Well, there are essentially two sets rules of the road: those for drivers of vehicles and those for pedestrians.
Actually, pedestrians are usually part of the vehicle code. So it's just
one set of rules of the road.
(See for example CVC division 11 chapter 5
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vc/tocd11c5.htm)
In that
one set of rules for the road are many rules that apply to smaller subsets of the groups.
Also, in California for example, equestrians are called "horseback riders" and bicycles are "devices", not vehicles. This is not irrelevant. This means that many of the "vehicle" laws do not apply. A cyclist, unlike a vehicle driver, may be allowed to ride on the sidewalk, on the shoulder to pass, in a bike lane, etc. A bicycle is not allowed on a freeway.
You see, each group has some of the rights and responsibilities as other drivers, but not all (notice the qualifier in the legal wording). What matters is not how "accross the board" those rules apply, but rather, how those rules best match the performance characteristics of the traveller, it's specific needs, and it's contribution to the society as a whole.
Example: A non-hybrid vehicle driver in CA chafes at the notion of not being allowed in the carpool lane. (I have all the rights and responsibilities of a hybrid car, so I should be allowed in!)
To say that a bicyclist is a not a pedestrian is obvious.
To say that a bicyclist is a vehicle driver, in the broadest sense that they should follow the ROTR is obvious.
What really is VC adding to the debate, now?