Originally Posted by
John Forester
Because bikeways were designed by motorists to keep bicycle traffic out of the path of same-direction motor traffic, for the convenience of motorists, they also have some effect in preventing pure motorist-overtaking car-bike collisions. However, any bike path across an urban area still has to cross all the turning and crossing traffic that exists between origin and destination, and it is turning and crossing traffic that is the cause of about 95% of car-bike collisions. Only a bicycle freeway would manage to avoid at-grade crossings, or, in a very few places, such as a disused rail line that had grade-separated intersections, or, to a certain extent, paths along waterfronts and suchlike features that interrupt the normal street pattern. This is a very circumscribed set of opportunities that cannot form a bicycle transportation system, but, where conditions are suitable for useful routes, can be a useful part of the road system.
Such a set of opportunities DOES form a strong backbone for motorized traffic... and could and should be the backbone for cycling traffic. For instance, in San Diego, there is now a proposal being put forth to add as many as 6 new lanes to the northern sections of Interstate 5.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...i-5-expansion/
If part of the transportation fund were used to create lanes for a "bicycle freeway," such a system could actually relieve some need for further expansion of the interstate at a potentially lower cost (less materials are required for a bicycle system, than an automotive system.)
But at any rate, you still avoided my main issue... which is the use of statistics created by studying bike lanes, to dismiss class 1 "bikeways" as unsafe... merely by lumping all "bikeways" into one large "catch all" category.
The fact is grade separated class 1 "bikeways" are as easy to build as new 6 lane freeways (actually easier, and cheaper) and due to grade separation, are far safer... but all this is denied under the leadership and guise of "Vehicular Cycling" with such statements such as:
Originally Posted by John Forester
When, half-way through the bikeway design process, the first statistical studies of car-bike collisions were made, and they proved that the bikeway designs could not significantly reduce car-bike collisions...
So the keepers of the "Secret Sect" determined that "bikeways" were dangerous, and in doing so, denied cyclists the same engineering that motorists enjoy on interstate freeways on a daily basis.