I'm in favor of things that get more people on their bikes, for a lot of reasons, but among them is the fact that more cyclists make a safer riding environment for all of us.

If no turns are permitted on the street fine, otherwise it requires a multiphase signal (With very clear no right turn on red) or it is quite dangerous.

This is similar to what they have in areas of Stockholm. I didn't ride there, but I thought it looked pretty cool the way they had it laid out. Some areas even had their own little traffic lights.

I'm gonna go grab some popcorn for this.

"The food was terrible, and there wasn't enough of it."

Is it just me, but does it seem like no matter how much time, thought and money is spent on cycling infrastructure, the resulting improvements are instantly judged to be extremely dangerous or deficient by the cycling community?

List of cycling facilities deemed to be extremely dangerous by cyclists
- Roads, wide, narrow, divided, with shoulder, without shoulder, 2 lane, 4 lane, containing pacelines
- Bike lanes, in door zone, separated, on right-side, 18", 24", 36", 60", with debris, on toll bridges
- Sharrows, hash marks on right, hash marks on left, hash marks in center, hash marks on some clueless place
- MUPs, with dividing lines, without dividing lines, shared with pedestrians, shared with equestrians, dogs, anyone whatsoever
- Bike paths, wide, narrow, straight, with curves, with traffic, abandoned, crossing live fire gunnery ranges
- Sidewalks, with handicap access, without handicap access, with live patrols to stop knuckleheads that walk
- High wires, tight, slack, suspended across the Grand Canyon
- Airstrips, international, dirt, with taxiways, uncontrolled, in Somalia
- Parking lots, empty, that permit automobiles, hosting autocross rallies, drivers-ed classes for blind people
- Other

Maybe bicycles future will be like the car future where the cyclists doesn't have to steer or brake, just pedal and let the wire in the ground guide us.

We are getting similar things in NYC now, and they have multiphase signals which seem to work fine. I am very happy with most of the new infrastructure here.

People like to whine.

You may well do so. Cycle tracks have enormous appeal to people who believe that by far the greatest danger to cyclists is that from same-direction motor traffic, and who, therefore, practically ignore the hazards of crossing and turning traffic. This belief is the exact opposite of the car-bike collision statistics. This belief was created by motordom to assist in clearing the roads of cyclists, as written in the FTR, MBP, and MBL laws and taught to the public through fear. The only principled opposition to cycle tracks will come from vehicular cyclists, unless and until the traffic engineers wake up to the traffic problems associated with making cycle tracks safe.

Cycling community? What cycling community? Ya don't mean a self appointed spokesman for the one (and only) true way with a few gullible disciples do ya?

Actually not singling anyone out in particular -- I've just noticed that when a cycling-specific investment is announced somewhere, the local cyclists seem to come out of the woodwork to complain. I'm thinking of the bikeway on the Miami Causeway and various bikelanes and sharrows.

This "cycling community" seems to be mostly made up of people who are rather new to riding bikes. They seem a bit like the new converts to a religion. They've found god and insist you find the same one.

I have a word for cycling advocates that would get me banned.

Increasing evidence from the UK and the Netherlands is steadily refuting your circa-1965 studies, John.

He means the cognoscenti.

Re: cycle tracks

On the contrary, that evidence from the Netherlands (I know of no evidence from the UK about cycle tracks) confirms what I wrote in the 1970s, in that cycle tracks are safe only when special measures are taken to prevent the collision-causing conflicting traffic movements produced by cycle tracks. The best that Americans have managed to do, to date, is a half-hearted imitation of Dutch practices. It is my opinion that typical American cities will not install the full Dutch system and, also, that Americans will not be making a transportationally significant switch from motor to bicycle transportation.

(Self deluded) cognoscenti.
Datz wot I thought.

I don't doubt that any proposed cycling project brings out "complainers." Who those complainers represent is the question. I doubt that the complainers about proposed cycling improvements represent any significant percent of the population (cycling community) that would/could use/benefit from the project. The complainers are even less likely to represent the local cycling community when the complainers are not local, or are spokesmen for an extreme fringe of "enthusiasts."

...but not fatality statistics...

...and this making-safe is, among other measures, taken care of with separate lights.

But you know all this.

No matter what the "problems" may be, people are going to figure out how to use such a facility to their best advantage. No facility is going to be perfect for everyone. I like that they are trying it out.

As long as it is strongly emphasized to US motorists(signage/red arrow right turn light) that they cannot make a right turn on a red light while operating near one of those cycling tracks. . I feel it's not going to be foolproof since US motorists are allowed/conditioned to make a right turn on red just about everywhere they drive.

What road (or activity) is foolproof?

Ok, foolproof may not have been the best choice of words, but if a municipality implements this design of cycle track, they should consider taking the strongest of actions to limit as many motorists as possible from making right turns on red when operating near that cycle track.

My only problem with the image you included, is that, the concrete barrier is not hi enough to be effective.

EDIT: Just as with motorized vehicular traffic, traffic engineers would have to account for the land needed to build 'cycle tracks' within the same road space, when reconstructing the total width of the 'cycle tracks n' road combined.

Every time a state DOT determined a road needed widening, I don't see 'cycle tracks' being included in a road improvement project for widening the road(s).

A reasonable clarification. It does help to avoid vague requirements like "foolproof" that can exclude everything. Just as vague as the next poster who claims that the proposed barrier is not high enough to be "effective." Whatever "effective" is supposed to mean; maybe it means foolproof to the poster.