Note: I am going to rely on a model for understanding empire used in Elizabeth Mancke's "Another British American: A Canadian Model for the Early Modern British Empire" Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History (1997), Greene's Pursuits of Happiness: Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture (1988). Full disclaimer, this is a slightly controversial and debated perspective, but its certainly one way of looking at it. I tend to like it because it better frames the historiographical issues with a "First" and "Second" British Empire, but its up for discussion (which I would love to get into).

A good way of understanding the differences between the Thirteen Colonies and other parts of the British Empire in the Americas is by seeing the Thirteen Colonies as colonies of "settlement" and Canadian and Caribbean colonies as periphery-commercial settlements as extensions of a larger metropolitan state. They developed on two separate trajectories instead of being founded for similar reasons or having similar structures and institutions.

In the sparse commercial settlements across barren Canada or dotting islands in the Caribbean, economic activity developed a lot faster than demographic or political activity, which benefited commercial groups in London and in the colonies, and the political systems in these locations could be heavily controlled and limited by the metropolitan state which held the economic power.

On the other hand, the Thirteen Colonies experienced demographic, economic, political, and cultural development that fit a model of social transition in typical settlements; they moved from social simplification to social elaboration to social replication. Essentially, the Thirteen Colonies were building a society and a national culture that looked to match the complexity or cultural "wholeness" of a European nation, and therefore developed a "self-consciousness" about itself as opposed to commercial settlements which did not (note major simplification here, but used to better understand the broader model of British colonization in the Americas. This is to explain colonial settlement and expansion. I'm sure that there are great examples of "self-consciousness" in commercial settlements).

Imagine that in the Thirteen Colonies, the nation (in general terms - so political culture, society, ideas, etc.) preceded the state (structures, institutions, laws, etc.) Think about how settlements moved west in the United States. People moved and the state followed them. Western expansion in Canada was experienced very differently. State expeditions and commercial enterprises moved westward, seeking new resources and trade opportunities, and people followed it. It generalizes the history of colonial expansion, but as a model for understanding why the colonies were different its useful.

So that brings us to the signing the Declaration of Independence. If we use this model, the Thirteen Colonies ends up actually being an exception, not the rule for British empire building. Other colonies did not join on the revolutionary fun because they had not developed the political culture or "self-consciousness" to express an opposition to the metropolitan state. These commercial enterprises were extensions of that state, unlike the Thirteen Colonies, which was more of a created political entity that grew into its own thing.

(About that historiographical debate, this helps us reconcile the discontinuity between a first and second British empire. The continuity of the British commercial enterprises show us that the British empire in North American continued uninterrupted while the Thirteen Colonies broke off.)