>>1660230The problem is that it's largely a retrofit solution applied where there isn't enough space for a proper separation of traffic.
For decades roads have been built with a part for vehicles and a part for pedestrians. Now, one subgroup of vehicles demands their own seperate way. But, theres's no room for that, and neither is there budget because bike riders don't pay road tax, parking etc. and because if we're being perfectly honest, many of these bike-paths won't see more than 10 bikes per hour on average anyways. Thus, aquiring someone's front lawn to build more infra is frowned upon as a solution. Only chace left is to somehow seclude some space on what is already paved. However, rarely is the paved surface overdimensioned enough to fit 2m of extra bike-path without affecting the rest of traffic. While fully protected bike paths would be best, cars/busses/trucks need to remain capable of passing opposing traffic, and the given road is just wide enough for that. So we wind up wth some shitty lines painted on the pavement that cars are forced to cross whenever there's opposing traffic.
At least that's the problem where I am. Unironically, half the bike-lanes here would be better off not being a thing but rather re-routing the bikes through paths with less traffic.
