[u801e]

> As a bike commuter who's not exactly in Tour de France riding condition

You don't need to be in "Tour de France" condition to take the lane on city streets (discounting your use of hyperbole). I do so all the time and intersection navigation is far easier when taking the lane than it is when forced to ride all the way to the right.

Pedestrian style infrastructure is suitable for pedestrian speeds (3 to 6 mph), not bicycle speeds (10 to 30+ mph).

> Yeah, it's a pain to turn left from a physically protected lane on the right, but those small delays are totally worth the added safety of the curb/whatever.

Except that the curb does not continue through the intersection. A car approaching from your right at the intersecting road, a car approaching from behind preparing to make a right turn. Or a car approaching from the opposite direction preparing to make a left may not see you until it's too late.

The vast majority of bike crashes occur at intersections. Very few are due to cars rear-ending cyclists.

[fooblitzky]

Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though? "Vehicular cycling" has been around since the 1970's, and in practice it doesn't work.

Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities, because the number one reason people cite for not cycling is not feeling safe around cars.

Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears, and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically.

[u801e]

> Would you be comfortable with children or elderly people taking the lane though?

I'm middle aged, a bit overweight and tow two kids in a Burley Bee trailer and still take the lane. It doesn't require one to be able to sustain 25 to 30 mph speeds on flat ground. I go between 8 to 15 mph most of the time.

The only requirement is that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The elderly should know that if they have driving experience. Children who are older can be taught these rules. In fact in certain states, 14 year olds are legally allowed to drive and there is an expectation that they know the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles).

> Protected bike infrastructure gets more people cycling, of all ages and abilities

The problem is that when they get to intersections and they presume that they have the right-of-way when they don't or there's not enough time for turning vehicles or vehicles approaching the intersection to see them, they end up getting hit.

> Telling them "you're really safer in the lane" doesn't work to allay their fears,

The fear is not rational. There are people who are afraid of flying despite the fact that, statistically, it's far safer than driving. If they want to fly, then they need to deal with their irrational fear such that they can do so.

> and as the study showed, isn't even true statistically.

The study never made that claim. It did state that there's a correlation between overall traffic fatalities and city blocks with bicycle facilities. It didn't make the claim that bicycle fatalities specifically went down.

[closeparen]

Yes. I was raised to be an assertive vehicular cyclist and make proper use of turn lanes by age 10.

I’m thankful for protected lanes when they are consistent and high quality (at minimum: absolutely never shared with bus travel or truck loading) but I would not ride if I had to dismount at intersections or wait 2 light cycles for left turns.

Biggest pet peeve now is pedestrians who hang out in the bike lane while waiting for the light to change.

[justnotworthit]

Since the 1970s? How did people, including children, ride bikes before then?

1950s PSA about children riding their bike like driving a car (worth watching the whole thing for nostalgia): https://youtu.be/fDm6jiQz5BY?t=206