About the first example: something like this should only be used in a highly urbanized area, where it's impossible to bike very fast anyways. A path like this s

About the first example: something like this should only be used in a highly urbanized area, where it's impossible to bike very fast anyways. A path like this shouldn't cater to cycling above 15mph, and the speed limit for cars is probably going to be around 25mph. A path like this isn't going to be a major through-road. About the second example: The problem is legality. First, note the setback. This already greatly improves visibility. Second, the cyclist doesn't need a 270-degree arc: due to the setback, the cyclist (with right-of-way) will be visible to the driver at a 45-degree angle. Hitting them would be gross negligence. I agree that it's not a risk you should be willing to take. The problem is fixing the traffic laws. Cyclists (and pedestrians!) should be considered as vulnerable. In The Netherlands, the driver will almost always be considered to be at fault in car-cyclist accidents, unless gross negligence by the cyclist can be proven. Killing a cyclist can easily result in a 2- to 4-year jail sentence if the driver is at fault. "He had right-of-way, but I just didn't see him" should never be a valid defence.