The default in nearly all states is to impose the same traffic rules on bicycles as on motor vehicles even though the needs of cyclists are so different. This article was originally published in the Vision Zero Cities Journal, as part of Transportation Alternatives’ 2025 Vision Zero Cities conference, which will take place Oct. 28-30 in New York City. In 1887, New York cyclists achieved a major legal victory when Albany passed the first-in-the-nation law granting bicycles the same rights and responsibilities on the road as “persons using carriages drawn by horses.” In the 140 years since, much has changed on the road in terms of the built environment, user base, and legal landscape. By the mid-20th century, the widespread adoption of automobiles led to an explosion of traffic regulation and control devices. In the 1970s, the vehicular cycling movement fought early attempts to construct separate bike infrastructure, fearing it would marginalize bicycles from general-purpose roads. These advocates promoted a model in which cyclists rode in mixed traffic, mimicking the behavior of motor vehicles to defend their legal status. Today, while vehicular cycling has fallen out of favor in most planning circles, its legal legacy endures. The default in nearly all states is to impose the same traffic rules on bicycles as on motor vehicles. This approach ignores a simple truth: bicycles are not cars. The persistence of car-centric bike laws is rooted in an outdated view of mobility. Cyclists are closer in size, speed, and sensory experience to pedestrians than to motor vehicles. They share the road but not the advantages of steel armor, airbags, or engine power. In collisions, they absorb the impact with their bodies. A driver who hits a pedestrian walks away unscathed; a cyclist is as likely as a pedestrian to suffer injuries in a collision. Just as crossing mid-block is sometimes the safest move for a pedestrian, detouring onto a sidewalk or rolling through a stop sign might be the safest move for a cyclist. Penalizing those behaviors makes no more sense than ticketing someone for jogging on a grass median to avoid a dangerous intersection. Rigid enforcement also opens the door to discriminatory policing. Studies have repeatedly shown that enforcement of minor traffic violations can be used to target marginalized communities. Decriminalizing behaviors like sidewalk riding or stop-as-yield protects not only cyclists’ safety but also their civil liberties. Perhaps no reform better illustrates the safety benefits of legal flexibility than the Idaho Stop, which allows cyclists to treat "Stop" signs as "Yield" signs and, in some states, red lights as "Stop" signs. At least 11 states and the District of Columbia have adopted this rule in full or in part. Internationally, France, Belgium and other countries permit cyclists to proceed straight or turn right at red lights at specific intersections designated by signage. New York City’s law allowing cyclists to proceed on pedestrian walk signals gives cyclists a head start at certain intersections and offers similar — but more limited — protections. The principle is simple: allowing cyclists to move through intersections before cars begin accelerating protects them from being stuck in blind spots or caught between turning vehicles. Intersections are the most dangerous places for cyclists, and giving them a head start (or “leading interval”) can be life-saving.