Someone once told me that bicycles have no business being on the road at all. I thought they were just bitter due to an altercation, but the more I thought about it - it's entirely logical. Most roads are simply not built for bicycles and that is why they shouldn't be allowed at this point. They become a hazard because they can't attain the proper speed and they are allowed to flop between acting like a cyclist and acting like a car as another poster mentioned.
It's hip to give bikers the nod because they are green and healthy but it's not feasible in most areas because it's simply not safe for both parties.
I looked into getting one of those GE electric vehicles but guess what - you can't take those on most roads because they aren't fast enough (even though they are faster and safer than most bikers). You even have to pay to register them and carry insurance (which bikers don't). Why pays when a cyclist causes an accident? If you drive your car 25 under the speed limit, you can get a ticket. People on bikes want to be congratulated for doing so and have everyone yield.
You can't run down the middle of the road even if you are faster than some cyclists. Nobody has a right to the roads. It's a privilege and most roads were designed for cars.
I'd rather see bikers using the sidewalk with pedestrians yielding to them and let them use designated bike lanes on roads (and lobby for more if they choose). More and more areas are becoming friendly to cyclists but to give nearly free reign to cyclists is absurd IMO.
The reality is - too many people suck at driving and you aren't getting rid of cars unless you're Venice, Italy. Even if you can go the same speed as legally required for cars (say on a motorcycle), it's pretty much only a matter of time before you get pasted on the asphalt because some idiot driver didn't see you, was distracted with their phone, or is just a bad driver. The notion that cyclists can avoid that fate is silly. Personally I'd love to have a motorcycle, but it's too risky here in California.