Cycling Facilities

Why shiny white paint is a cop out

I'm of the firm opinion that the provision of segregated bicycle lanes and seperate facilities is not achieving much for me as a cyclist.

Bicycle Victoria, and many other formal and informal groups seem to believe that since cycling on a public road is percieved as a dangerous activity, since cyclists are a vulnerable group, that a whole range of segregated facilities should be built for them --- whether these be on-road bicycle lanes, or nice safe off-road paths.

To me, this sounds tantamount to admitting that the cause of the threat is untreatable; that Australia's motorists are so ignorant, untrained and il-behaved, that it is not possible for a motorist to share a public road with a cyclist without them gravely endangering the cyclist. That the only possible course of action is to remove pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists from the roads, and to surround the motorists with air-bags and bullbars, so that when they run into each other, they won't suffer too badly.

Additionally, I find that the provision of cycle lanes:

• only occurs where the road is wide enough, or where they won't inconvenience motorised traffic; so narrow roads where the problem of motorist encroachment is worst, are by definition omitted.
• Provoke a fair proportion of motorists to believe that cyclists must use the cycle lane, which is then a short mental leap to
• Enforce the belief that cyclists must not ride where there are no explicit provisions for them

After several weeks riding in France, Spain and Portugal I found that despite these places having fewer specific cycle lanes or facilities, they have a much higher proportion of cyclists on the roads. The attitude of the motorists is different, and sharing with other tranports is accepted.