Bike lanes have sped up car traffic in New York City

In the U.S. It's true for most of the landmass outside of a few specific cities.

Yeah, because heaven forbid a cyclist hits a rock or something and ends up as a bumper decoration on my car through absolutely no fault of my own. I don't want to deal with the risk or guilt of something like that happening and it's not the cyclist's right to make that kind of decision for me.

Cars are extremely dangerous to be around when in motion. Motorcyclists are also at risk, true, but they can move at car speeds and don't become a road obstacle to be avoided. I don't have any personal history of motorcyclists droning on and on about how unsafe the roads are when they're driving at some fraction of the speed limit and swerving in and out in front of speeding cars. But as the comments in just this thread indicate, cyclists seem to think the entire road system was purpose built for them and anybody not on two human powered wheels should adjust everything else they're doing just for them. No matter how you approach the topic, cyclists have convinced themselves this is true and it's every other person in the world's fault that they entered into an unsafe practice.

When my grandmother was learning to drive quite late in life (in her 50s). There were roads that she was literally unsafe driving on. Somebody recommended that maybe she should't drive on those roads. And you know what? She thought it was a good idea and didn't. She didn't blame all the people who drive above 60 mph, or the road engineers, or anybody else. She recognized that she was taking part in an unsafe practice and chose not to do it. She spent time finding alternate routes and ways to get where she wanted without dealing with those roads and as a result never had a road accident.

Runners, skateboarders, rollerskaters, motorcyclists, segway riders....in general don't act like bicyclists and don't have this specifically shitty attitude. A cyclist wants to meander along the middle of a high speed road and nearly get killed several times over, well that's the cars' fault. Cyclist runs a stopsign and nearly gets flattened? Cars' fault. Cyclist grabs my window well for a push off and damages the weatherstripping, well fuck me because he's on a bike and I should just know better than to expect a drive where my personal property doesn't get molested and damaged by cyclists.

Even suggesting that "maybe you shouldn't have been riding on that road" or "maybe you should be observing traffic signals" or "maybe you shouldn't put your hands on other people's property" is met with an almost militant rebut.

For fun find a cyclist discussion somewhere where they complain about something like this and post a mildly worded suggestion and see what kind of response you get. I absolutely guarantee it won't be "yeah, you know what, maybe we should be observing traffic laws like we're supposed to"

I checked on some of the claims in this post. For example, the Federal Highway Administration being an outgrowth of the Good Roads Movement. Turns out that's not correct. The GRM was responsible for the idea of well maintained trails connecting cities. But the actual road system was purely an automotive endeavor (credited with starting with the Lincoln Highway) and partially financed by the early auto industry. Earlier major roads were also envisioned by various early auto clubs (like the AAA)

Some early GRM trails were converted into automobile roads as time went on, while others were purpose built for the car. A combination of military usage, agricultural concerns and the automobile lobby helped bring about the FHA.

One of the earliest national highway proposals (from the 1900 Good Roads Convention) actually specifically advocated for separate divisions of the road surface for cars, bikes, pedestrians and decorative elements.

No, you're right. I was irritated when I wrote the above.

> They want to feign anger and offense when motorists complain when they take their bikes onto roadways that were not intended or engineered for them and they block traffic and cause safety issues.

The part I take issue with is "were not intended" because the laws are very clear on what rights and responsibilities cyclists have when using the roads. The law gives them a right to be there.

The majority of states laws on the matter say that you have to ride as close as is practicable to the edge of the road and that cars are required to give you a three foot space when passing or overtaking or whatever you'd like to call it. And then many go on to state that when the lane is narrow enough that cars can't give you the three feet and still pass safely, you get the whole lane. In Texas and Florida if the lane is less than 14 feet wide there is no adjacent, designated bicycle lane (not the shoulder, but a designated lane) then the cyclist has the right to the whole lane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_law_in_the_United_State...

In many states you're legally allowed to ride two abreast provided that it doesn't impede traffic so in cases with wide enough bike lanes this is OK and it's also allowed on roads where the lane is less than 14 feet wide and there is no bike lane.

http://www.biketexas.org/en/infrastructure/texas-bicycle-law...

A lot of states also have laws that specify that cyclists must pull over and let cars pass if more than say 5 of them are piled up behind a cyclist, unable to pass. That's definitely a legitimate grievance for cars as they have the right to demand the cyclist let them pass but few know about the law much less follow it.

In the first picture you linked the lane looks to be of questionable width (probably less than 14 feet) in which case what the riders are doing is not only legal but also for their own safety. Once more than 5 cars are behind them though, they all need to pull off and let everyone pass. I suspect that most of the cyclists you encounter conveniently "forget" about that part of the law, aggravating drivers.

The "take the lane" laws are on the books so that cyclists can prevent cars from passing on roads that aren't wide enough to safely permit passing. It's infuriating at times when it's a single lane road and cyclists are poking along at 20mph instead of 50mph but the law enshrines this right.

I can understand the frustration you feel when cyclists follow the law and take up a whole lane, and further when they break the law and don't allow passing. But that's what the law says so I have to respectfully disagree about the use of the word "intended"