If there was sensible infrastructure for commuting by bicycle, there wouldn't be a problem. As it stands you're just asking people to give up a healthier and cheaper means of transportation with fewer negative externalities for little more than the convenience of motorists[1]. That's bad public policy.
[1] I don't buy the safety argument one bit--cars put cyclists in danger far more than cyclists put cars in danger.
I agree with your footnote. It's very easy for drivers to slow down and share the road, but they don't want to. They are Very Important and are late to their next appointment. (Of course, so am I, and I have to pedal there! They should be making way for me!)
I ride my bike to work (almost) every day and do about 100 miles of road riding a week in addition to that. Rarely do I have problems on the streets of Chicago, because I choose wide roads that are "off the beaten path" and there is plenty of room for cars to use the other 3 lanes (giving me one to myself). People interact safely because it doesn't inconvenience them.
The other day, though, I had an interesting encounter with the driver of (you guessed it) an SUV. I was waiting to go straight through an intersection where there is only one lane for left turns, going straight, and turning right. I'm stopped at the red light. The car comes up behind me, and the driver gets out of the car and asks if I can "get off the road" so she can "make a right on red". I told her the lane is not marked for that, and I tried to choose the safest position for myself while waiting for the light to change. This annoys her, so she drives over the curb, onto the sidewalk... and has to wait for pedestrians crossing the street. The light turns green and there are pedestrians crossing the other way, so there she waits... stuck on the sidewalk.
The reason I don't feel bad about making her wait is that if there was a car there waiting to turn left or go through, then she'd be stuck, too. But the mentality of drivers is "us vs. them"; a car is a normal, a red light is normal... but a bike in my way! That's some selfish bastard (her words) stealing 15 seconds of my life!
Now I know why most people drive to work -- they don't want to get yelled at (or be endangered by) other drivers. You have to have a thick skin if you want to cycle and survive. And thus the cycle continues; "those damn cyclists need to get off my God-given roads, because someone told me that the one time I wanted to ride my bike to the store."
Every aspect of the roads were built for multi-ton automobiles. From the lane widths, to the radii of the curves to the posted speeds. You don't drive a car on railroad tracks or bike paths. I honestly don't follow the logic. It's like me saying I can ride a horse to work on the roads.
If a bicyclist wants to be equivalent to an automobile on areas that are designated for travel by automobile, then that bicyclist should be able to safely travel with other automobiles. If they cannot do so, they should not travel on those roads. The same rational as to why you don't see bicyclists on highways.
I see your request as me deciding that I want to drive my car down the train tracks and then asking trains to work around what the limitations of my car are on the tracks.
The infrastructure is outdated. It was designed for a world when pollution didn't matter, distances to be traveled were long, and oil was free. Now times have changed. Most trips are under 2 miles. Oil is pricey. We're killing the planet by pumping toxic fumes into the atmosphere.
It just isn't sustainable, but sustainable infrastructure costs too much money. So it's time to get rid of the cars, and let bikes fill the gap while we wait for proper mass transit to become affordable.
Clearly you're an idealist. I don't mean that as an insult. The problems you've brought up can be solved by other means while retaining the existing infrastructure. For example, you could have cars that are non-oil-based. You could increase the amount of telecommuting allowed by the workforce. I would think those things are more likely in the US than making everyone ride a bike.
Your vision of the future basically kills every suburb and urban area and would reduce humans to extremely high population densities in highly concentrated areas. Leading to problems of it's own. But we're really off-topic at this point.
Interestingly enough, you said above you are in chicago. The area I am talking about above is in the western suburbs of chicago.
For example, you could have cars that are non-oil-based.
Not really a solution. The problem is the sheer energy required to move a 1-2 ton steel cage, not the specific source of that energy, though petroleum is an especially bad one.
"You could increase the amount of telecommuting allowed by the workforce."
While that would help, it would also be useful if you could, for instance, buy groceries or really just leave the house without having to bring the steel cage with you.
"I would think those things are more likely in the US than making everyone ride a bike."
The current infrastructure policy in the US can be described as "making everyone drive a car", even if they live in cities which are easily large enough to make other solutions more practical. I don't want to make anyone ride a bike--but I sure want to allow people to safely ride bikes if they so choose, maybe even encourage it.
The suburbs were created 50-60 years ago in the era of cheap petroleum and post-war infrastructure development. They aren't anything important to be preserved or saved--for various reasons it would be more accurate to view them as a failed social experiment.
Hopefully, when we do move away from the internal combustion engine we will move to something lighter. Currently the batteries are the source of massive weight for electric cars but we're all hoping that improves. We will (hopefully) have cars that are much lighter, more efficient, and based on some energy source than oil derivatives.
It just seems that that path is more likely than everyone in the suburbs giving up their homes and communities and moving within biking distance of home and work. I support initiatives that allow people to safely ride bikes. What I don't particularly like is expecting multi-ton vehicles driving at high speeds to negotiate 1/10th ton people going much slower speeds. There has to be a better/safer solution.
Which is why I said "If there was sensible infrastructure for commuting by bicycle, there wouldn't be a problem." There might be a few bike paths around for recreational use, but you're hard pressed to find adequate bike infrastructure in any American city. (More on this issue can be read here: http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/series/bicycle-neglec...)
I completely agree with you (which was why I didn't respond to what you said). Doing something like adding a extra bike lane next to the car lanes and things like that. I would love to see something like that and it would probably make me want to bike to places more frequently as well. It would be safer for everyone.
How would it be safer for everyone? Most cyclists die because they are going straight through an intersection where a car is turning right. Move the bikes farther to the right, and it's even more likely that they'll be turned into.
Very few people die because they get hit from behind, despite that seeming like the most likely way to get hit. Drivers use the "see and avoid" principle -- if they see you, then it's likely they'll avoid you. If they can't see you (because you're way off to the side of the road), then they have no opportunity to avoid you.
When you "take the lane" as a cyclist and drive your bicycle with traffic, it's very hard to not see you. People will get annoyed, honk, and call you a bastard, but you'll get to your destination safely. And for me, being able to safely go anywhere I want on 20 pounds of steel is much more important than letting a few cars get to the next red light a few seconds faster.
Anyway, we don't need any new infrastructure for cyclists. We need automobile drivers to have a better attitude, and learn to share their resources.
Most cyclists die because they are going straight through an intersection where a car is turning right.
The worst is when the bike lane is sandwiched between automobile traffic on one side and parked cars on the other. That way, not only do you have the problem you point out, but there's also the risk of going headfirst into some guy and his open car door.
Exactly. And if the cars doors don't get you, all the broken glass that blows into the bike lanes will.
The only special cycling facilities I want are those signs that say "bicycles have equal use of road" and the picture of the bicycle on all the lanes. Those make drivers aware that I am not being an ass and trying to delay them, but am rather trying to find a compromise between banning cars and me dying on my bike.
They are pretty good about doing this in Chicago, and I don't detect much resentment that I exist. It's even better in Seattle. (They don't even need signs there anymore, everyone is used to all the bikes.)
The roads were built for multi-ton automobiles and bicycles. Because automobiles are less flexible than bikes in terms of radii and lane widths, their needs set the constraints for those factors. By "posted speeds", I assume you mean the designated upper-limit. No one is proposing that cyclists should be able to ride on roads with minimum limits that cyclists cannot maintain. This isn't that difficult to understand.
Bicycles can travel safely with automobiles. Automobiles, on the other hand, can often not travel safely with each other. Perhaps you mean "quickly" rather than "safely"?
[1] I don't buy the safety argument one bit--cars put cyclists in danger far more than cyclists put cars in danger.