No, there are a FEW a**holes on both sides, that make everything miserable for everyone.
Most cyclists aren’t retarded. They know that they have absolutely NO safety on the road, if a car so much as touches them, they wipe out and at the very least wind up with a painful case of road rash - at most they pay with their lives. Thus, 95 out of 100 are courteous riders.
However, there are those militant few who go out of their way to show the cars ‘who the man is’. And this bad karma is magnified because a car may come across hundreds of bicyclists in the future who will feel his wrath - and potentially send that immature driver to prision with a manslaughter charge, for killing a cyclist who had never done anything to deserve that wrath.
IMHO, if there were a 3-4ft lane that the bikes were allowed to ride in, they would.
IMHO, for a benefit, you need skin in the game. I’m ALL FOR requiring licensing and insurance for bike riders. If they pay, then they get the rights to the road like the cars and trucks have. If you don’t want to buy insurance and get a license - then stay off the roads.
They have them all over Philadelphia and it's usually the people in the colorful insect costumes who ride in the auto lanes anyway.
They don't even pay for the paint used to mark a bike lane on our highways. They should pay an amount equal to the entire cost of the portion road they demand, and it should include initial surfacing cost, maintenance, special markings/signage, lighting, as well as enforcement. Based on the number of bikes on the road versus motor vehicles, this should amount to several thousand dollars per bicycle per year.
A lot of the roads in our area have dedicated bike lanes on the side of the road. For some reason all the cyclists choose to ride on the white line instead of in the lane. They slow everyone down and are a danger to themselves and others.
Probably no more than 60%
We have lanes up here in NE Ohio for the Amish horse and buggies. I don’t see why there can’t be a lane for bikes.