patc,

I think your post makes the most sense so far.

Here in Richmond, people are already aware of bike traffic due to the blossoming bike culture.

Back in Williamsburg, drivers, both tourists and townies, were generally ignorant of the presence of cyclists and bike-related laws. It was on the low-speed (25 mph) roads with sidewalks and no bike lanes that my wife and I got comments like, "Get off the road," "Get on the sidewalk," or once, "You're holding up traffic for miles!" Drivers tended to pass very close and very fast. On the roads that had "Share the road" signs, bike lanes of any kind, and/or wide shoulders, drivers were much more courteous, even if we weren't actually riding in the bike lane, and even if the speed limit was much greater (45 mph). There were some problems, such as crossing intersections, executing left turns, and dealing with oncoming cyclists going the wrong way. However, I don't think that these problems were any less pronounced on the roads without bike lanes. When I was concerned about debris, grates, car doors, oncoming cyclists, or pedestrian traffic, I simply moved to the left and into the main travel lane after checking behind me. At intersections, I had no problem taking a turn lane when necessary to secure my spot at the light and prevent being hooked.

From my observations, it seems as though innovations and facilites of any sort were a help both to fast recreational cyclists and to slower transportational cyclists.

Regarding the original post, I can't say I'd be comfortable at all in a lane between parked cars and the sidewalk: doors on one side, curb on the other, and people crossing the lane to enter their cars. A wider lane that still discourages automobile travel would likely be a more effective and certainly a more elegant solution, but road width is generally limited. Still, I like the innovative thinking here.