Originally Posted by
atbman
The problem with this and Genec's view is that it ignores the frequently expressed driver opinion that the cycle lane is the only part of the highway that the cyclist should be on. This makes overtaking another, slower, rider a cause of (vituperatively) shouted complaint/insult/obscenity, etc.
And without bike lanes the motorist may typically share shouted complaint/insult/obscenity, etc. with any cyclist on the road.
Originally Posted by
atbman
The point about drivers not feeling it necessary to move out to go past is also valid. All it needs is a larger motor vehicle passing a rider in a strong crosswind when the rider is close to the dividing line (rubbish in the unswept lane/drain covers, etc.) and the potential for a collision is immediately increased. After all, it would be difficult to argue that the cyclist requires overtaking vehicles to give them, say, 3' (inadequate in most countries - in France it's 2m) room, while simultaneously saying that you don't have to move out to give them that amount of space if they are in an adjacent lane.
But the same might also occur to a motorist of a high sided vehicle in a strong wind or in the case of snow, but we don't reconfigure the streets for these weather conditions now do we?
Originally Posted by
atbman
The argument also assumes that all cycle lanes are properly designed and of sufficient width (6' -2m, preferably) to make the rider safer - and there are no right hooks with the cycle lanes forumers ride in, are there?
Quite valid, perhaps the MUTCD and AASHTO documents can be used to show proper bike lanes (outside of door zones) and these documents can be used in legal cases to highlight improper bike lanes.
Originally Posted by
atbman
It also seems to me that the call for cycle lanes (by legislators) is posited on the belief that the rear end collision is the most likely danger that a rider will face (so to speak), whereas it is one of the rarest. Cycle lanes do not address the problems caused by drivers cutting across the cyclist, regardless of the direction of the turn, neither do they reduce the likelihood of a driver coming out of a sideroad/driveway/carpark, etc., without looking properly.
Or are bike lanes put in place to simply get cyclists out of the way as I have often heard...
Regarding the issues of drivers cutting across cyclists... perhaps law enforcement can be made to actually enforce the laws written (such as in CA where motorists must merge into BL).
Much of the issues that cyclists face on the roads are due to motorists either not treating cyclists as valid users of the road, or not obeying the laws. Either situation is going to be nearly impossible to rectify in this country.
Originally Posted by
atbman
Another fairly common problem arising from cycle lanes arises when the cyclist is riding along a cycle lane past a line of traffic, and one of those drivers leaves a gap at a junction and flashes an oncoming driver to turn. The turning driver will rarely look for the rider whose path he is crossing - splaat!
Again an issue of motorists not accepting cyclists as valid users of the road and looking for them. This can occur whether a BL is involved or not (and does occur to motorcyclists on a regular basis... so BL are not the cause of the problem)
Originally Posted by
atbman
None of the above, Genec, are excuses, but reasons for considering the inadequacies of cycle lanes as well as possible virtues (if they are properly designed).
I agree that BL are far from perfect, but if we dissect must other traffic control devices and symbols we can find weaknesses in those too. I know for one that new traffic lights are being tested in the town just east of me... yet one may think that traffic (stop and go) lights have long worked "successfully."