Originally Posted by Helmet Head
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?
Oddly enough lane lines do end at intersections... and often have other signs prior to the intersections such as the yellow sign that shows an approaching light, and the right hand arrow that shows approaching islands and the direction the obviously oblivious motorist is too dense to figure out. Merging signs, slow signs, and a whole host of other road indicator signs now exist to assist the hapless motorist. And you are afraid that dashing a BL might confuse the lowly cyclist?
Or whether simple (bike lane) lines are the cause of many current problems, independent of any other markings.
I have no doubt that simple lines cause many problems... with little forethought, and no previous experience, these things are the butt of many jokes in many areas. So fix them, don't condem them. Public housing has problems too... do we simply throw people out on the streets instead?
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.
The effect of putting in bad traffic controls is bad traffic control. This can also be easily seen in areas of this town were too many stop lights are on too short a block.
Now I agree that the current configurations indeed have problems... however the answer is not to simply throw everything away... that thinking would have stopped the first motorcars from any further development after the very first crash (and man oh man, have we had this discussion before).
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 they don't do all that well with pedestrians either... everything else you mention is has surprisingly similar charateristics... IE "MV."
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:
Right, just as static traffic lanes can never play a role in guiding MV traffic now...
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.
Incorporate the same signage and arrows and other guidance features now given to the motor vehicle public before you throw the baby out with the bath water.
Keep left, Turn ahead, Merging, Keep Right, Trucks, Slow ahead, just a few of the simple signs that guide the "trained" motorist public...
...and you want absolutly nothing for the cyclist.