Originally Posted by sggoodri

Sometimes a solid description of cyclists' roadway rights is necessary to properly frame the issue of infrastructure improvements even when promoting them. Too many motoring interests involved in transportation issues will seize on the opportunity to use bicycle-specific facilities as a means to cast "plain" streets as car-only places where no cyclists should be, through either exaggerated claims of danger or groupthink.

Even when promoting greenway MUPS, wide lanes, shoulders, bike lanes, bike boulevards, and such, care must be taken to describe these facilities as supplementing use of the existing roadways, for the purpose of reducing social friction, improving cyclists comfort, improving convenience, etc.

Note that it's not just motoring interests who are tempted to treat bikeways as the only legitimate infrastructure for bicycling. Those planning and engineering firms (and even some government departments) that specialize in bicycle-specific engineering will sometimes try to get their product defined as THE system for bicycle transportation, in order to maximize their funding. Some cities have equated their bicycle plan to their greenway plan, with no consideration of on-roadway cycling.

If cyclists want money to be spent on education, enforcement, and maintenance issues related to use of the existing streets, and see all streets become better places for cycling, they should start with a comprehensive approach that treats them as entitled to use those streets.