Good points, but I think we have some fundamental differences in how to approach the safe construction (and awareness) of infrastructure for motorists and cyclists.

I am very much aware of the division of the cycling camp into those that support stand alone/dedicated/purpose built bike paths and those that believe bikes belong alongside cars on the roadway and segregation only exacerbates the problem of sharing the road.  Count me firmly in the latter set - I am not for "bike paths" and such, the majority of which are recreation-driven.

I disagree that bike lanes at grade level, demarcated only by a thin, painted stripe wall cyclists off from traffic.  It's on the same roadway.  Interactions are as intimate as with sharrows or nothing at all.

From the standpoint of beginner and amateur bicyclists, I would think bike lanes might seem less daunting.  And that's really what and who I think about when approaching bike infrastructure - it should be about getting more people, more quickly out of their cars and on to bikes.  Make it as easy as possible (not with "paths" and such that really go nowhere and further the notion of bike as toy), but with easy, cheap, utilitarian measures such as lanes on well-travelled roads.  I must always remember that few 'new' cyclists have the nerve that I do.

Also, I tend to dispute the volume and clarity of the message sharrows send.  For many of the motorists I've talked with, it falls short of loud and clear.  Bike lanes, on the other hand, say "Hey, cycling for transporation is a policy priority and, to show we're serious, we're removing a lane of automobile traffic."  Now THAT'S a message.

But I do appreciate your points...and I would be very much thankful for sharrows, if that is eventually decided upon.