Originally Posted by
FBinNY
A question.
Apparently cities are rated for bike friendliness based on the amount of bike specific infrastructure. So if they then pass laws that cyclists must use that infrastructure in lieu of the main roadway, is that also a friendly act?
I ask because there's widespread support for infrastructure, but seems to be opposition to must use laws. I don't have a problem with that and see the dichotomy, but have a strong feeling that the two are or will be linked in the minds of those who write laws, and the first will inexorably lead to the second.
Yes, be careful of what you wish for, i.e. separated bike infrastructure.
Here's an interesting article from London
London's Plan to Move Cyclists to Side Streets - Feargus O'Sullivan - The Atlantic Cities
Excerpt:
"But is it enough? Probably not. There’s a worrying trend in "new" concepts for London cycling. Whether they hide bikes away in back alleys or give them the Robert Moses treatment on elevated "skyways," they’re all about ceding the lion’s share of the current road network to cars. Londoners are losing confidence in the current bike lane network – their naming as “superhighways” seeming increasingly ludicrous – after a series of recent deaths. But Mayor Boris Johnson seems unwilling to antagonize the road lobby by creating the sort of lane segregation that real safety requires."