Originally Posted by sggoodri

As John Forester said before, there is operating according to the paradigm of vehicular cycling, and there is advocating in favor of vehicular cycling. Let us consider the latter.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in conflict with the ordinary vehicular rules of the road, the vehicular cycling advocate would oppose the bike lane.

If the bike lane design directs the cyclist to operate in a roadway location more hazardous than that desired for the purpose of defensive driving in compliance with vehicular cycling, the vehicular cycling advocate will oppose it.

If the bike lane is undesirable for cycling for some reason other than the vehicular rules of the road and defensive driving, the vehicular cycling advocate may make a choice between advocating for better design or maintenance, or simply opposing the striping and/or laws requiring its use by cyclists. This does not need to be a litmus test for vehicular cycling advocacy; the advocate may just decide that one course of action is more likely to benefit roadway cyclists than another, and this decision may depend on the local built environment, laws, and political atmosphere.

I have seen some pictures of bike lanes that appear to have none of the above problems, and might be more desirable for cycling on some types of roads than the same roads without such bike lanes. However, I do not have any such bike lanes in my community, only the badly designed or worthless debris-accumulating bike lanes. A vehicular cycling advocate may decide that the risk of ending up with more bad and worthless bike lanes does or does not outweigh the possible benefits of advocating in favor of more of the "best" designs. If the local planners and engineers have no interest in distinguishing between good and bad bike lane designs, the vehicular cycling advocate will likely conclude that uniform support of wide outside lanes instead of striped bike lanes is the most effective strategy to improve conditions for roadway cycling.