Originally Posted by
BlazingPedals
What I've seen in California is that the bike lane simply disappears before a major intersection, then reappears on the far side. Intersections are where most accidents happen, so the lanes aren't there when cyclists need them the most! This supports my contention that bike lanes exist for the convenience of motorists, not for cyclists' safety.
Where would you put the bike lane in the intersection and on the approach thereto? Continuing it straight will invite precisely the sorts of right hooks (not to mention left crosses and side entries) you want to avoid.
California has the right idea. Oregon's bicycle activists unfortunately do not understand traffic flow and destination-appropriate lateral positioning. It is the same mentality that gives us separated cycletracks, which are great until they dump us in a bad position at the next intersection. Using a cycletrack is akin to jumping out of a window in a high rise building. As you pass an open window on the way down and someone asks you "how's it going," the reply is "so far ... so good."
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069