My understanding is that as always the difference between theory and practice is much greater in practice than in theory. That is, people say they would ride more if there were bike lanes, but when bike lanes (parallel, separated, or painted) are built they don't make that much difference. You could argue that there just aren't enough bike lanes -- what is the critical mass, and where have they made the difference? Where is it that people are actually riding because there are protected bike lanes? (As opposed to where people are not riding and blaming the lack of such facilities.)

(IIRC, Davis California is cited as having the most bike paths and bike lanes. How much do people ride there, as compared to California college towns with fewer bike paths and lanes?)

My brother was much less than 3 sitting on a seat on the top tube of Dad's Dunelt while I was in a seat over the rear wheel on non-separated streets in Washington Heights. (When he isn't bicycling, Dad is still driving big cars -- he's no fanatic about human-powered vehicles, just a realistic urban transportational bicyclist, like his sons, and at least one grandson so far.)

I haven't seen a single bike lane in New York City that's really safely big enough for one cyclist to pass another. Of course cars are allowed passing space; they deserve to speed.

No, you should be riding in the speed-appropriate lanes with all the other vehicular traffic. (I earned my last door-prize that same summer, on Park Avenue, by riding too far to the right. In the quarter century since I learned not to do that I've been cursed at a few times, but I've never been rear-ended.)

In the original op-ed, Schwartz writes:
>> For example, drivers need to know they are forbidden to enter a bike lane to turn;

That's news to me. Drivers turning across bike lanes is a recipe for right-hook collisions.

The little bit of suburbia known as Cambridge, Massachusetts, which does have that critical mass (no pun intended) of bicyclists for which J:Lai has some bike lanes that are better than some other bike lanes it also has. In the less bad, there are clear markings that right-turning cars are to merge with the bike lane (the solid line becomes dashed) or in some cases the bike lane crosses left by one lane for through-going bicyclists, allowing right-turning vehicles of all modes in the rightmost lane.

Everytime I go to a place where there are more cycling amenities and the general feeling is that cyclists are more respected and taken care of by their government, the fewer numbers of cyclists I see breaking the law.

In Portland, it is almost unheard of to see cyclists breaking the law. When I first started cycling there, I got yelled at a couple of times - not by drivers - but other cyclists!

Problems such as the need for turning to cars to cross the path of cyclists, or turning cyclists to cross several lanes of traffic, are major issues when bikers are rare and drivers are not expecting them. When there are lots of bikers, drivers will change their driving habits. This is a big part of what has allowed European cities to become bike friendsly - just getting more cyclists on the road.

In order for bike lines to work, cyclists have to give a little bit also. Right now, many cyclists disregard traffic signals and laws. I admit that I have been guilty of this. When there is no infrastructure, you do what you have to. The addition of some real infrastructure, like separated lanes, would require cyclists to respect the traffic laws and other road users.

Some experienced riders may resent this - no more blowing through red lights and weaving across 4 lanes of traffic - but I believe it would a worthwhile price for dedicated, separated bike lines.

Amazing that with all the separated bike lane successes in Copenhagen, Denmark, Colombia, Montreal, London, and countless other countries, it is only here in the U.S. that bike lanes are predicted to be disastrous.

Mr. Allen mas valid points and they should for sure be weighed when installing separated bike lanes, but just the fact that these items are discouraged by the Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials does not surprise me. I'm sure that everyone who works for them has bicycled up Broadway on a weekday rush hour and sees that a properly designed, separated bike path would not work and instead we should just live with our painted line of four or five feet width which is constantly parked in and driven over by cars.

Separated bike lanes have so many varied designs, some of which may work better than others. I think we have to keep in mind, no one is suggesting installing the same bike lanes 1980 all over again, Europe has much better innovative designs we could use and alter.

I think the key here is to not dismiss them outright as the author would. Or to put a blanket statement over separated bike lanes in general whether it be in the city, country or suburbs. Properly designed, in some places it would help out tremendously and get more people cycling which in turn makes the whole city safer.

At that time my biggest hazard was not cars, but contraflowing bicyclists, and also, once I'd fallen behind the cars on the sequenced lights, pedestrians crossing en masse against the lights. (As an 18-year-old my reaction to jaywalkers was to simply sound my horn and watch them scatter -- I figured that stopping at red lights [and I did, often catching up to the jersey-clad pelotons who didn't] gave me the right to proceed at green lights.)

A few years before that my ride from Co-op City to Bronx Science took me on Commercial (later Kazimiroff, apparently now Southern) Boulevard. I tried the new "Bronx Bikeway" once or twice, but I felt safer drafting buses on the Boulevard than dodging toddlers on what to them was the sidewalk.

(I have a particular sore spot for toddlers, or more particularly parents who assume that anyplace without cars is appropriate for toddlers: my very brief competitive riding period ended after 15 laps and several hours on the Pepsi Marathon when I did an endo coming out of the chutes when I came upon the offspring of such a parent stopped astride his training-wheeled 12" toy.)

I don't have safety data at my fingertips, but as a rider, I found the bike lanes pictured here to feel remarkably safe:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/06/27/this-is-what-bike-safety-looks-like/

And these too:

http://www.streetsblog.org/2006/11/06/cyclists-and-pedestrians-fighting-over-the-scraps/

These designs have some application for NYC, I think.

The problems of these lanes defy any solution, because they create conflicts that exist only in their presence. Right turning motorists cross the path of straight-through cyclists, and left turns from such a lane require the cyclist to fling him or herself across three to six lane arterials. These aren't problems that can be designed out, because they are designed *in* by the lanes, themselves.

And Mr. Allen knows what he's talking about. He's the author of the Bicycle Drivers Manual for three states. He also has published photos that clearly demonstrate why these types of lanes are discouraged by the American Association of State Highway and Traffic Officials, who publish the engineering design guides for bicycle facilities. You can see Mr. Allen's web pages on this subject at

http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/killerln.htm
and
http://john-s-allen.com/galleries/montreal/index.htm

If we start now, maybe paradise by 2020?

Was it a rode bike?