Originally Posted by Helmet Head
On long intersectionless stretches... okay. Then a bike lane serves the same purpose as a slow truck lane. But, again, this is an advantage for drivers of faster vehicles Even a well-designed bike lane on an long intersectionless stretch of roadways is not a facility that benefits bicyclists any more than a slow truck lane is a facility that benefits truckers.
And do you see anything wrong with giving drivers of faster vehicles an advantage such as this? Seriously, why must the advantage
always be for the cyclist? Just because we are in the minority? We have enough advantages over motorized traffic, such as being able to avoid traffic jams. But there would be at least
one advantage I see for cyclists with such a lane. The existance of the lane alone would be a reminder to motorists that cyclists could be present. If there weren't enough cyclists using the road in the first place, then the bike lane would have not been put there. So the fact that it
is there is a reminder to them to be cautious.
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
But on sections of roads with intersections (no matter how minor) where no traffic engineer would ever consider putting a slow truck lane (no matter how steep or long the climb - there are no truck lanes on San Francisco's Filmore street, for example), bike lanes also have no legitimate function.
Well, I don't know the street you used for an example, but I have to disagree with you on this point. The existence of the bike lane alone is a function in and of itself, it is a constant reminder to motorists that cyclists use this road enough that the city installed a bike lane. I know around here a bike lane would allow me (barring lane splitting) to pass 100 to 300 feet of traffic at plenty of stop lights on my way to work every day. It would also cut back on the "get off the road" and "get on the sidewalk" hollars from cars. It would also allow me a more comfortable lane to travel in because, let's face it, sharing a lane with 60mph traffic that is in a hurry to get home to watch American Idol is not fun, so I use the shoulder, which is cluttered and not smooth. A bike lane would be cared for as part of the road in this example and not just a place to pile up snow. This is just one example.
Originally Posted by Helmet Head
The only justification I see for bike lanes is a cyclist inferiority perspective. And by that I mean a perspective that considers the RIGHTS of cyclists to be inferior to the RIGHTS of vehicle drivers.
Or, you could read what I just wrote about the lane being a
constant reminder and a
more comfortable place to travel. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean everyone else doesn't as well. Maybe you should think about what other people might want before you start preaching against it. It seems clear to me that more people want bike lanes/paths than not. And this is pretty much how our country is run... it is a democracy you know. Bike lanes
will not take away our rights to use the road either, people who think that are being asenine.