Originally Posted by 2mtr
It only makes sense (to me) for a vastly different type of transport to be under a different set of rules than cars. This is a system set up for the benefit of cars, not bikes, and to me it would be adventageous and fair to provide for a different class of vehicles, if only for a more convienent, practical and safe community. For example, allow for a rolling stop at stop signs and different start times at stop lights, as most bikes take longer to get going.
This is a terrific expression of what many cyclists seem to believe. But there are several problems with it.
1) Allowing for rolling stops and different start times is hardly addressing the "problem" of cyclists needing a different set of rules than cars. At most, I think you're calling for cyclists and motorists to adhere to the same rules for the most part, with a few exceptions here and there.
2) Bikes are not a "vastly different type of transport", especially when compared to motorcycles rather than cars, and surely you're not calling for a different set of rules for motorcycles than for cars. The main difference between motorcycles and bicycles is amount of power. The same rules of the road apply equally effectively to all vehicles, regardless of power.
3) The most important principle in safe traffic cycling is to be visible and predictable. Calling for a different set of rules for cyclists works against us in terms of establishing our SAME right to the roadways that motorists have, the asserting of which is required in order for us to be able to ride in accordance with being visible and predictable (hence safe). If we claim the exclusive right to run stop signs and get head starts at red lights what chance do we have to claim the right to slow down motorists when we're trying to merge left across four lanes of busy traffic?
I continue to strongly recommend to anyone who wants to learn more to pick up a copy of
Effective Cycling by John Forester, and study it.