I cut text to save space, but feel it was all worth quoting.

Many assume that a feeling of safety implies a lack (or decrease) of real safety. That's not necessarily the case: it is possible to both feel safer and be safer, and it is possible to feel safer with no change in actual safety. If you look around bike lane debates, they tend to snag on the safety issue (or on idealogical "segregation" themes) and never explore other issues.

If we assume, (as I believe), that bike lanes are generally neutral in actual safety, or that actual safety involves too many other factors for the mere presence/absence of a bike lane to be the deciding factor, then what are we left with?

First, as Gene stated, an increased feeling of safety may encourage cycling. Generally a good thing. Arguments that bike lanes encourage people to venture on streets they are not ready for seem a bit weak to me. Bike lanes are traffic lanes, and gaining experience in traffic is a required part of developing traffic skills.

Secondly, the presence of a restricted lane (signage, pavement markings) plus any increase in actual cyclists increased public awareness of cycling. Good all around, even if some people mis-perceive bike lanes as the only place for cyclists (two steps forward, one step back is still one step forward).

Thirdly, the presence of a bike lane may (and often does) make that road easier to use for cyclist. If nothing else it can allow a cyclist to zoom by gridlock. People are basically lazy, and a faster/easier route is more likely to be used. At rush hour it takes me 30mins. to get from my new office to my front door, a friend with a car tried it and took 45 mins. THAT is a strong pro-cycling argument. I could easily shave 5 minutes off my cycling time if a bike lane let me get passed traffic faster at the Billings Bridge bottle-neck.

Finally (or at least that's all which comes to mind right now) bike lanes change the road use paradigm from lane sharing to the normal one vehicle-per-lane system. I see two distinct problems with lane sharing. Most people don't really know the difference between narrow lanes, normal lanes, and wide lanes - causing both drivers and cyclists to have an expectation of lane sharing that exceeds actual road capacities. Lane sharing also complicate every intersection, and merging into traffic at each intersection can be a huge headache.


Now, I'm not saying that bike lanes are a magic solution. At the least the require complex intersections (lights, RTOLs, etc.) at all major crossings (most driveways have too low a traffic volume to be significant risks). A sub-standard bike lane can be worse than none. Drivers have to merge through the bike lane to get to a RTOL, which is a more complex move and covers more distance than a normal lane change. It may be very difficult or impossible to retro-fit an older road to have a bike lane, and the meeting point of new construction to old can result in strange interfaces. However there are bad roads and intersections everywhere, of all types, and for many reasons. To me, the question "are bike lanes good" is meaningless. The question that needs to be answered is, "Would a bike lane be of net benefit to cyclists on Main Street from First Ave. down to Tenth?" Sure, part of the answer to that question must involve safety concerns, but barring clear and significant safety problems there are other considerations to be discussed.

Sorry for the novel, folks.