I wasn't talking about buzzing a bicyclist, but in this normal usage with both vehicles in the middle of their lanes:

  ||-(car)-|-(car)-|-(bike)-|||

The car will be forced to slow down to 10mph, because the distance between them will be around 3 feet. Bikes will become traffic blockers as a result, or this will be another badly designed ignored law designed to create pull over excuses or collect revenue, increase driver resentment of bicyclists and the legal system.

I say this as a person who uses bike lanes to commute to work, frequently. This is a badly designed law in this bike lane case.

That is also correct. Cars should pass cyclists in bike lanes carefully. As carefully as they would if there were no bike lane. The paint changes nothing.

Average car lane is 12 feet wide (a bit narrower on less travelled roads) Average car is 6 feet wide. If your car is center you will be 3 feet from the edge of the bike lane. So what is the problem?

That is only on an interstate. On a surface street, it can be 9', and with 3' in a bike lane, that visually looks like 3'. And if you have a wider car, like an SUV or Truck, it's even less.

What about cyclists buzzing pedestrians?

I see cyclists constantly breaking traffic rules, speeding through red lights, mounting onto the pavement, and they never get punished.

If cyclists want to be treated as a road vehicle, perhaps they should be registered like one with a license plate?

Cyclists are far less dangerous than cars. 3000lb car at 30 mph vs 200lb cyclist+bike at 15 mph is 30x less momentum to be transferred. Not to mention a cyclist hitting something is as likely to be injured as the recipient.

Cyclists should behave well, but they are not worthy of traffic enforcement because they are nowhere near as dangerous. Police enforcement should be focused on the most dangerous road users.

Further, many of the poor behaviors you see are a result of cyclists trying to navigate safely for themselves in the absence of good infrastructure. Good cycling behavior is easy when you have separated cycle lanes and clear signals and signage.

It's not that cyclists "want to be treated as road vehicles", but rather that's how the law treats them. I would much rather have my own separated, protected lane and signals than have to mix with motor vehicle traffic.

There's a certain amount of chicken and egg at work here. Yes, there are cyclists who run red lights and behave badly just because they can. On the other hand, there are traffic laws that I regularly break while biking to stay alive (crossing onto sidewalks, stopping in the road, even ignoring stop signs to get away from large vehicles). Having been hit by a bus while on the sidwalk, I'm acutely aware of how frail and unlike a car I really am.

In short, my choices aren't made based on traffic laws. They're based on trying not to get hit on a minute-to-minute basis. In places without decent bike infrastructure, strict enforcement just presents a choice between tickets and death.

You can't have your cake and eat it to; either everyone follows all the traffic laws (including you) or no one follows all the traffic laws.

Or you could have more reasonable traffic laws.

Or we could start enforcing traffic laws for cyclists.

And for speeding cars, rolling stops for cars, illegal turns, broken lights, using cellphones while driving, parking in bike lanes, etc.

The most frequent complaint I hear about cyclists is the stop sign/red light/yield to pedestrians issue. Changing the law to be more sensible (specifically implementing the Idaho Stop for cyclists) would end the vast majority of those complaints.

Other issues, like taking up an entire lane, are annoying, but only done consistently by assholes...just like only a small portion of drivers are assholes.

It's certainly a pain to have to go slow behind a cyclist when in a car, but it isn't your god given right to go 10 mph over the speed limit at all times...which is the prevailing attitude of basically all drivers everywhere.

How about we just start by having traffic laws enforced for cyclists at the same overall rate as that for motorists.

How about we enforce the laws proportional to the danger each road user poses to those around them?

That sounds like a possible second step.

First, let's start enforcing traffic laws for cyclists.

The doctrine of proportional harm would basically eliminate enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists because they cause very, very little harm compared to motor vehicles.

You're assuming that I buy into this so-called "doctrine of proportional harm" (whatever that is).

You know what happens when you assume, don't you?

I can't see how it would be a good idea to compromise every other public institution for a very expensive, large-scale construction project to accommodate a vanishingly small subset of travelers. Most places don't even have good public transport. I'd rather see the money go there, and cyclists who need to get around places they can't cycle can take their bikes on those while everybody else benefits as well.