What Right-Wing Governance Does For Cycling

On 3/10/2011 1:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 10, 12:27 pm, Duane wrote:
On 3/10/2011 11:47 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

If the road width
doesn't change when the stripe ends, your situation should be no
different than it was with the stripe, except you'll probably see less
debris on the road. You are not required to take the lane if there's
enough room to share, and in fact you probably shouldn't. If there
was enough space for a normal travel lane plus a striped bike lane,
there must be plenty of lane width to share where the next town
omitted the stripe, right?

You insist that you're in charge of where the cars ride but sharing the
lane implies that the car will cooperate. I don't see that happening.
At least not in high traffic conditions that I'm talking about.

FWIW, two of the roads I've very commonly ridden for decades have 15
foot lanes; they are unusually wide. Both eventually narrow down to
perhaps 10 or 11 feet.

Here's how it's worked for me: Where it's wide and the pavement is
good, I stay toward the right. I don't get in the gutter, but I leave
room for even a large truck to pass without crossing the line.

When I get to the places where the lane narrows, I position myself so
they can't pass without crossing the line. In some of those places,
passing isn't possible, and they just wait behind me. I'm certainly
not going to bump along at the road edge so they can barely squeeze
by.

You know I pretty much said that it's not a problem when the car is
behind me and I'm already on the road. The problem is when I have to
wait for the traffic because it's in front of me and the car is too far
to the right.


This is all very easy and logical, once a cyclist internalizes the
fact that he has a right to safely use the road, and doesn't get
overly deferential. It works so well and seems so obvious, I remain
amazed that it needs explanation at all.

It's nothing to do with cyclists being overly deferential. It's about
me not wanting to sit in the queue of traffic when I can have a bike
lane that lets me pass the traffic.

Well, here's my experience:

I don't try to pass a line of stopped cars on the right unless it's
going to give me significant benefit. That benefit would be if I want
to turn right on red, or if the line is so long that I know I'll not
make it through the intersection once the light turns green, and
therefore have to wait an extra light cycle. Despite decades if
riding in dozens of cities, those have not been common experiences.
So usually I just wait as if I were on my motorcycle, then move along
with traffic. And just as when I'm no my motorcycle, breathing fumes
is a negligible problem. It's very easy to position oneself to avoid
them.

See I would prefer to pass the line of stopped or slow cars and not sit
in line breathing their fumes.

What we would do on a motorcycle has nothing to do with this.

To me, it's exactly the same. My motorcycle has no more protection
from fumes than does my bicycle. (And FWIW, it's been shown by more
than one study that bicyclists get less CO in their bloodstream than
do motorists.) There have been times I've had fumes come toward me;
so I moved a little. It's certainly no worse than walking on a
downtown sidewalk.

I know you like stats and studies but I can tell you that I do not like
breathing the fumes of the bus in front of me. I don't need stats to
tell me whether my blood CO2 content is high to determine whether it's
enjoyable or not.

There
are no motorcycle lane options available as far as I know. Is it your
intent to force VC by preventing any other alternative? If so, just say
so.

My intent is to discuss reality in a way that makes sense.

Then why compare cycling to motorcycling and now with walking on the
sidewalk? You really won't accept the fact that a bike lane can have any
utility at all. Why not just say that?

ISTM you (and some others) are inventing astonishing justifications
for bike lanes and/or other special bike facilities. You've just
implied that a 15 foot lane can't be shared unless it has a stripe,
that traffic fumes are terrible on a bicycle but not on a motorcycle
in the same position, that motorists almost scrape the curb with their
tires in wide lanes...

I'm saying that a bike lane lets me pass the clogged stinky traffic. If
you want to refer to that as an astonishing justification, go ahead.
I didn't imply that a 15 foot lane CAN'T be shared, I implied, actually
I said, that in order to share the lane, the car has to cooperate. I
did imply that the 15 foot width is probably more than what I normally
see but that doesn't matter. I didn't imply that exhaust fumes are not
terrible on a motorcycle, I said that on my bike with a bike lane, I can
pass the traffic. You are the one with the motorcycle reference. I
don't want to be restricted to the world of motor vehicles when I ride
my bike.

I have found none of those to be true, at least not with any
regularity. I wonder how you've ever managed to ride in the absence
of bike lanes or other facilities. It seems like such a bad
experience for you!

This is much like a merry-go-round with you. Back to the either black
or white and "how bad for you" spiel. You've been asking for an example
of when a bike lane is useful. I'm telling you when it allows me to
bypass traffic. This doesn't mean that I only ride when there are bike
lanes. It doesn't mean that all bike lanes are excellent.
It means just what I said. You have said that you would prefer to wait
in the traffic as you would on your motorcycle. Fine. Ride the way
that you like. It seems like such a good experience for you to queue up
in traffic.

Ever do a bike tour? What do you do when you get to the 99.999% of
roads that don't have special provisions for bicyclists?

Of course I've done bike tours. Not in Ohio, so I haven't actually seen
this place with 99.999% of roads without provision for bikes.

But what I do whenever I ride, whether it's touring or not, whether I'm
riding on one of the 4000 +km of bike facilities here in Quebec or
climbing hills in New Hampshire or whether it's traveling from home to
work, depends on the road and the situation and who I'm with and even on
how I feel that day. What difference does that make?

The question was the utility of any bike lanes. We have that clear.
You don't see that bypassing traffic is of any value. I think it's of
exceptional value.

On Mar 10, 1:55*pm, Duane Hebert wrote:

I know you like stats and studies but I can tell you that I do not like
breathing the fumes of the bus in front of me.

So move over a few feet. It's not hard.

My intent is to discuss reality in a way that makes sense.

Then why compare cycling to motorcycling and now with walking on the
sidewalk?

Because you describing problems you experience when you're on your
bicycle, but _only_ when you're on your bicycle, even though things
are exactly the same on a motorcycle, and often as bad when walking.
(Actually, it's worse on a motorcycle. You can't scoot one sideways.)

You really won't accept the fact that a bike lane can have any
utility at all. *Why not just say that?

That's pretty nearly true. Again, I see value in a contra-flow bike
lane on a one-way street. But yes, I'm having trouble seeing any
value in most bike lanes. And yes, the benefits you're describing do
seem far fetched to me.

It may not make any difference to you, but your "passing stopped
traffic on the right" almost never seems to be the reason bike lanes
are proposed. The most common justification by far seems to be "a
safe place to ride." ISTM that you're scraping the bottom of the
barrel for other justifications, once you've been forced to face the
fact that the stripe doesn't add space.

I didn't imply that a 15 foot lane CAN'T be shared, I implied, actually
I said, that in order to share the lane, the car has to cooperate.

You make it sound difficult, and I can't imagine why. The motorist has
to use the left half of the lane, and thus not run into you from
behind. Yes, I guess you could call that cooperation, but it's at an
extremely minimal level of competence. Are you really still worried
about being run down from behind? After all our discussion?

Of course I've done bike tours. *Not in Ohio, so I haven't actually seen
this place with 99.999% of roads without provision for bikes.

That place is America. I've ridden across it. And it's fine.

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/10/2011 3:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 10, 1:55 pm, Duane wrote:

I know you like stats and studies but I can tell you that I do not like
breathing the fumes of the bus in front of me.

So move over a few feet. It's not hard.

My intent is to discuss reality in a way that makes sense.

Then why compare cycling to motorcycling and now with walking on the
sidewalk?

Because you describing problems you experience when you're on your
bicycle, but _only_ when you're on your bicycle, even though things
are exactly the same on a motorcycle, and often as bad when walking.
(Actually, it's worse on a motorcycle. You can't scoot one sideways.)

No I'm describing solutions that can be available only when I'm on my
bicycle. See the difference?

You really won't accept the fact that a bike lane can have any
utility at all. Why not just say that?

That's pretty nearly true. Again, I see value in a contra-flow bike
lane on a one-way street. But yes, I'm having trouble seeing any
value in most bike lanes. And yes, the benefits you're describing do
seem far fetched to me.

So that can pretty much end the discussion.

It may not make any difference to you, but your "passing stopped
traffic on the right" almost never seems to be the reason bike lanes
are proposed. The most common justification by far seems to be "a
safe place to ride." ISTM that you're scraping the bottom of the
barrel for other justifications, once you've been forced to face the
fact that the stripe doesn't add space.

Most people consider it a safe place to ride because they're out of
traffic. Even those of us that can ride in traffic sometimes appreciate
the safe lane to bail out of the flow. But I don't consider it scraping
the bottom of the barrel to say that it allows me to escape traffic.
IMO it's a very significant point. You can continue to argue that bike
lanes don't add space even though no one claims that they do.

I didn't imply that a 15 foot lane CAN'T be shared, I implied, actually
I said, that in order to share the lane, the car has to cooperate.

You make it sound difficult, and I can't imagine why. The motorist has
to use the left half of the lane, and thus not run into you from
behind. Yes, I guess you could call that cooperation, but it's at an
extremely minimal level of competence. Are you really still worried
about being run down from behind? After all our discussion?

Ok I was going to end above but you seem to be implying that I was
afraid of being rear ended and you've somehow you've convinced me that I
don't need to fear. Are you playing to some sort of audience? Just for
the benefit of this imaginary audience (perhaps Fred is present?) I
would repeat that I've never had any fear cycling and I've never learned
a single thing from any of your posts here.

Of course I've done bike tours. Not in Ohio, so I haven't actually seen
this place with 99.999% of roads without provision for bikes.

That place is America. I've ridden across it. And it's fine.

The entire country? How long did that take you? How did you like Bayou
Teche LA? How about Jackson MS? Billings Montana?

Or maybe you're trying to say that given the entire US, 99.9999% doesn't
have bike facilities? Another interesting use of statistics.

On 03/09/2011 11:21 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, Nate wrote:

I think that likely most often happens on narrow rural two-lanes...
reluctance to stripe for passing lanes might have something to do with
it; also laws explicitly allowing motorists to briefly straddle the
double yellow to pass a cyclist when safe to do so might go a long way.

We got that law passed in Ohio. It's legal to cross a no-passing line
when safe to do so, to pass a vehicle (which includes bicycles) going
less than half the speed limit. It formally legalizes what was
already common practice.

Stop that, that makes too much damn sense.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Mar 9, 8:18 pm, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip


So it's your duty to reduce stress for the poor motorists? Give me a
break! They've got enough privileges. And if the lane is wide enough
for their travel lane plus a bike lane, the least competent of them
would be able to fit their car next to you, stripe or no stripe.


Dude, you're still being obtuse, and now you're flailing.

Apparently, you're much more willing to be rude to people here on the
internet than on the road. On a bike, you turn into a shrinking
flower who prefers to stay in his ghetto to maintain bowing, scraping
deference.


Really. *Me*? A "shrinking flower" on a bike? Did you really think
anybody would buy that? :-)

To quote you, Dan: "No offense," but grow some balls.

- Frank Krygowski

(Reeling from a devastating one-two - haggard, rummy, and on the ropes
- Frank takes a desperate, ineffectual swing below the belt :-)

On Mar 10, 3:26*pm, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 3/10/2011 3:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Mar 10, 1:55 pm, Duane *wrote:

I didn't imply that a 15 foot lane CAN'T be shared, I implied, actually
I said, that in order to share the lane, the car has to cooperate.

You make it sound difficult, and I can't imagine why. The motorist has
to use the left half of the lane, and thus not run into you from
behind. *Yes, I guess you could call that cooperation, but it's at an
extremely minimal level of competence. *Are you really still worried
about being run down from behind? *After all our discussion?

Ok I was going to end above but you seem to be implying that I was
afraid of being rear ended and you've somehow you've convinced me that I
don't need to fear. *Are you playing to some sort of audience? *Just for
the benefit of this imaginary audience (perhaps Fred is present?)

It seems much like he is.

I would repeat that I've never had any fear cycling and I've never learned
a single thing from any of your posts here.

I won't disagree with that last statement. But it's still not clear
why you want a bike lane stripe in a 15 foot wide lane. What on earth
for?

You say without the stripe, the motorist would have to cooperate to
pass you, even though he'd obviously have plenty of room. Are you
worried he won't cooperate? If that were true, what are you imagining
he would do?

Of course I've done bike tours. *Not in Ohio, so I haven't actually seen
this place with 99.999% of roads without provision for bikes.

That place is America. *I've ridden across it. *And it's fine.

The entire country? *How long did that take you?

Coast to coast once, a leisurely family tour. About 2.5 months.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Recreat...SummerRide.htm
Other various parts on many various tours, as well.

*How did you like Bayou Teche LA? *

Didn't ride there. I rode in New Orleans LA and in Lafayette LA,
though. No problems.

How about Jackson MS? *Billings Montana?

Not Jackson. But Billings was fine too.


Or maybe you're trying to say that given the entire US, 99.9999% doesn't
have bike facilities? *Another interesting use of statistics.

My estimate is the 99.999% of the road mileage in the US has no bike
facilities. (Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. It's just my
estimate.) However, I find that the vast bulk of road mileage in the
US is fine for bicycling just as it is.

Can you imagine Adventure Cycling suddenly deciding to shut down
because of a lack of bike lanes?

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/11/2011 1:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:26 pm, Duane wrote:

Ok I was going to end above but you seem to be implying that I was
afraid of being rear ended and you've somehow you've convinced me that I
don't need to fear. Are you playing to some sort of audience? Just for
the benefit of this imaginary audience (perhaps Fred is present?)

It seems much like he is.

Make note of this comment for later when you complain about being
insulted without cause.

I would repeat that I've never had any fear cycling and I've never learned
a single thing from any of your posts here.

I won't disagree with that last statement. But it's still not clear
why you want a bike lane stripe in a 15 foot wide lane. What on earth
for?

Duh.

You say without the stripe, the motorist would have to cooperate to
pass you, even though he'd obviously have plenty of room. Are you
worried he won't cooperate? If that were true, what are you imagining
he would do?


So now for 3rd or so time you're ignoring that I was talking about not
having to wait BEHIND the traffic.

Of course I've done bike tours. Not in Ohio, so I haven't actually seen
this place with 99.999% of roads without provision for bikes.

That place is America. I've ridden across it. And it's fine.

The entire country? How long did that take you?

Coast to coast once, a leisurely family tour. About 2.5 months.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Recreat...SummerRide.htm
Other various parts on many various tours, as well.

How did you like Bayou Teche LA?

Didn't ride there. I rode in New Orleans LA and in Lafayette LA,
though. No problems.

You missed the Levee bike trail then that runs from uptown NOLA passed
the Huey Long Bridge on the top of the levee along the Mississippi? How
unfortunate.

How about Jackson MS? Billings Montana?

Not Jackson. But Billings was fine too.

You missed the rim rock trail? How unfortunate.


Or maybe you're trying to say that given the entire US, 99.9999% doesn't
have bike facilities? Another interesting use of statistics.

My estimate is the 99.999% of the road mileage in the US has no bike
facilities. (Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. It's just my
estimate.) However, I find that the vast bulk of road mileage in the
US is fine for bicycling just as it is.

Well I don't really care but I haven't seen any indication of these
numbers anywhere. I've lived in New Orleans and there are plenty of
bike paths, trails and lanes. I've lived in Albany NY and Boston MA
where there weren't very many. But I can't say, even in these places
that it was less than .0001%. At any rate, lack of facilities didn't
prevent me from riding my bike EVER. So your saying that is incorrect.

Can you imagine Adventure Cycling suddenly deciding to shut down
because of a lack of bike lanes?

You seem to be the only one here that thinks that "any bike lane" means
all roads must have "bike lanes." I guess it's easier to argue against
absolutes.

On Mar 11, 1:05*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Mar 10, 3:26*pm, Duane Hebert wrote:



On 3/10/2011 3:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 10, 1:55 pm, Duane *wrote:

I didn't imply that a 15 foot lane CAN'T be shared, I implied, actually
I said, that in order to share the lane, the car has to cooperate.

You make it sound difficult, and I can't imagine why. The motorist has
to use the left half of the lane, and thus not run into you from
behind. *Yes, I guess you could call that cooperation, but it's at an
extremely minimal level of competence. *Are you really still worried
about being run down from behind? *After all our discussion?

Ok I was going to end above but you seem to be implying that I was
afraid of being rear ended and you've somehow you've convinced me that I
don't need to fear. *Are you playing to some sort of audience? *Just for
the benefit of this imaginary audience (perhaps Fred is present?)

It seems much like he is.

I would repeat that I've never had any fear cycling and I've never learned
a single thing from any of your posts here.

I won't disagree with that last statement. *But it's still not clear
why you want a bike lane stripe in a 15 foot wide lane. *What on earth
for?

You say without the stripe, the motorist would have to cooperate to
pass you, even though he'd obviously have plenty of room. *Are you
worried he won't cooperate? *If that were true, what are you imagining
he would do?

Of course I've done bike tours. *Not in Ohio, so I haven't actually seen
this place with 99.999% of roads without provision for bikes.

That place is America. *I've ridden across it. *And it's fine.

The entire country? *How long did that take you?

Coast to coast once, a leisurely family tour. *About 2.5 months.http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Recreat...SummerRide.htm
Other various parts on many various tours, as well.

*How did you like Bayou Teche LA? *

Didn't ride there. *I rode in New Orleans LA and in Lafayette LA,
though. *No problems.

How about Jackson MS? *Billings Montana?

Not Jackson. *But Billings was fine too.



Or maybe you're trying to say that given the entire US, 99.9999% doesn't
have bike facilities? *Another interesting use of statistics.

My estimate is the 99.999% of the road mileage in the US has no bike
facilities. *(Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. *It's just my
estimate.) *However, I find that the vast bulk of road mileage in the
US is fine for bicycling just as it is.

Can you imagine Adventure Cycling suddenly deciding to shut down
because of a lack of bike lanes?

Just show us a proof (something like a video) that has the the bikes
sharing with traffic in sufficient numbers to call it a solution.

By the same token our sidewalks may seem like more of a solution than
roads since most cyclists around here share those with pedestrians --
often terrorizing them.

It's the inexorable Law of the Jungle where the pedestrians lie at the
very bottom of the food chain.

On Mar 11, 9:17*am, Duane Hebert wrote:
On 3/11/2011 1:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On Mar 10, 3:26 pm, Duane *wrote:
Ok I was going to end above but you seem to be implying that I was
afraid of being rear ended and you've somehow you've convinced me that I
don't need to fear. *Are you playing to some sort of audience? *Just for
the benefit of this imaginary audience (perhaps Fred is present?)

It seems much like he is.

Make note of this comment for later when you complain about being
insulted without cause.

I would repeat that I've never had any fear cycling and I've never learned
a single thing from any of your posts here.

I won't disagree with that last statement. *But it's still not clear
why you want a bike lane stripe in a 15 foot wide lane. *What on earth
for?

Duh.

You say without the stripe, the motorist would have to cooperate to
pass you, even though he'd obviously have plenty of room. *Are you
worried he won't cooperate? *If that were true, what are you imagining
he would do?

So now for 3rd or so time you're ignoring that I was talking about not
having to wait BEHIND the traffic.

Here's how you started the exchange, Duane:

"I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. There's a road that I use
that's about 5k. For about 3k there is a bike lane. Then it ends.
When it ends the road is no less wide it's just that it crosses town
boundaries and the next town didn't stripe it. Speed limit is 70k but
that's mostly a suggestion. Taking the lane isn't going to work
here."

That sounds to me like you were somehow worried about the motorists
behind you - as if your riding a few feet from the right edge
wouldn't leave them sufficient room to get by.

It was later that you got into the claim that you'd be (frequently?
constantly?) forced to sit in traffic directly inhaling fumes from
tailpipes unless there were a bike lane to save you. IOW, you'd be
incapable of moving your bike a few feet, and motorists would
purposely scrape the curb to make sure you couldn't possibly get by.

The entire country? *How long did that take you?

Coast to coast once, a leisurely family tour. *About 2.5 months.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Recreat...SummerRide.htm
Other various parts on many various tours, as well.

Or maybe you're trying to say that given the entire US, 99.9999% doesn't
have bike facilities? *Another interesting use of statistics.

My estimate is the 99.999% of the road mileage in the US has no bike
facilities. *(Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. *It's just my
estimate.) *However, I find that the vast bulk of road mileage in the
US is fine for bicycling just as it is.

Well I don't really care but I haven't seen any indication of these
numbers anywhere. *

"I don't really care" seems to be your thinking whenever we get down
to specifics.

I've lived in New Orleans and there are plenty of
bike paths, trails and lanes.

When I rode around New Orleans, I didn't encounter one bike lane,
IIRC. This was pre-hurricane, and I suppose they might have added a
bunch. But I'd have thought there were other things they'd budget
with a higher priority.

Are you seriously imagining that Louisiana as a whole has bike lanes
along any significant percentage of its road mileage? What are you
imagining, 1%? 0.01%? I think there's no way.

And yet, almost all the streets and roads in the US are fine for
bicycling right now.

- Frank Krygowski

On 3/11/2011 11:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

So now for 3rd or so time you're ignoring that I was talking about not
having to wait BEHIND the traffic.

Here's how you started the exchange, Duane:

"I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. There's a road that I use
that's about 5k. For about 3k there is a bike lane. Then it ends.
When it ends the road is no less wide it's just that it crosses town
boundaries and the next town didn't stripe it. Speed limit is 70k but
that's mostly a suggestion. Taking the lane isn't going to work
here."

That sounds to me like you were somehow worried about the motorists
behind you - as if your riding a few feet from the right edge
wouldn't leave them sufficient room to get by.

That's the explanation. The speed limit, the traffic volume and the
local law make it not possible to take the lane IMO. It's my opinion.
If you want to ride in the lane there and let me know how it goes, fine.

It was later that you got into the claim that you'd be (frequently?
constantly?) forced to sit in traffic directly inhaling fumes from
tailpipes unless there were a bike lane to save you. IOW, you'd be
incapable of moving your bike a few feet, and motorists would
purposely scrape the curb to make sure you couldn't possibly get by.

Constantly. Every day that I ride it in rush hour. I didn't say that
motorists would purposely scrape the curb. Are you saying that as long
as they don't scrape the curb I can get by? But it's definitely bumper
to bumper traffic for several blocks and I have to sit in the lane with
the cars. And no, all of the cars don't dutifully hug the left of the
lane in case there's a bike coming. They only do this on the part that
there is a marked bike lane. I really don't believe that they do
"everywhere that you road."



The entire country? How long did that take you?

Coast to coast once, a leisurely family tour. About 2.5 months.
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Recreat...SummerRide.htm
Other various parts on many various tours, as well.

Or maybe you're trying to say that given the entire US, 99.9999% doesn't
have bike facilities? Another interesting use of statistics.

My estimate is the 99.999% of the road mileage in the US has no bike
facilities. (Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can. It's just my
estimate.) However, I find that the vast bulk of road mileage in the
US is fine for bicycling just as it is.

Well I don't really care but I haven't seen any indication of these
numbers anywhere.

"I don't really care" seems to be your thinking whenever we get down
to specifics.

Because what you consider to be specifics are not important to me. I
care about things where I am, when I am. I don't care if 99.9999% of
the rest doesn't describe my situation. Not that I buy your guess
there. But anyway, you know that I'm NOT in the states so telling me
about statistics in the states doesn't make sense.

I've lived in New Orleans and there are plenty of
bike paths, trails and lanes.

When I rode around New Orleans, I didn't encounter one bike lane,
IIRC. This was pre-hurricane, and I suppose they might have added a
bunch. But I'd have thought there were other things they'd budget
with a higher priority.

I left New Orleans in 1987. The river road bike path on top of the
levee was there and I took it to work nearly every day. I lived there
for quite some time. Riding around some place isn't the same thing.

You also said that your family was in Montreal and didn't notice any
bike facilities.
I can't explain that.


Are you seriously imagining that Louisiana as a whole has bike lanes
along any significant percentage of its road mileage? What are you
imagining, 1%? 0.01%? I think there's no way.

Why would I care? Most of Louisiana is rural. I lived in New Orleans.
That's why I don't care about your percentages that include
everywhere. Don't give me another lecture on the definition of average.

And yet, almost all the streets and roads in the US are fine for
bicycling right now.

In your opinion. That's probably why there are so many cyclists on them.

Maybe I even agree for some definition of "most" but it's still your
opinion. You certainly seem to be spending a lot of time with this
because I have an opinion that there is one situation where a bike lane
is useful. I still don't get what motivates you. Why do you bother?