Originally Posted by
daihard
If I understand correctly, VC advocates believe the segregated bike paths are unsafe, rather than demeaning. First, I don't always agree with VC, but without adequate bike infrastructure, I do believe that riding in the traffic is the best option available to us. Second, I also agree to an extent that segregated bike paths aren't always safe - or not as safe as they are perceived to be. I've had one major car-bike accident since I started cycling last summer. It happened in a protected bike lane, on a section painted green (indicating cars that go through that area must yield to bicycles).
More often than not, riding in traffic is simply the only option as in my daily commute, I agree its best to respect the intent of the rules and laws of the road, I also recognize many roads and conditions don't justify separate facilities............but some do.
To say separate facilities are universally unproductive and dangerous is ridiculous, but that's what some ardent VC advocates claim. Separate bike facilities may not have a statistical safety advantage on a spread sheet, but there is absolutely no question that they significantly improve my overall cycling experience in the real world.
Whether the Westlake path ends up being built to meed the desired standards, or the compromised standard, I would still prefer it to Westlake ave.