Originally Posted by
Jaywalk3r
Who cares if they are enforced, if they are enforced as they are written? They tend to be written to only require bikes to take the bikelane/path in absence of any compelling (or not so compelling) reason to not do so. Recognizing that they pose no threat to cyclists is not "living in a fool's paradise." It's basic reading comprehension.
And here's one of the (many) places you are failing. Go back to the post that started this discussion of mandatory use. It referred to an impending replacement of bike lanes with a bike path. There is no practical way to leave an elevated two-way sidepath on the left side of the road and cross five lanes of 50 mph traffic to take the right lane, particularly with a load that is measured in the hundreds of pounds. Those dangerous driveways? Go back to the state law: once a sidepath has been certified as safe, then those driveways are legally safe, even if not safe in reality, and are no longer eligible as a reason to leave the sidepath. Also, I have made no statements opposing bike infrastructure in general, only the replacement of bike lanes with sidepaths that contain driveways or intersections and, of course, dzbls.
Be disagreeable if you must, but don't be a boor by misstating what others have said and misunderstanding simple scenarios.