[lenni]

I ride my bike everywhere all year round here in Berlin and I find the main point of making it more enjoyable/safer for cyclists is having many other cyclists. It raises drivers awareness and provides a critical mass. I know this is some kind of chicken and egg situation but I find it to be true.

When I was living in England the Cycling Touring Club there deemphasised separate bike lanes arguing that they were for the convenience of drivers and not cyclists. For a long time I wanted to believe this but now I have arrived at the conclusion that integrated bike lanes (the ones on the same level as the actual road not behind a line of trees) are actually useful and it makes me feel safer using them.

[beoba]

I likewise feel the same in the US. In areas where cyclists are common, I am more confident that cars/etc are more used to cyclists and know how to 'handle' them. I've noticed that cyclists have become more common since ~2008 when gas prices spiked, and car drivers now tend to be more accommodating of them.

I think bike lanes are more useful as indicators of bike traffic on a given road. The bike lane tells drivers that there may be many cyclists on that road, and to watch out for them. The lane's typical proximity to parked cars (prime 'dooring' territory), pedestrians, and debris can often make it less useful as an actual lane for cyclists.