I constantly hear the mantra of "same road same rules" from cyclists and it has always been a source of consternation for me.
Doesn't this statement undercut the fundamental differences that should instead be emphasized? I don't want crappy roads, I want bike trails without cars. My behavior on a bike is directly related to a risk assessment that includes fatal injury or critical injury as a pretty normal result. The basic function and physics of my mode of transportation makes me radically different from a car on the road and yet advocacy often claims that we are to be treated alike.
Can anybody from the advocacy angle rationalize this idea for me? Why do we want "same road same rules"? Why not advocate for "rules for cyclist, rules for cars" even on the same roads?
I guess my other problem with this philosophy is that it has become so mainstream that advocating a different view on the cars/bikes/road interaction has no opportunity to enter the dialogue. Looking forward to some feedback!