HoustonB

If those countries have nothing to offer, then why have there been fact-finding visits to them by people from the USA. I know for a fact that several people from Portland alone have been to Europe to see how cyclists have been integrated with motor traffic and to get some ideas that might transfer to the USA.

For anyone to claim that they have completely separate networks is at best disingenuous and at worst a case of vacuous nonsense. I have ridden many times in The Netherlands and whilst a good percentage is separate, it is far from 100%. For example, there are many junctions that have painted lines on the roads with one set for motorized traffic over-layed with lines for cyclists over-layed with lines for the light rail. Motorists are penalized heavily for right hooks and are instructed that they must yield to cyclists on the right. They make it work.

What is the difference between a legal restriction and a serious legal restriction? Are there any restrictions that are not serious. Your statement is only partially correct - if a bike lane is poorly maintained to the extent that it poses a hazard, then you would not have a serious requirement to stay in it.

Also you are stretching your argument - how do you know that the (Oregon specific) restriction to use a bike lane when present, is a consequence of increased numbers of cyclists. Perhaps you are confusing cause with effect.

This whole thread is excrement! If a very large number of people (say the majority) switched from driving cars to riding bicycles, do you seriously believe for one second that the remaining motorists, no matter how pissed off, would be reason enough for additional restrictions on the majority of cyclists?

I would expect the opposite to happen - i.e. additional restrictions on the remaining motorists, since they are now a minority. Please tell me why (in this scenario) that would not be the case.