I biked many thousands of miles to/from work/school in Seattle - well, up until the third time I got run over and decided to call it quits - and agree 1000%.

The idea that "sharing the road" is possible if only we were all a little nicer and more attentive is a supremely naive fantasy that exists primarily as a justification to not build real physically divided infrastructure.

Painted bike lanes (and crosswalks, tbqh) are death traps and overall fucking terrible fig-leaf concepts. Barriers (and over/underpasses, etc) or nothing.

I generally feel safe at crosswalks, but I never trust the infrastructure of the crosswalk to keep me safe. If you blindly trust the crosswalk light you'll probably wind up dead. I always look both ways while crossing the street, I keep my head on a swivel during the entire crossing not just the start. Ultimately I am responsible for my own safety, I won't get a second life just because the traffic light said I was in the right.

If you stay attentive when crossing, I think almost all crosswalks are safe. If you aren't attentive when crossing, none of them are safe.

> ”Painted bike lanes (and crosswalks, tbqh) are death traps and overall fucking terrible fig-leaf concepts. Barriers (and over/underpasses, etc) or nothing.”

Painted, unprotected lanes aren’t ideal, but they’re better than nothing if they encourage more people to cycle.

There’s plenty of examples where I live where painted cycle lanes have later been upgraded to proper protected cycle lanes (with kerbs, cycle-specific signals at intersections, etc) once they showed the demand was there.

I’d also argue that simply having more cyclists in an area makes cyclists safer because car drivers become more aware of them.

Sharing the road with a sane driver travelling at sane speed limits in a sane car is perfectly reasonable. There's no practical reason 95% of motor vehicles couldn't be as small as the eu L7e class (or even half the weight) and governed to 40km/h (with a manual override for larger roads) with the remaining 5% only travelling on local roads by timed permit. Filling the roads with monster trucks is an intentional policy choice, not some inevitability and even not what people would naturally decide to do.

For rural roads a bike lane works fine as there are very few conflict points.

> “Filling the roads with monster trucks is an intentional policy choice”

It really is. For decades, US fuel economy standards, emissions rules, and tax breaks and depreciation rules have all been weighted in favor of bigger, heavier vehicles.

There is a bike lane near my house painted on the right side of the road. At some point, it just ends. Then a hundred feet away, it just starts up again on the left side of the road. Every time I ride it, I’m amazed that such a crazy design is still there. Do the civil engineers think that bikes are able to teleport?

Sometimes I think it is a decorative bike lane - there to give the impression of biking, not for actual use.

It's there to satisfy a requirement, nothing more. It's not actually intended to be used. The people who made the requirement don't ride bikes, and are just fishing for votes. The people who made the lane are just fulfilling the contractual requirement for the city, and also don't ride bikes.

People who actually ride bikes were not consulted about any of these designs, no question. I love getting shouted at by belligerents about not using the bike lane because I consider it to be hazardous.

Being around local government conversations in California, public and private, for mostly unrelated reasons, and only privately being interested in bicycle and pedestrian policy, I became enormously disillusioned and depressed about the chances of making real change. There was a sense that anyone arguing for good bicycle infrastructure was seen as akin to a militant political extremist who should be excluded from any real conversation: I once waited while a planning hearing for a major project was delayed for around forty five minutes while the simple request from a father that a single bike rack be put near a public park was met with a sea of concerned residents who seemed to describe him as everything from a likely outside invader, to a paid activist, to someone who should be investigated by CPS (Where was the mother of the children? Why wasn't she at the meeting?), to someone who wanted to make the park a place where murderous teenage bicyclists would run down senior citizens trying to walk on pleasant paths. Bicycle infrastructure was only really discussed in terms of getting funding, then placed in pointless locations, or left in endless planning. What seemed like a wilful misinterpretation of Vision Zero was used as an argument against any pedestrian safety improvements other than speed limit reductions and speed bumps, with a seeming focus on suburban single-family-home residential areas where, entirely coincidentally I am sure, residents were upset about traffic noise. I actually heard a transport commission member argue that the city should not consider improving crosswalk and pedestrian intersection safety, because Vision Zero showed speed limits were better for preventing fatal accidents. Even simply asking if police would increase pedestrian patrols instead of driving on pedestrian paths in even small parks in street patrol cars was met with enormous hostility.

At best, bicycle and pedestrian topics would get a question or two at local debates, usually along the lines of "Do you walk, or take public transport, or ride a bicycle in the area?", almost always answered along the lines of "Yes, of course, in [some rare situation], but I can't normally because it isn't suitable transportation when working". But as locals would primarily vote based on somewhat arbitrary senses of feeling and intuition, without considering direct local questions or any research, nothing really changed.

The same projects and funding, which out-of-the-way places to add patchwork bike lanes to, and whether those bike lanes should be painted, or maybe just "bike route / share the road" signs on the side of the road, are probably being discussed now, a decade later.

Almost every bike lane near me is like this. Just randomly fucking ends with no notice, dumping you onto a 4 lane divided highway. Or has you weaving in and out of traffic between cars in the far lane and the turn lane. Or there's parking to the left of the bike lane, and people park in the bike lane (never ticketed, of course) instead of the designated parking area with plenty of room. Or there are cars parked to the right of the bike lane that you must watch very carefully in case a door suddenly opens in your path. Or there's just a bike painted onto the shoulder (2.5 feet wide shoulder) where all the rocks, broken glass, and other debris accumulate. The worst offender I've seen is a set of sharrows in downtown that leads you directly onto a highway that legally cyclists are not allowed on (they certainly couldn't ride there safely), and terminate after you're already beyond the point of no return down the one-way on-ramp. If you didn't know better, you could end up in real trouble.

If it weren't so frustrating it would be comical.

I’m not in the US but that happens all the time in the north of Ireland where I live. I’m convinced that bike lanes here are designed by someone who drove a Transit van down the road once.

Unfortunate NACTO (which is considered LESS shitty for bikes/pedestrians than AASHTO, whose road design guidelines are used in more places in the US) actually recommends these things: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/int...

This design is absolutely terrible, so hopefully this will change at some point (other countries like the Netherlands have figured out better approaches to how to allow cars to turn when there's a bike lane).

Yeah, some of those designs look pretty bad. The solution in London at busy intersections is to have separate signals for cyclists and turning motor traffic. Turning traffic will have a red light while cycle traffic has green and vice-versa.

At smaller intersections without signals, the turning motorist is responsible for looking for (and giving way to) cycle traffic before turning across the cycle lane.

As a cycle commuter I feel like London compromises very heavily because the authorities aren't willing to reallocate or expand the existing road space to do what's necessary, and instead just do what they can.

True. It's much better than it was 5-10 years ago, but there's still much more to be done. Some councils are better than others.

Obviously most London roads can't be "expanded", but even reallocating a few parking spaces can often create a lot of space for cyclists and pedestrians.

I'm obviously biased as I commute 18 miles from South London, but I think it could be done. We built tarmac roads where they didn't previously exist, after all.

I think the core problem is that councils are allowed to drag their feet or do dumb shit. CS3 is too narrow to safely passage oncoming traffic and veers across roads, CS7 has a "safety" bollard right after a chicane. These don't seem like the actions of people who view separated cycling infrastructure as a priority.

NACTO really hasn't vetted their designs or really written a standard design guide https://john-s-allen.com/blog/2014/04/endorse-nacto/

Can we just copy the design standards of the Netherlands? With 0 brain-power used it would result in an instant order of magnitude improvement.

" In Seattle, they paint bike lanes everywhere. The craziest ones are the ones that Kriss-Kross the car lanes, like those slot car tracks where the cars swap lanes"

Same in the Netherlands, not all bicycle and stoplights are equal