Even in bicycle-friendly Portland, it's hard not to feel like you're taking your life in your hands, which I do daily. Most motorists, like most cyclists are good people and share the road willingly. It irks me when I approach a four-way stop and a car that's been there for several seconds waits for me. I want to yell, "GOOOOOO!" but I know why they do it: Am I one of those law-abiding cyclists (yes), or am I one of those chip-on-the-shoulder, Lance Armstrong Junior types* who blow through red lights and stop signs without a sideways glance?
Segregated bike lanes are usually considered a luxury by city planning commissions, who feel that it's a benefit for too few citizens. It's a self-feeding cycle, though: Segregated bike lanes would encourage more people to ride, benefiting more citizens. The simple painted stripe is a lot cheaper, and as much as most cities are willing to invest in most places. Oddly, though, city planners rarely take into consideration the social (and financial) costs of free residential on-street parking, as if that's one of those inalienable rights Jefferson would have enumerated in the Declaration of Independence if only cars had existed in 1776.
Inertia, mostly. City planning has been going in one direction for so long, it's difficult to get planners and citizens thinking of other ways of doing things.
*Meaning the racing cyclist wannabes who ride like anything that slows them down is a mortal enemy.
= new reply since forum marked as read
