I cycle and drive and think that my motoring experience gives me an added dimension that a non-driving cyclist may not have, appreciating speed of other vehicle etc.
When I began cycling again, some ten years ago, I took lessons (offered by my local authority - and often free of charge if anyone else should be interested) and was amazed at how I was taught to cycle in the middle of a single-carriageway road. I felt extremely vulnerable and ..... guilty, as following cars obviously had to pull out to overtake me as I cycled at a speed of perhaps 8-10mph. I would have preferred to creep along at the side of the road but if was emphasised that this was far more dangerous, despite the ire of passing motorists and boy, is there ire!
I returned from a cycling holiday in Belgium a few days ago where there is a different mindset on the part of the motorist. All towns and cities have designated, separated cycle paths. These are well used with whole generations of families using them, all through the week, at all times of day and night. I felt soooo safe and happy, knowing that I was unlikely to be squished by anything.
Outside of towns, the pavement is shared between cyclists and pedestrians. There is often a different colour of the tarmac and cyclists use one side and pedestrians the other - there is no barrier between the two sides of the path and Cyclists passed pedestrians with ease, often using a ding of their bell to warn their approach. Why cannot this system be used in Britain? It would give cyclists an opportunity not to have to worry about dying - which I do every time I ride (just one moment of lost concentration by a motorist, perhaps on a mobile 'phone and it's curtains for me). Pedestrians seemed happy with the situation too, never looking angry at being overtaken by a cyclist.
Never did I encounter any aggression from motorists whilst being on the road (on the rare occasions where there was no pathway etc.). In fact, they all defer to cyclists at junctions etc. It seems to me that Belgians have another mindset to us. They have been educated that there is not a car v cycle war and both manage perfectly well.
Obviously, Belgium has spent money on the infrastructure of these paths but I wonder if they also gain long-term in lower associated health costs for their population, particularly the elderly. The number of elderly men out cycling was interesting for us, as these gentlemen obviously had the health to be able to cycle! I didn't see any motorised scooters, only the elderly in cars or on cycles.
Incidentally, there are also cycle direction signs to nearby towns. All in all, it was just amazing.
I won't go into detail of the number of near-misses with cars had here (and I am a middle-aged, non-lycra clad, sensible, cautious cyclist, honestly!) or the insults and swear words chucked at me for riding slower than a car can drive.
Ideally (ho hum) the country needs to spend on better pavement/road layouts to the advantage of both motorists and cyclists. The benefit in better health would carry on for generations.
Ok, I've digressed a little but in answer to the original poster's question, no it isn't unreasonable - with a few qualifiers: that a) the cycle lane is in good condition, i.e no road debris; b) made with care so that lethal drain covers are set in the road's surface correctly; c) that it is wide enough to cycle safely on, some are not; d) that cars do not park on them - near us are main roads where we have to weave in and out of cycle lanes round parked cars and each time we pull out is a potentially dangerous moment. Dangerous could mean deadly.
Perhaps one day we could all use our roads safely - together...
