Well I might be fighting a loosing battle.

But, the OP that started the thread claims to be a "Bicycle traffic engineer" so I'm sure as heck going to get as much of my $0.02 into this thread as many times as I can because from what I've seen of what they call bicycle infrastructure there needs to be some serious changes in that field. I liked some of what he had to say in his initial post and the articles he linked too, but I think he (and even more so others of his profession) need to understand my viewpoint. I'm a person who actually uses bikes as serious transportation on the roadways on a nearly daily basis nearly year around and puts more miles on my bikes then my automobiles (I'm not car free I'm car light and thus I live both sides of the equation) and I do so in a harsh and inhospitable environment both in terms of physical infrastructure, weather conditions, and the attitudes of other road users towards me. I am not really interested in the philosophical feuds of the various bicycling "advocacy" (in quotes for a reason) groups ranging from the total VC advocates who will claim that every lane in a bike lane and hate the very idea of any kind of separate infrastructure to those who demand totally separate accommodations where bicycle paths and roads never even cross each other much less meet, except for where it effects actual use in application in my life. I'm interested in what I have found actually works and doesn't work in the real world that I live in and base my philosophical arguments on that rather then the other way around and I am most certainly not impressed with what I have seen done in the way of "bicycle infrastructure" in my area, so if there is even the slightest chance that putting forth what I have learned in the real world to someone who is actually in position to make actual changes might actually change things for the better in the slightest way then I'm going to speak my piece.

In my opinion the OP of this thread has swung the pendulum too far to the other side of the usual "bicycle infrastructure" argument of making bike side paths and bicycle lanes to marginalize cyclist as much as possible to motorists delight. He is pushing too far the other direction in his argument for complete abolishment of FRAP. Bicycles and even hybrid powered cycles that combine the human motor with another power source such as an electric motor are vehicles with limited speed capabilities and on low speed roadways where the speed differential between them and other traffic is minimal if any they can most certainly hold their own as equals and the only reason it upsets motorists is because either they have a fundamental hatred of bicycles and/or territorial aggression issues or they want to speed faster then the speed limit and cyclists in traffic "taking the lane" slows down traffic to the speed limit or just a little under. There is no fundamental difference in low speed traffic for bicycles compared to automobiles and thus there is no real need for separate accommodations in most situations. However, on high speed roadways where automobile traffic is moving at speeds substantially higher then even the best cyclists have any chance of even coming close to matching FRAP and dedicated bicycle lanes do make sense and the biggest infrastructure problem is bicyclist not having a place to safely, effectively, and efficiently ride FRAP to the side of the main traffic lanes, obviously the option to use the main traffic lanes when necessary for things like left hand turns needs to be preserved but its rather ludicrous to expect cyclists only doing about 20-mph to effectively and safely mix in the same traffic lane with automobiles that want to drive 60-mph. Even with the most respectful and careful automobile drivers that is going to become at the very least a point of contention in very short order.

FRAP as an absolute is not the answer. Anti-FRAP as an absolute is not the answer. It depends on the speed of the roadway as to what level of integration offers the best oppertunity to maximize convenience and safety for all road users. On low enough speed roadways such as in-town, square block grid, stop and go traffic on roadways with speed limits that do not exceed 25-mph and traffic is often backed up and does not even reach that maximum speed 100% integration with the possible exception of very young kids riding their small bikes on the sidewalks offers the best choice. On the other hand for a controlled access freeway system with speeds that often reach 75+mph a totally separate bicycle freeway may be the best option since even separate bike lanes become problematic due to crossing the high speed on/off ramps on the freeway edge. Most high speed highways (45+ mph without on/off freeway style ramps) though, I would be perfectly happy with just a decent condition paved shoulder with at least 4 foot width to it to ride and tickled pink with a well designed bicycle lane that was properly routed through the intersections.

Instead most of the idiots in charge of "bicycle infrastructure" instead build dangerous bicycle lanes on low speed roads that try to turn me into a second class citizen and marginalize me as much as possible in traffic that is moving at a slow enough speed that I can ride right in the lane riding just like I was a motorcycle without impeding other traffic and with far greater safety. And then on the high speed roadways where I actually do have need of somewhere to ride out of the main stream of much higher speed traffic but still close enough to the edge of the main stream to make myself visible and maintain my right of way rights I'm lucky to get a shoulder edge wide enough and in decent enough condition to ride and often instead end up having to "take the lane" and fight it out with motorists that want to go two or three times faster then I am going and really don't like me riding in the main traffic lane. Just as bad and potentially even worse sometimes those darn "bicycle infrastructure" guys put in a bicycle side path along side the main roadway. Usually its on only one side of the road so going on direction your riding on the wrong side of the road and coming from a direction were drivers aren't looking for you or expecting you and then more often then not the intersections of those bicycle side paths with the various side roads that connect with the road the bike path is built along side are very dangerous and do not allow for safe, effective, or efficient travel by bicycle if you use their path. The only side path I actually like in my area and is actually safer to use then riding in the main traffic lane of the main road is one that is along side a very narrow windy high speed road with absolutely no shoulder edge which makes that road more dangerous then most and that side path only crosses two major side roads for its 20+ mile length and in both cases the side path is backed off from the main road so it doesn't create a dangerous double intersection but the bicycle path makes a separate intersection with the side road. Every other side path I've encountered, however, is more dangerous to ride then riding on the main road and the most dangerous one of all in my area where I have personally witnessed two other cyclists being hit by cars at the intersections over the years is built along side a 45-mph speed limit highway that has 8 foot wide paved shoulder edges in good condition that are a way, way, way safer place to ride then that stupid bike path. They could have saved a bunch of money for the tax payers and make things way safer if they would have just used a few more gallons of paint and marked the shoulder edge of that road as a bike lane and properly routed it through the intersections, but oh no, they just had to get those darn bicyclists completely off the road and out of the motorists sight and treat them like second class citizens and criminally endanger them with that worthless piece of expensive "bicycle infrastructure".