Originally Posted by
John Forester 
The facts of the matter are that Genec provided the totally insufficient argument that since we spend space on arterial roads then bikeways are justified because we could use that space for bikeways. I responded by stating the obvious, that simple solutions to complex issues are the sign of simplistic thought. Then Human Car responded describing me as of deranged mind and a bullying personality, and added that I had provided no evidence for my statement. My statements about the arguments are obvious on their face; Genec's was simplistic, Human Car's added nastiness. The only other item of evidence needed is that the bikeways issue is complex, which is not something that anyone seriously doubts.
Originally Posted by
The Human Car
In Maryland when they acquire additional land for added capacity they (generally) include a bikeable shoulder which I think is rather nice and I thought this was Genec's point. If you're against any all extra width because it is too simple but yet support always using the same travel lane as cars because it's simpler yet. IMHO there is a failing to make a clear logical point.
Your point is not that which Genec was making. All you are saying is that extra width is nice when it is made available, as it is in some circumstances. If I remember the discussions of Maryland law, cyclists are prohibited from major rural arterials unless they have a shoulder.
But also, pay attention to the history. I have been arguing for wide outside through lanes since before 1980, so don't bring up the canard that I am against it.