Which is why the analogy only works to a point. First of all, the main thing is that I reject the notion that cyclists are slower than motorists in 90% of situations. If nothing else, at every intersection their speeds are comparable. It's a lot, but not 90%. Secondly, difference alone does not justify separatism: the difference must be significant and must warrant the separatism. Even then, you have to be careful. Don't forget that many Southerners believed (unfortunately probably many still do) the black/white difference was significant and warranted the separatism.

It is the separatism belief in and of itself that is the core problem. For blacks, it meant that they were treated separately and unfairly in many aspects of society. To a large extent the analogy works here, because the warranted separatism implied by bike lanes affects the treatment of cyclists in many situations where separatism is not warranted, not only with respect to how cyclists are treated, but in how cyclists act (like second-class users of the roadway).


Let's count the ways...

1. Slow vehicle lanes (SVLs) are restricted to certain sections of intersectionless roadway. Bike lanes (BLs) are not. In this respect, if BLs were like SVLs we would only see them on occasional long stretches of high speed/high volume intersectionless roadway (like a freeway).
2. Slow vehicle lanes probably collect debris too, but probably not as much as bike lanes do.
3. Vehicles in slow vehicle lanes are not affected by whatever debris is collected in the slow vehicle lane; cyclists are affected. In particular, cyclists tend to ride on or near the edge stripe to avoid the debris; vehicles in slow vehicle lanes are not.
4. Slow vehicle lanes are wide; bike lanes are not. Yes, cyclists are narrow, but they still require more space than most people realize (including most cyclists), particularly in BLs considering cyclists' tendency to ride on or near the stripe because of the debris issue. So BLs encourage unsafe/near passing in a way that SVLs do not.
5. Etc. (let me know if you are not yet convinced that BLs are significantly different from SVLs)

Now you're talking about the main purpose of bike lanes: to get cyclists out of the way of motorists. Kind of like the main reason for separate water fountains... This insidious separatism underlying bike lanes makes effective integration in traffic for cyclists that much less accepted and respected, and that much more difficult and challenging.


That's a big and unsubstantiated IF. I ride vehicularly all the time, and I can assure you I never cause a traffic jam. (please do not confuse vehicular cycling with Critical Mass!) Sure, I might delay someone for a few seconds, maybe a minute or two if they end up catching a red that they would have gone through on green were it not for me, but that certainly does not amount to causing a traffic jam, and I don't think it warrants supporting the idea that cyclists must be separated from vehicular traffic, particularly considering that they must integrate with traffic at every intersection.


Actually, without the stripe the cyclist has the right-of-way in the lane, and the motorist tends to pass slowly and with care. When the motorist and cyclist are separated by a BL stripe, the cyclist does not have the right-of-way in the motorist's lane, and the motorist passes him as if he is not there.

Cyclist/motorist separatism causes more problems than it solves.


Are there enough cyclists to cause a real problem? Only during a Critical Mass, which I do not advocate.