sggoodri

Again, you are disputing a straw man argument that vehicular cycling advocates haven't made. Either you don't understand the actual arguments made, or you deliberately distort them.

The degree to which a cyclist is comfortable operating on a particular roadway in the vehicular manner will be proportionate to his skill and understanding of the operational principles of vehicular cycling. It will also be affected by the nature of the roadway, other road users, and possibly weather and related visibility conditions. I for instance am not fond of cycling on a narrow-lane road with 55 mph speeds in the dark in the rain in January rush hour.

The fact that some roads are unpleasant for some cyclists at some times does not discount the value of the vehicular cycling principle. That is, they still fare worse if they violate vehicular rules than if they operate in accordance with the vehicular rules. It is better for them to choose a different route where they are comfortable operating according to vehicular rules than to operate contrary to vehicular rules, and it is better for the government to improve the roadway to make it safer and more pleasant for cyclists operating according to vehicular rules than it is for the government to modify the corridor to entice cyclists into operating contrary to vehicular rules.

I believe a valid conclusion from the vehicular cycling principle applied to a diversity of trip types and trip purposes is that the government should accommodate vehicular cycling on all normal roadways (in addition to designing off-road paths with consideration to vehicle dynamics and vehicular traffic negotiation) and provide a diversity of routes of varying traffic volume and speed to accommodate the diversity of trip types, purposes, and preferences. The contrary approach would be to design roads and paths in ways that conflict with the vehicular rules that support cyclists' safety and convenience.