I disagree with a lot of the criticisms on that page. First they show a bike lane and list things wrong with it. Those are valid criticisms, for that one particular bike lane that was done incorrectly. If a car could turn right through the bike lane, the lines should be dashed at that portion. If a cyclist needs to move to the left as the road changes, the lane should reflect that. Showing a poorly done bike lane and then criticizing ALL bike lanes makes no sense.

Also, they say education is needed, and acknowledge that education is one of the factors that goes into Bicycle Friendly Communities awards, yet still criticize it because it is not listed first. I argue that the engineering and bike lanes--that these people apparently hate--ARE education in themselves. If a bike is painted on the road, motorists know that a bike is allowed. I've been honked at and yelled at for no reason, I've had friends spit at and told "You don't belong on the road!" Having education events is not going to reach those people, but signage and bike lanes will.

As for Chicago, they quote the part about looking into each parked car as you pass, but do not quote the part that says ride four feet away from parked cars. THAT part is what they agree with, and what is listed first on the bike map. It appears that these people are not above spinning things to support their criticisms.
 

Many cyclists have mixed feelings about bike lanes. I agree with the site's author that "every lane is a bike lane," and I don't think the existence or mileage of painted bike lanes should be a criterion for the BFC program.

I hate "mandatory sidepath" ordinances that force bikes off the road. Lake Bluff has such a law, and apparently so does Schaumburg. Sidepaths (bike paths next to the road, really just glorified sidewalks) are dangerous for cycling, especially for a commuter riding 15-20 mph -- that person should be allowed to ride in the street (see also this page).

You're looking at education the wrong way -- they are talking about teaching cyclists how to ride in traffic, not teaching motorists that bikes belong on the street. Some motorists who know bikes belong will still spit at us -- they are just jerks, and if their mommas didn't teach them better, then no one else can, either. Besides, I think the "bikes belong" message is better delivered at the state or regional level than by individual communities.
 

Oops, I should have added to the second paragraph above: I think any town with a mandatory sidepath law should be ineligible for the BFC award.
 

I don't know about the ordinances in Schaumburg, but they have painted on-road bike lane striping so on-road cycling is allowed at least in some locations.

Also the education component of Bicycle Friendly Communities includes motorist and cyclist education. You can view a list of their questions here: http://www.bicyclefriendlycommunity.org/Images/bfc_part_ii_application_2007.pdf

I agree with many of the arguments on that page. I definitely think new cyclists need education and that in most cases (except for high speed roads w/ few crossroads or drive ways) that side paths are more dangerous than riding on-road. I guess my issue is that it seems the author is twisting things to make it seem like BFC is not in agreement, going so far as to call it irrelevant to cyclists. I've only become familiar with BFC this past year, and maybe it is different now than it used to be. But from what I can tell, it is definitely relevant to cyclists and the award takes into consideration all the things this person says it doesn't.

I don't know why anyone would be against striping on-road bike lanes. It's relatively cheap. There's evidence that it slows car traffic by visually narrowing the travel lane. It leaves no question about the legality of bicycles on the road. It plainly shows which direction cyclists are supposed to be riding. It makes the average cyclist feel safer and encourages beginners to ride on the road vs. on sidewalks, where many of them might tend to try and ride.

I guess I should read that site more thoroughly, but it seems counter-intuitive. If a person cares about cycling why would they put all of their energy into attacking people who care about cycling and are trying to do something about it? If they think LAB is focusing on things that are unimportant, why not start their own organization and focus on what they care most about? It just seems like that page is a spin job and the author of it loses some credibility with me for that.
 

A "mandatory sidepath law" does not mean cycling isn't allowed on any streets; it means cycling is not allowed on any street that has a parallel bike path. Like you, I don't know that law's status in Schaumburg, but painted bike lanes have nothing to do with it.

One prominent opponent of bike lanes is John Forester, author of the classic Effective Cycling, which teaches "vehicular cycling" -- that cyclists should act and be treated as drivers of vehicles. This interview with Forester is worth reading.

As for your suggestion that the author of the anti-LAB/BFC site should start his own organization, that would be a last resort. It should be much easier and cheaper to redirect or fix the LAB than to create a nationwide organization from scratch. Altering the LAB would certainly serve the bike advocacy community better than to have two warring organizations. We are already a minority as it is.