Originally Posted by genec
And if a bike lane did not exist, then would the accident have been prevented?
No way to know. The removal of one contributory factor among others does not mean the crash would necessarily have been prevented. All we can say is that the crash would have been less likely to occur, to some unknown degree. I believe the magnitude of that degree to be significant. Reasonable people may disagree.
I fully understand the issues you present, and I also understand that much of what a cyclist has to do to avoid accidents with motor vehicles has a lot to do with compensating for the lack of good driving habits by motorists.
No. At least in this case it's compensating for normal expected behavior given the circumstances, not "lack of good driving habits". But "compensating for the lack of good driving habits by motorists" is a good habit too, though not relevant in this case.
Speeding up to pass a cyclist and then making a sharp turn is a bad habit portrayed by motorists that feel they must pass a bicycle at all costs... a bad habit by motorists who are not willing to truly share the road.
There is no evidence that the motorist actually sped up to pass the cyclist.
I was driven to lunch yesterday by a colleague who avoided entering even
empty dashed bike lanes at all right turns, in a state where doing so is
required by law. Is this a "bad habit" on the part of this particular motorist, or is it typical expected normal driver behavior? Isn't it really a "bad habit" on the part of traffic engineers who paint bike lane stripes all the way up to intersections despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers, even police officers, naturally and rationally avoid entering delineated road space that is too narrow for a car to fit?