Installing bike lanes with known hazards.

To me bike lanes should say that the space delineated by the bike lane has been reviewed and is basically free of hazards. No one would think of making a car lane with a tree in the middle of the lane and if there was a hazard it would be marked and signed in advanced. So what makes engineering bike facilities different?

The down hill section of Kelly Ave where a typical cyclists travels 20+mph will now see a new bike lane complete with a safety barrel in half of the bike lane with NO advanced warnings. This is just wrong especially in light of MD law requiring us to ride in bike lanes (and does not give us the exception of leaving a bike lane when we are going the speed limit. )

Personally I have little tolerance for door zone bike lanes especially on down hill sections where there is without a doubt insufficient time for a cyclists to "scan" vehicles for occupants and AASHTO recommends at least 13' for parking + bike lane when there is substantial parking as exhibited along this block. The Toronto study showed that dooring was the 4th cause of bicyclists deaths, I do not support putting in door zone bike lanes where ever we can put them. To present one solution; sharrows work sufficiently better for this type of situation as typically a cyclist will ride further away from the door zone with sharrows then with bike lanes. This will provide a separate space to encourage bicycling yet allow the advanced rider clear legal options to ride in a safe position in the roadway. Encouraging bicycling should not not also be a deterrent to those who are already riding.

I am curious what other think where the city should be drawing the line on where bike lanes are appropriate and Is this a good case to say "This is not a good place for a mandatory use bike lane"?

Pics: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=29368&l=d59cd&id=513493075