The CHALLENGE also has some goodies for motorists as it eliminates multi-vehicle accidents, halves vehicle insurance costs, eliminates traffic congestion, and raises average passenger miles per gallon above 50 pmpg with a net decrease in everyone’s transportation expense by 2020.

If you aren’t already aware that we have the technology, ask a few visionary Intelligent Transportation Systems experts (not the ones still hung-up on drive-by tolls or automated signs). If you want to know how to organize a CHALLENGE ask the Defense Acquisition, Research, and Procurement Agency (DARPA). For more specifics google ‘V2V GM’ or ‘Guardian Angel Cars’ or ‘Car2Car’ or ‘Vehicle Infrastructure Integration’ or “DARPA Urban Challenge.”

The technology is happening without the CHALLENGE, but in ways that make bicyclists and pedestrians less safe. So get on the keys to your elected representatives.

I think the painted lanes help with the first two categories of motorists described above. I also think it's possible to push motorists from category 2 (don't respect bicyclists' right to road but will avoid hitting them), which I think is by far the largest category, into category 1 (respect bicyclists' right to road). Of course, depending on the approach you take, you can pretty easily push drivers from category 1 or 2 into category 3.

After a close brush with a category 3 driver like Anne's, the paint may seem like a "joke." But as Mr. Cidron demonstrated, even a bicyclist on a physically separated lane is not completely safe from a motorist who (at the very least) exhibits a depraved indifference to the safety and lives of others.

But bear in mind that a professional drivers, such as an MTA bus driver, can be seriously disciplined for competing with a bicyclist for a bicycle lane--not because MTA cares about bicyclists but because of the potential for liability from reckless/unlawful driving. So bring your camera next time, Anne, document the incident (if safe to do so), try to let the driver know you are doing so, follow through by sending the pix/footage to MTA, and see what happens. And let us know what happens!

i was nearly killed by a bus on union street in brooklyn when it zoomed up behind me, straddling the boundary of the bike lane. if i had moved even a few inches to the left (still within the painted lines) i would have been killed. this could easily have happened, since i didn't hear the bus until it was (literally) right next to me. just thinking about it is frightening.

painted bike lanes are a joke.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/43954081@N00/315234532/

Yeah, I know they are a little bit into the bike lane, but they stopped in time to let us through. I'd say about one in five drivers "do the right thing" on this block in this situation. Let's see if my daily "counseling sessions" on this block make a difference.

Would you let a 5-year old ride down a painted lane with you on a city street?

Do you think most 80-year olds even in real comfy recumbent tricycles would feel safe venturing out into virtual bike lanes?

The trail has a number of grade crossings with roads, and we regularly played the "After you, no after you" game with motorists who treated us like pedestrians.

There were a lot fewer exhaust fumes, and a lot more trees and quiet, which was nice. If we were actually going somewhere rail-trails are nice because they tend to be straight and unhilly and go to town centers. I suppose some people, who are particularly scared of cars, would have found it less scary.

Good design is key to making them work.

But I don't want to digress away from your point. That is, it's not the tiny percentage of road costs that go to any sort of bicycle stuff, but we are discussing (I think) whether that tiny portion should go to segregated facilities or education. I guess we'd both like to see the tiny portion be bigger, but it can be fair to say that the portion is limited, and spending on one (facilities or education) takes away from the other.

(That's a broad stroke. I would like to see bike-specific facilities at the endpoints, for instance appropriate secure places to lock up a bicycle when you get there.)

The two issues (limited infrastructure budget and equal rights to the middle of the road) are two sides of the same coin. If bicycles are seen as vehicles, bicyclists are seen as having a right to be on the road. If motorists see their gas tax dollars going to bike lanes (and I have heard more than once that bicyclists don't pay for the roads, as though one can't be a bicyclist some time and a motorist other times, not to mention that gas taxes, registrations, and similar fees only cover a portion of costs of the infrastructure [not least of which is the cost of petroleum-focused diplomacy]) motorists are more likely to think that since there is a bike lane, bicyclists oughtn't to be taking up space on "their" roads.

I suppose I could just mind my own business here in flyover country. An op-ed in the nation's paper of record left off relevant facts regarding bike lanes about which I had personal knowledge. I'm involved with bicycle issues up here. But if New-Yorker-bicyclist-advocacy is that different from and unrelated to rest-of-the-country-bicycle-advocacy then I ought to mind my own business, since your bike lanes can't possibly impact bike dollars or motorist-bicyclist relations up here.

I wish you luck. A path away from cars can be very pleasant. I enjoy several that go where roads shouldn't be.