Originally Posted by
Jaywalk3r
Most laws that "require" cyclists to ride right or to use the bike lane allow cyclists to use their best judgement regarding when it is actually safe to do so,i.e., when it is practicable. There are many, many things that might make riding right or using a bike lane not practicable, to the extent that being practicable is often far less common than not being practicable. Such laws typically don't actually require cyclists to leave the lane.
That's nice, but not applicable in my state. Once the traffic engineer with jurisdiction over a road declares a sidepath safe for cyclists, we're stuck with it; we're not allowed to leave it without demonstrable proof that it is blocked, has some unique hazard (in this case the court will defer to the traffic engineer with respect to the danger of the intersections) or we need to leave it to overtake other users. Of course leaving it to pass would be a bit tricky with five lanes of high speed motorists on the other side of the raised curb and the nearest two lanes coming right at you. Remember, this is a two-way sidepath on one side of the road. If it were just a bike lane, that would be no problem as we have abundant legal reasons to leave it even in this damnable mandatory use state.
This is probably the biggest distinction, other than riding posture and clothing, between the Dutch perspective and what many of its opponents in the U.S. are fighting for. The Dutch love their segregated infrastructure and have set up social infrastructure to deal with its weaknesses. Absent those social constructs, we want our full rights to the roadway and prefer non-doorzone bike lanes to sidepaths.