Originally Posted by royalflash
Serge if even we canīt agree what the problem is then it is no wonder that we are no nearer to finding any real solutions
Indeed. It would help if you stated what you thought the problem was, and then I could tell you if I agree or not...
So to restrict our consideration to cycles and cars and the status quo: yes, of course it would be safer if cycles and cars could be separated.
Yes? Of course? Do you mean
100% separated? If so, then, yes, I agree that if cycles and cars could
somehow be 100% separated, that would be safer for cyclists. Whether they would be better off than they are now depends on the separated facility, for determining "better off" is not only a matter of safety.
Now, if you mean anything lese than
100% separate, then it's not clear to me at all that cyclists would definitely be safer than the current situation. And that, my friend, is the problem with realistic solutions: they are not going to be perfect. And because these solutions are not going to be perfect, they could very well end up less safe than the "problem" that are supposed to be solving. And, that, in fact, is what often happens, I believe.
The problem with present bike lanes is that the cycles and cars are not really properly separated.
By definition, if the cycles and cars were separated by anything other than a painted stripe, then the facility would not be a bike lane. So, if just a stripe constitutes "not really properly separated", and to the extent that is really a problem, then it's not just a problem with "present bike lanes", but an
inherent conceptual problem with ALL bike lanes: past, present and future.
Maybe it is not possible to achieve the necessary separation.
Again, if the "necessary situation" is 100% separation, then, yes, I believe it is not practically achievable.
It is hard to see though why anyone would prefer to cycle on a fast road with high speed drivers (many of whom are drunk/drugged/stupid/mentally ill/shortsighted/tired/talking on a cell phone or just preoccupied with their own problems) when there is a good bike path (with no intersections) as an alternative.
You just went from
bike lanes and
safety to
bike paths and
preferences, an interesting and worthy topic, but considerably different.
I accept that present bike path provision usually falls short of the ideal but your objections to all bike paths under all circumstances appears to me rather dogmatic and extreme.
Gee, "objections to all bike paths under all circumstances" appears "rather dogmatic and extreme" to me too! For the record, the only bike
paths I really oppose are side paths (bike paths adjacent to roadways, but physically separated). These are the most dangerous cycling facilities known, and that's why I oppose them. I oppose bike
lanes on all roadways except for limited access highways for different reasons, and recognize that they are not nearly as dangerous as side paths. As for bike
paths that are not
side paths, I actually like many of them, particularly the ones that create short cuts for cyclists, or go through pleasant park settings, etc. Not that they don't have their problems too... in particular where they connect and intersect with roadways, and in how they tend to get used by joggers, skaters, pedestrians, stroller pushers, crack pushers, etc. and all without any real rules of operation.