclists need to obey laws but those laws should not be the same as for cars because the impacts those laws seek to prevent are not the same.

I phrased the last sentence poorly. I've changed it.

> The whole notion of treating bicycles as vehicular traffic was wayward and has been debunked

When, and by who?

I'd argue that even that's insufficient. Educational campaigns are hugely important as no one ever retakes a driver's test. There are frequent confrontations over entirely legal traffic movements because some people just don't know. And I'm not talking about recent bike safety laws either.

A compounding factor is that while rules for cars are more or less standard throughout the 50 states, rules for bikes are a complete mess. For example, in Massachusetts, a bike can ride in the left lane (I mean, you should probably have a good reason but it's 100% legal) where as in some other states, bikes have a mandated max distance from the right hand curb. How can anyone know what is actually allowed?

And a solution to the disjoint sets of laws is that states are very different. Super urban areas necessarily need different laws than very rural areas. Even regional snow fall amounts is a factor as bike lanes basically disappear in the winter.

I agree that rules alone are not sufficient, but it is a start. You can have an educational campaign to introduce, say, Idaho stop as the law, but educational campaign to follow Idaho stop before it is the law is confusing at best and breaking the law at worst.

FWIW, as a cyclist I would love to see Idaho stop legislated. As a driver, I do not follow stop rules blindly. If approaching all-way stop a see a cyclist (or anyone) close enough to the intersection without any signs of the slowdown, of course I will let them cross first. But even with the Idaho stop legislated many cyclists misunderstand it. For example, Idaho stop means treating stop sign as a yield sign, which means if you can safely cross the intersection without impeding anyone else (e.g. if there is no one else around or they are far enough from the intersection), you do not have to stop. It does not mean "I don't have to stop and have priority over cars no matter what".

That is exactly the point of making something the law instead of informal rule - there should be no ambiguity.

There's evidence practicing the Idaho stop makes cyclists safer, even in regions where it isn't legal. If that's true, IMO cyclists should bike in the safer fashion regardless of the rules.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-bike-st...

It is very limiting to believe that "rules are unabiguous" and should be followed to the letter. Rules are often (partly) wrong, not completely adapted to a situation, etc. Let's remember that "rules" used to make homosexuality worthy of a prison sentence, drinking alcohol was sometimes illegal too.