You yourself call for ending (or at least dashing) bike lanes at intersection approaches... Do you call for ending (or dashing) "original traffic lanes" at intersection approaches? Of course not. Why the difference, if not because bike lanes cause more traffic control problems than do original traffic lanes?


Or whether simple (bike lane) lines are the cause of many current problems, independent of any other markings.


Does intention really matter? Or is it actual effect of bike lanes that matters? What is the effect of bike lanes in the overall scheme of traffic control?

And I think it's a mistake to only look at immediate/direct effects (not that that's not enough to invalidate the utility of bike lanes).
It's important to also consider the indirect effects of bike lanes on the attitudes and behavior of motorists, cyclists and law enforcement, and how they interact, in terms of deciding whether bike lanes ultimately solve or create problems of traffic control.


Uh, no. MV drivers still have to deal with all kinds of interruptions in traffic flow besides cyclists (crossing pedestrians, MVs entering and leaving the roadway, MVs parking, congestion, slow MVs like cement trucks and mopeds, unexpected obstacles, etc. etc.) that ultimately throttle MV speeds on most unlimited access roadways. The issue of ever increasing MV speeds is a red herring.

And, once again, since proper cycling in traffic involves dynamic lane positioning in response to ever changing factors and conditions, static bike lanes can never "play a proper role in properly guiding these users." Once again:


Static bike lanes can never "play a proper role in properly guiding cyclists" in how to learn to properly cycle in traffic, which involves dynamic lane positioning.