One cannot evaluate the "quality" of a bike lane until one first "knows", or thinks that others "know", the function that the bike lane is to fill. Both AASHTO and FHWA state purposes of bike lanes, but they use words so fluffy and ambiguous that no specific purpose is actually specified. And different people have different purposes in mind: the original standards designer (say at the AASHTO and FHWA level) may think that they have stated the purposes (which they haven't, not really); the local designer does just wha the manual instructs without thinking of the purpose to be fulfilled; the cyclist thinks of another purpose, while the motorist thinks of still another.

I say, again, that no bike lane can be good, although it is obvious that some are less dangerous than others. That is so because bike lanes are based on a principle that conflicts with the proper operating rules. The rules of the road are based on first-come first served, direction of travel, speed of travel, intention to turn or move laterally, turning and moving laterally, and assignment of priority right-of-way in some cases of crossing traffic. The bike-lane stripe fouls up this operation by adding a further division by the name of the vehicle.