Originally Posted by
LittleBigMan
I want to flip the coin.
First, let me say that I often ride in the middle of the right lane on a four-lane, two-way street that has a bike path parallel to it, between the street and the RR tracks. Basically an "ideal" path, with limited intersections (the yellow "Share the Road" sign sporting a bicycle icon supports my practice, though the occasional motorist doesn't seem to agree.)
My feeling is that motorists don't give a damn about whether or not cyclists have a place to ride. They aren't the ones clamoring for bike facilities. It's cyclists themselves in Atlanta.
I agree that motorists benefit from cyclists being moved to the side in bike lanes and paths. But motorists aren't the ones pushing for bike facilities where I live.
Are things different in California? Am I missing something locally?
It is a question of politics. Note that motorists pay for bikeways; if they didn't want to pay, we wouldn't have them. In California, the financial part of the bikeway law said (I presume that it still does) that bikeways are a justified expense if they increase the capacity of the highway, a statement that is taken on liberal terms, as in a bike lane increases the capacity of the highway by reducing delays by motorists caused by bicycle traffic.
However, that's not the most significant point. Motorists had created, over the decades, the public view that curb-hugging is the only safe way to ride, as implemented by exaggerated fear of same-direction motor traffic. We all know that that anti-vehicular-cycling public view exists. As a result of this public view, motorists never have to advocate for bikeways for their own convenience, actions that would be seen as simply selfish and self-serving. Instead, they combine with the bicycle activists in advocating safety produced by bikeways, with both parties believing that superstition because that false superstition suits their agendas.