Originally Posted by H20.1
Many European cities have these bike lanes.
[...]
The only real danger on the bike paths is tourists and those that dont follow the rules, typically bikes pass through quite fast on the paths and pedestrians are not allowed to walk on the bike lane or near it. As far as automotive traffic, as long as cyclists and motorists follow the laws there usually arent issues.
So what you're saying is ...
"These things are very successful if everyone obeys the rules."
Well, I agree.
But how, exactly, is this an improvement over riding in a roadway when everyone is obeying the rules? And the response isn't, "Well, not everybody obeys the rules!", because then you're denying your own premise.
No one has ever shown that cyclists are safer, with equivalent efficiency, by riding on sidewalks of any kind than they are riding in the road according to ordinary traffic rules. But in the USA, the justification for these types of facilities often includes a statement asserting that facilities are for people who can't -- or won't -- follow ordinary traffic rules. (Yet no-one has ever built a bike facility that makes it safe for people who won't ride safely to be safe.)
But now, as you point out, the moment someone stops obeying sidepath rules on the sidepath, they become a hazard to everyone. Plus, sidepaths are never built or maintained to roadway standards.
So I'll ask again: if cyclists obeying the sidepath rules is what makes a sidepath useful, how is that better than having cyclists obey roadway rules and ride in the adjacent roadway?