Originally Posted by
B. Carfree
Putting the two bolded sentences together, here's the way I see it: Roads that were built many decades ago generally require a substantial investment to bring up to a reasonable standard for all users. I don't give them a total pass, but I understand why a traffic planner/engineer isn't spending time on them when there is no funding. Bike infrastructure is mostly fairly recently installed. There is no excuse for making it dysfunctional, even marginally so. Why are we still putting bike lanes in door zones? Why are side path on busy streets with many driveways and intersections being built? These are rightfully bemoaned, IMO...
Much of what you describe here is bike infrastructure which is being integrated into an existing and, in many cases, inadequate roadway.
There will inevitably be compromises because we are so often revamping an existing roadway to more appropriately serve the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. Very little bike infrastructure is built from the ground up and all new. Even rail trails are are limited by the crossings, intersections and pathways that have long since been defined.
IMO, much of the infrastructure that is being added for bicyclists has, if nothing else, a traffic calming effect and while imperfect, in most cases, does not leave cyclists any more exposed to danger than without. Unless you have some info I am not privy to most studies show some improvement to cyclist safety with added infrastructure or a negligible effect on safety but an increase in ridership.
I'm approaching 60 and I've heard the "I'll wait until it meets my high standards" argument for decades as
nothing got done. Finally, and ironically, it was non-cycling organizations that pushed for change and things started to get done. Perfectly?- No. But most of what's been done where I do much of my riding has been improvements and much of it will make a difference for me personally as I ride this winter whether on the road or bike path.