Do cyclists warrant special consideration under traffic laws? I recently saw a YouTube channel where a motorist with an agenda has taken it upon himself to film cyclists as they break traffic laws. Most (perhaps not all) of the actions I observed would be what I consider reasonable out of necessity or convenience (nb: cycling bias!), such as:


riding between the parking lane and the traffic lane.
passing on the right when safe.
yielding in lieu of stopping.


In most jurisdictions where a Motor Vehicle Act is applied to non-conventional vehicles in the roadway (electric, pedal, etc.), there seems to be an unspoken grey area where the letter of the law is not recognized by cyclists.

Has anyone codified this grey area in traffic law vs. etiquette in a way that's better defined &amp; acceptable to both motorists &amp; cyclists? (Arguably everything should be covered by traffic laws.) Could a better definition of this grey area help justify the need for special consideration under the law, or do you think "bikes are traffic, period"?
Before posting this list, I need to preface it with my position that riding in a predictable manner, as much like a 'vehicle' as possible is safest to me.  To a large degree I disagree with treating bicycles differently because:


It confuses interaction with
motorists, especially at
intersections where the risk is
highest for cyclists. 
Not all motorists or cyclist will know their
rights/responsibilities.  It's hard
enough to educate both side now.
I think the time/speed/safety gains for
the average cyclist would be very
small.


That said there are exceptions in almost every jurisdiction already, allowing use on paths and sidewalks, allowing passing on the right, etc. - these are the common arguments I hear in favor of different treatment, primarily as it relates to an Idaho style 'Stop as Yield' law:


Bicyclists have to expend their own energy to start and stop--it's a courtesy to let them pass just as it is to yield to someone carrying something heavy or bulky.
Bicyclists have better awareness of surroundings (better field of vision, higher than cars. fewer distractions).
Bicyclists can avoid collisions better (sharper turning radius, much less width, less speed and weight to manage, can become flush with the side of the road almost instantly, can stop in a shorter distance);
Most bicyclists treating a stop as a yield pass through stop signs at a similar speed as most motorists (who usually don't stop), but comparing the straightaway speed difference, it may seem like the motorist is "stopping" while the cyclist isn't.
Stopped cyclists are unable to avoid the pollution of stopped cars. Pollution tends to be highest at stops.
Cyclists waiting in traffic can cause more problems for all--not only by blocking turns (which often elicits prejudicial anger from motorists) but there is an increased chance of being rear-ended for the cyclist. (Proper lane positioning avoids this - gr)
Frequent stopping is associated with long-term chronic knee problems from the pressure required to start again.
Most cyclists responsibly "run" stop signs at present, showing that the law simply doesn't work for people.
Cyclists don't endanger the public as cars do and have not been properly accommodated for--this is due in large part to short-sighted planning that doesn't recognize the benefits of cycling.
Places that treat bicyclists as special users, with high levels of accommodation have much lower bicycle fatality rates than the USA (e.g., Netherlands, about 1/13 our fatality rates per mile traveled). One of the reasons is that they give cyclists a head start through red lights, with special zones ahead of motor traffic, and special bicycle-only green lights.