Originally Posted by genec
Dumb question... if the perception of the cyclists is that bike lanes make them feel safer, then aren't more cyclists liable to take to the road in these BL... and if there are more cyclists on the road, doesn't that increase our visibility to motorists, who then become more aware of cyclists and tend look out for them.
It has been stated time and time again that more cyclists on the road increases the over all safety for all cyclists, because motorists become more aware of cyclists.
So if BL are nothing more than a physicological ploy to make cyclist feel safer and increase ridership, then aren't BL then a good thing?
And in reality aren't all the stripes on the road, especially the one in the middle, just there to make us feel safer... the reality being that anybody can cross any line at any time?
In my opinion, having more cyclists in the streets would make the already rare overtaking collision even rarer. Motorists would be more likely to pay attention to the bike lane/shoulder if more cyclists used it.
At intersections, motorists are looking for cars because another car endangers them. They also look where traffic is normally coming from because if they had to do a 360 degree check at every turn, they'd have to turn very slowly. They'll also be likely to forget to do that 360 degree check every once in a while (or often for newer drivers) so counting on that check to improve your saety is still a bad bet. It's still a bad idea to ride somewhere that the normal (car) traffic is not coming from.
Question: How many cyclist deaths in your immediate area would it take for many cyclists to decide cycling is too dangerous? How many would it take before the local government decided the streets were not safe for cyclists (Dana Point)?