In the US, bikes == cars. They are required to follow the same rules. I don’t find them nonsensical.

I used to agree with that (as a pedestrian and driver only), but as I've started cycling, I've begun to realize that many rules of the road, intended for cars, just don't make much sense for bicycles.

▲

coryrc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In Washington State, they're required to follow most car rules when in a lane, but not all (i.e. all stop signs are yield for cyclists). They also have a set of rules allowing for sidewalk usage when mounted; when dismounted, they follow pedestrian rules (obviously).

▲

mrgoldenbrown 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's weird to have the same rules when there are several orders of magnitude difference in manueverability, maximum damage possible, and visibility between the two modes. Imagine if pedestrians had to follow all the same rules as cars. Or everyone in an electric wheelchair. It wouldn't make sense.

▲

dublinstats an hour ago | parent [-]

I think the point is they have to follow the rules of the road because they are allowed in the road. Pedestrians, wheelchairs, etc can go on the sidewalk and be safe from traffic (one hopes).

Though it depends on the state and in my experience there are typically some differences, such as bikes are required to share the lane.

	▲	zeeZ an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Everyone using the road following the same set of rules makes their actions more predictable and thus safer (in theory)