Commenting on the VC principle:
"Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles." - John ForesterZeytoun raised the following objection in another thread:
I thought this was such an important issue -- whether VC rests on a false dichotomy -- that it deserved a separate thread. So here we are.
Originally Posted by zeytoun
This idea implies the "third mode" theory - that cyclists comprise a third mode of travel in addition to the vehicular and pedestrian modes.
The short answer is that there are two sets of rules: those for vehicle drivers and those for pedestrians. They are separate sets which do not overlap (that is, the two sets do not share any rules in common).
There is no such separate set of rules for bicyclists. The most you can argue is that the rules for bicyclists are comprised of a slight modification to the rules for vehicle drivers combined with a slight modification to the rules for pedestrians (in particular, bicyclists are supposed to yield to pedestrians on pedestrian facilities, such as MUPs and sidewalks). But if you start going down that path at all it gets very messy very quickly. By "messy" I mean ROW is unclear, which diminishes safety.
The VC paradigm is that the cyclist can choose to abide by either set, but should be cognizant and clear about which he is doing when, and be particularly careful whenever transitioning from one to the other.