Every suggestion I've seen was to make car infrastructure significantly worse in order to add a bike lane to an existing road, while also making that road significantly slower and worse for cars.

I don't think I've ever seen real suggestions to make a seperated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles that isn't just a sidewalk or bike lane on an existing road.

I'd recommend Vancouver as a decent example of how segregated lanes can work in a North American city.

That said, can you give specific examples of what you mean by "make car infrastructure worse"? Usually segregation is just a matter of putting a barrier on an existing bike lane and painting lines, which doesn't actually change anything for drivers who stay in the lines. In some cases, a lane may be converted, but this rarely impacts travel times much for the same reasons adding additional lanes doesn't improve travel times. Vancouver did lots of traffic studies on this criticism in particular that you can read if you're interested.

> add a bike lane to an existing road

Are you imagining an alternative in which a bike network is added to a city, but not using "existing roads"? Where would these entirely-new roads be placed? Would you knock down the buildings between two car-infrastructure-roads, to pave it for bicycles? I suppose you could remove the car-infrastructure-road entirely and make it just a bike-road / linear park. Or you could put the bike lane underground? Or build a separated-grade elevated parkway network above the city?

You put a sign at the start of the road. "Bike street". This means cars allowed but at bike speeds. You have different paint on the street too, to make it very different from a normal road. I have seen them popping up here and there and it works very well in the towns I bike in.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/bicycling/comments/e0qxxz/we_just_g...

As reasonable as that sounds, I think this would fall into the GP's complained-of category of "making that road significantly slower and worse for cars", and does not meet their ask for "a separated infrastructure grid for pedestrians and bicycles".

I remain very curious to hear their vision!

You don't need to make every street a bike street. It's enough if there is a way of getting safely close to your destination. Both for cars and bikes. The car drivers can drive on the next street unless this is their destination location. Works just fine in other big cities so it's just a question of getting used to a slightly different road to work/home.

To be clear, I definitely agree with you, I just don't think ThunderSizzle would. So it's ThunderSizzle's ideal that I am confused about, and trying to clarify. I think ThunderSizzle has asked for a (to my imagination) impossible-to-reach standard, and you have provided a very practical compromise, but exactly the sort that they would probably reject as infringing too much on existing car infrastructure.

I said roads, not streets. I've seen high-speed highways that have been modified to add a bike lane to the middle of no where for miles on end.

This is beyond useless, and is very dangerous as your combining high speed vehicle travel with bikes and pedestrians. The typical response is to then convert the road to a street (e.g. lower the speed limit, reduce lanes, etc) instead of moving pedestrian traffic away from roads. The traffic is still there, because it's the only route, but now you've added the occasional brave and stupid bicyclist or pedestrian.

Beyond that, it's more inefficient for pedestrians, because road layouts tend to follow inefficient directions that add unnecessary travel time for pedestrians.

Oh that makes sense. Yes, I keep seeing proposals to add bike lanes to highways and I just think, who wants to ride a bike next to all those high speed vehicles with no shade?

As a cyclist in vancouver I would say separated infrastructure is a mixed bag, I would have a car cutting me off (right hook as they say), many near misses when I had right of way several times a week on the dunsmuir bike path. I felt a lot safer biking in traffic in that area. OTOH I've enjoyed biking along the skytrain paths all the way out to surrey on occasion. The areas where the segregated path meet traffic have to be very carefully thought out.

Yeah? Except where I live, we have "bike trails" wide enough, and newly paved looking enough that I could drive my car over them, in fact! The lawncare people for my neighborhood absolutely drive their trucks on them, with enough room to let people pass them by! And yet, I still see people on the regular roads, at the worst times: early morning when most people are trying to get to work, or right as the sun is going down when it is drastically harder to notice a bicycle.

One time I was going up a hill I've been up and down a million times, only to be shocked to find, after sundown, similar road with a BIKE TRAIL, some person riding their bicycle WITH NO LIGHTS, on a road where you're expected to go 45 (its actually 55 when I googled it!) or more, giving me little time to react, I have NEVER seen someone be so careless on this road, or even ride a bicycle on it, because its not a road for bicycles. So no, it's not just the cars that are dangerous, its the carelessness of bicycle riders that is equally dangerous.

To preface, I don't know anything about your specific area, but bike infrastructure is like car infra in that there are multiple classes of infrastructure for different purposes. What are commonly called bike trails tend to be off-road paths that go on meandering paths through nice parts of the city like parks and vineyards. That's not what my post is talking about.

People going to work typically take the most direct route there, which is usually the same road cars take rather than those trails. Thus you see people cycling on the same busy roads you're rushing to work on. That's an urban planning problem and one that I've spent lots of time trying to fix in my own community. In every case it's been held up by people who don't want to spend money on bikes and in one memorable case were worried about a traffic study that estimated an additional 30s worst case scenario for commute length increases.

As for the hill thing, cyclists are not obligated to have rear facing lights in any state I'm aware of, only forward facing. They need to have a rear retroreflector for visibility in most places. These come on all bikes by default and the only way to not have them is to intentionally remove them, which is uncommon. I assume they didn't since you didn't mention it, and I'm also going to assume the road doesn't have a bike lane since you mentioned a bike trail on some similar path instead. In that case, they're probably allowed to be there (though they should have forward facing lights and safety patches for their own sake).

Your responsibility as a driver is to drive at speed where you can identify and safely react to obstacles, including bikes. It sounds like that didn't happen here, but you're blaming someone else for the near miss.

> As for the hill thing, cyclists are not obligated to have rear facing lights in any state I'm aware of

In Florida, my state, they absolutely must:

- A bicycle operated between sunset and sunrise must be equipped with a lamp on the from exhibiting a white light visible from 500 feet to the front and both a red reflector and a lamp on the rear exhibiting a red light visible from 600 feet to the rear.

- A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed as other traffic must ride in the designated bike lane or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway.

See here:

https://www.flhsmv.gov/safety-center/driving-safety/bicycle-...

Edit also:

At least 24 states require bike lights during certain times of day or in limited visibility conditions, including: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, and Maine.

It's very telling that you assume drivers in the early morning are trying to get to work but the cyclists aren't.

It sounds like you live in America in which case I assure you the bike trails you speak of are inadequate to the point that using them is probably less safe than not.

Where are you getting the "expected to go 55" wording from? That's not how laws are written. If you're referring to the speed limit, that's a limit, not a suggestion. Again, telling.

Yes it is the cars that are dangerous, a careless bicycle rider is not capable of harming you in your car in any way.

Cyclists who ride without lights after dark are irresponsible, I'll give you that.

As a former bicycle messenger I'm opposed to it. The trails are filled with baby strollers and inline skaters moving in and out of lanes. typically there is no right of way when crossing roads or entrances to parking lots. Blind corners with overgrown vegetation are par for the course.

Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort.

Dedicated bicycle lanes on existing roads are the worst. You are trapped in an area where turning vehicles are going to T-bone you. Pedestrians will tentatively step out on the the asphalt as they ponder crossing the street. Want to swerve around them? Good luck, there are bollards or other barriers now separating the cycling lane from the rest of the larger roadway.

This is why there is a common international driving etiquette to not overtake on the outer lane. Yet, safety maxi city planners, who clearly never pursued cycling at any level, insist upon building dedicated cyclist lanes on the outside. I see many accidents posted as outrage bait on Twitter caused by cyclists attempting to overtake on the outside or being overtaken by cars attempting to turn. As a professional courier, I would have never attempted such maneuvers.

Overtake on the inside, like any other vehicle. Stay behind the brake light on the inside bumper. Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows. If you are not keeping pace with traffic, yield to the outside and do not make a pest of yourself. Unless of course there is an immediate intersection, then you should defend against a turning vehicle.

Dedicated cycling lanes have issues and bike trails often do not go to the destinations you need. It is a nice alternative for leisurely cycling, but not applicable utilitarian transportation. I often wonder if the planners of these things have ever used a bicycle to pick up groceries or run errands.

Finally, all of the people crying about how dangerous cycling is, will most likely still complain or find other excuses to not ride their bike. That's fine. I'm not here to convert everyone into a cyclist. Personally, I have no issues sharing the road with cement trucks. "I would start riding my bike to work, if only you built me...", becomes, "It is too hot, cold or rainy to ride bikes" or, "I can't carry groceries on a bicycle, are you crazy?". It is much like the chronically overweight or those who claim they want to quit smoking. These people don't actually want to ride bikes. That's fine, but we shouldn't attempt to accommodate their excuses by wasting money building infrastructure which creates dangerous expectations for motorists and cyclists.

Stated preferences are not always what users want or need.

I think you need to cycle in a country with good infrastructure and laws that protect cyclists. Most countries’ “cycling infrastructure” is a pathetic joke.

Of course you are opposed, you are not the target audience. Bike infrastructure is there to let your average person bike at 10mph to work/school/the grocery store. It's not supposed to be a racing track.

> Riding in traffic is an absolute pleasure when you know how to draft vehicles. The suction created by larger box trucks can actually pull you along with minimal effort.

Well, I chuckled ;) Just FYI, if you're "drafting" you're probably well within the "if they brake hard, I'm running into them" territory. Proceed at your own risk.

>Be prepared to weave to the inside if the vehicle slows.

Box trucks are good for beginners because you do not need to be nearly as close. Slightly ahead of the boundary area of the aerodynamic turbulence feels optimal. In dusty conditions you may be able to visually observe this. Also, they generally cannot stop as quickly. Truck drivers know their routes and will more likely hit all of the lights at a uniform speed. You'll more easily hear their motor and gear shifts.

Yes, there are idiots who will try to brake check you, but they are mostly driving cars. A slight turn allows you to pass on the inside. The entire maneuver happens faster than braking. Braking is actually a mistake here, because you can loose traction and the ability to avoid obstacles.

For the rest of your comment, casual cyclists should prefer lower traffic streets and routes. By working incrementally they can build up their comfort levels. Again, the idea that they shouldn't gain the ability to ride in traffic or should have an expectation to never encounter traffic is a recipe for disaster.

It isn't about racing or being the fastest, but learning to cycle, feeling comfortable, interacting with traffic safely and not making a pest of yourself. That can only happen with the right set of expectations. Separate infrastructure doesn't help novices develop the necessary skills.

Damn! I never messengered, just commuted for a few years in a city. I've always had this kind of eye-roll reaction to the ever-growing number of bike lanes, especially poorly done ones now that they've reached the 'burbs, even though there was only a handful when I was seriously riding. I never fully reflected on why, apart from the obvious just-wide-enough-to-get-doored and having to do explicit lane changes to deal with double parking and other shit in the way. You put it really well! I mean, if you don't hear an ambulance approaching from behind and think "this is my ticket for getting through this traffic quickly and safely", are you even riding?

> I don't think I've ever met a cyclist who's opposed to separated infrastructure for bikes and cars.

Then I think you've never met a cyclist. As in actually riding a lot, not as in owning a bike and having occasionally achieved the balancing act. I know enough cyclists to hear about someone getting hit by a car multiple times a year and a large majority of those cases are getting hit in intersections (and in interactions with driveways) while traveling on "separated" bike infrastructure. Because the reality is that it's never really separated, intersections do exist. That "separated" infrastructure? It's merely out of sight out of mind for the drivers. Which would be an effective strategy if your goal was to maximize accidents. Those people who keep getting hit on separate bike lanes? They already make bike lane avoidance a factor in their route selection and yet still most of their hits happen on the small subset of their miles that are on "separated" infrastructure, not on the many, many miles done in the lane.

Yes, some separated bike infrastructure feels nice to use. And a subset of that even happens to not be inherently dangerous. But that's only where that is easy to do. Yes, on an high traffic road that is so close to limited access design that it's always miles per instead of intersections per mile, yes, a well-built bike lane is nice. Even when it's separated. But those that keep cruising side streets, driveways and the like? They are dangerous thrill courses hated by all cyclists but a tiny minority. The tiny minority that sees themselves more like pedestrians who happen to sit while while almost walking than like actual cyclists.

And yes, I know the Netherlands exist. Safety in numbers can move the threshold and the exact same bike infrastructure that would be a bone-crushing through thrill course under little use can become quite tolerable when it's used so much that "out of mind" can never happen. But until you get there, prefer building better bike infrastructure over building more. And better means about separation except where it's for beyond the slightest doubt.