Originally Posted by
jeffpoulin
I'll go against the flow here and say that bikes and cars are different. Bikes aren't allowed on the highways, bikes aren't allowed to ride in the center of the lane if there's space on the shoulder, and bicyclists don't need driver's licenses. Personally, I don't think it's fair that an infraction while cycling counts against one's driving record, but the law is what it is. I try to stay out of trouble in any case, but I don't agree that cycling and driving are equal.
I didn't say that cars and bikes are the same, I said the consequences of breaking the rules are the same. Some rules are different for bikes, but not a lot, and there are good reasons why the same rules generally apply, and also (usually) good reasons for the few that are different. And, quite rightly, there are consequences to breaking the rules whether they are the generally applicable road rules, or those specific to bikes.
And many of your examples are jurisdiction specific. I can ride on the highway and in the center of the lane. Riding in the centre of the lane on the highway is, however, a bad idea. Happily, bikes are allowed to ride on the shoulder, which works very well for me.
Originally Posted by
Seattle Forrest
When did the OP say he expects to be able to ride his bicycle on I-95?
He didn't. However, he clearly expects to be able to ride on a surface road with traffic lights, but doesn't feel the rules of that road - namely stopping at the traffic lights - apply to him.
Whether the OP or not, I'm sure there's some BF poster out there who has asserted a right to ride on the I-95. (And while I support following the rules as they currently exist, I would definitely support a movement to change such a bad rule like banning bikes from highways.)