Originally Posted by
John E
I still claim the elephant in the room is speed differential. In low-speed traffic, which I define as roads with posted speed limits of no more than 25mph / 40kph, I favor full integration of bicyclists into the main traffic flow -- call me VC in this context. On high-speed roads, which I define as those with posted speed limits of at least 40mph / 65kph, I strongly favor lateral separation, which can be a marked bike lane, a well-maintained shoulder, or simply a wide curb lane. There is a 30-35mph / 50-60kph hazy transition zone in between, in which well-designed bicycle facilities can help calm traffic, and which have to be approached on a case-by-case basis.
There are other specific contexts in which I favor bike lanes, such as those between through-only and right-only lanes, because they tell motorists where to expect bicyclists to be, and they remind timid or clueless bicyclists not to set themselves up for a right hook.
While I really tend to agree with your thoughts and statements here... there is an even higher speed issue at hand. The 55 and 65MPH arterial. A 6 or 8 inch line does not provide enough separation between very high speed motor traffic traveling on said arterials... even the wind from a passing motorist (especially large SUVs) on such roads can wobble a cyclist.
The irony is that the same speeds on these arterials, is present on limited access roads known as interstate freeways... which have wide 10 foot shoulders that are a far cry better then that of the typical 5 foot bike lane on such an arterial. I have ridden on interstate freeway shoulders and personally testify that the comfort level is far better on the interstate than riding in a 5 foot bike lane on a 55-65MPH arterial.
I realize that few states have such high speed arterials, but these are indeed becoming a standard here in California... and are used to link housing tracts with commercial areas... where cyclists may typically want to go, once leaving their suburbs.