Originally Posted by John Forester

Genec is correct, in a way. American motordom (motorists and motoring officials) have set the traffic laws and societal attitudes regarding bicycle traffic since the 1930s. Since the far-to-the-right (FTR) law and the mandatory-sidepath law appeared in the Uniform Vehicle Code in 1944, cyclists have not had the rights to use the roadway as drivers of vehicles. Then the FTR law was elaborated and a similar mandatory-bike-lane law was created in 1976, all done by motordom over the opposition of cyclists. These events made cyclists second-class road users required to be subservient to motorists, all done for the convenience of motorists.

If the element of governmental compulsion were removed by returning to cyclists the full rights of drivers of vehicles, so that each cyclist who chose would now be free to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles (RRDV), while other cyclists were free to ride in the style they like best (which has been the American policy for seventy years), then the emotionalism about the debate would markedly decline because cyclists would no longer be under the discriminatory domination of the motorists. That action requires only repeal of the three or so anti-cyclist laws in effect in various parts of the nation: the far-to-the-right law, the mandatory-bike-lane law, the mandatory-sidepath law.