As a car free cyclist I have to be able to ride everywhere, not just where bike lanes have been created. Its one thing to stripe off 32" of the righmost area of a road and call it a bike lane, its completely another to build barricades to segregate traffic and yet another order of magnitude more complex to construct a dedicated greenway for cyclists, runners, etc. Those kinds of projects are worthy but they are not practical solutions to a majority of bicycle commuters problems. They think they want segregated roadways, what they really want... er... need, is more driver awareness of bicycles and increased and enforced accountability when and if a driver hurts a cyclist through ignorance.

In Europe, road tests are not taken on closed courses. You drive out there in traffic which will include cyclists. You FAIL immediately if you do not yield to a cyclist no matter what the cyclist was doing was the right thing or the wrong thing. You can also expect to lose your license for a long time, maybe for good if you kill a cyclist and you were found at fault. It is nearly impossible to even find a motorist at fault for killing a cyclist here since not yielding, speeding, and what or where the cyclist was doing are not significant to the charges.

A cyclist above has it exactly right. I ride to SAVE money. Expensive infrastructure just for the use of cyclists? BAD IDEA. An answer to a question no one should ask. We can use the roads as they are, possibly with minor enhancements, i.e. left turn arrows that will operate even when 'only' a cyclist is present at the sensing loop.

H