Fully agreed! A dedicated bike lane that separates riders from car traffic could make riding experience very enjoyable.

I was born in China during the 80s, when biking was the most common way of transportation. The term "Kingdom of Bicycles" [1] was used as a tag line for China in that era. Most roads had bike lanes which could be just as wide as car lanes. Between the lanes are physical separators: 3-4 ft high, made of metal, reliable and heavy-duty [2].

Now I live in the US, and still enjoy biking cause there're nice bike trails near my place. However, most city roads seem not safe for biking. Biking becomes a recreational activity, and no longer a transportation method for me. I appreciate the nicely maintained bike trails, but I hope the city build more physical bike lane separators, not only painted lines on the ground, that can actually stop some reckless drivers entering bike lanes.

--- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bicycle#China_a...

[2] Another good reading about the bike history in China: The Rise, Fall, and Restoration of the Kingdom of Bicycles. https://macropolo.org/analysis/the-rise-fall-and-restoration...

Agree! and nothing like a well designed city. For me that comprises of meeting all my needs at biking distance to everything.

Bicycles are indeed the most efficient mode of transportation, but shouldn’t we be taking into account the energy cost of the entire paved system of roads needed to facilitate that rolling efficiency in the first place? Paving a road with asphalt is pretty resource intensive.

Bicycles don’t need that, and it wasn’t made for them, so I don’t know why you’d charge “road cost” to the bicycle ledger when they’re such a distant second (at best) citizen on most roadways anyway.

Roads were originally paved for bicycles, before cars. https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/1... https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

Maybe some roads somewhere were built for bicyclists, but I don't think you can generally say that when there are literally 6000 year old paved roads leading to Ur. Horse drawn carriages and wagons would benefit from roads and were probably much more common and important to business/transport than bicycles until the 20th century.

And what percentage of roads paved today do you suspect were done so primarily for the benefit of bicyclists?

The real cost is in the repaving and that's much more a property of weight of the vehicles. Bike infrastructure is significantly cheaper to create and maintain compared to nearly any other vehicle.

Sure we should, but that’s the case for all transport modes. Remember that you can just pave the smaller amount of space needed for cycling down a street and not a full-width road. A cycle track uses less pavement than a roadway thanks to being narrower, and probably lasts longer too due to less damage from heavy vehicles.

And doesn’t need to be built to the same standard of strength as a roadway that must carry trucks etc. In fact a dirt path is enough for a bike.

It is but it's a lot less comfortable to ride on, and that makes a difference for longer distances. (They also have the unpleasant tendency to become mud when it rains.) But ultimately sure you can usually get around on a dirt path.