If you think that Forester or I mean to imply that that bikes are
equivalent to other road vehicles, then we have a major misunderstanding. But I know you're not the only one who has gotten this impression.
Almost three weeks ago, in the opening post of the "Vehicular Cycling" thread under Advocacy I tried to nip this common misunderstanding in the bud:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=91307
I would like to know what Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that we are contending, or are implying, that bicycles are
equivalent to vehicles.
The wording Forester has chosen in the VC principle is very precise. I don't know if you've given it the attention it deserves:
Cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles.
First, he does not say, "when they act as vehicles"; he says, "when they act as
drivers of vehicles".
This subtle difference emphasizes the importance of comparing the
people, not the vehicles they happen to be operating.
It also underscores the critical realization that we are sharing the road with people, who are sentient, not with cars, which are insentient. A critical aspect of vehicular cycling is communicating with drivers. If one views himself as sharing the road with (insentient) cars, there is no point in even trying to communicate. It's a subtle difference, but these kind of difference can have an effect on one's own thinking, and, in particular, in the subconscious. I believe that remembering and emphasizing the fact that it's drivers who are capable of reading and sending signals back and forth with us that are on the road, and not insentient cars, makes us much more likely to use communications in our traffic cycling, which is an important skill.
Second, he says, "Cyclists fare best ..." The implication here is that operating vehicularly is not perfect, but it is the best option among those realistically available to the cyclist. In other words... "Disagree? Fine, then what behavior other than acting as a vehicle driver do you suggest would cause cyclists to fare even better?"
Third, he says "... act and are treated as drivers...", as opposed to "... are treated and act as drivers...". The order is important, for it conveys the fact that in order to be treated as a driver of vehicle, you must
first act as a driver of vehicle; you will not be treated as a driver of a vehicle if you don't act like one. This is a key concept because many cyclists who are resigned to being ignored by "cars" don't even ever try to get recognition on the road. They stay in the bike lanes (relying on the bike lane to keep motorists from hitting them, not the motorists' awareness of the cyclist's presence) and cling to the edge of the road.
Finally, including the "and are treated as drivers" clause emphasizes the fact that "faring well" is never entirely within the control of the cyclist. Acting like a vehicle driver is only part of it; you must also be accepted and
treated as a vehicle driver (albeit, the driver of a narrow and low powered vehicle).
But I never interpreted an
equivalence of bicycles to other vehicles in the wording of the VC principle or in anything else I've ever read by Forester, and I certainly never meant to imply such an equivalence in anything I've ever written. The implications of such a premise are of course absurd, as you point out. So, again, I would very much like to know what specifically Forester and/or I have written that leaves you and others with the idea that either of us is contending, or is implying, that bicycles are
equivalent to vehicles.