Originally Posted by
RobertHurst
I feel the same about you and Bekologist, seriously.
FWIW, I've always felt that Forester and myself were divided by fundamentally different views of traffic itself. To Forester, the most important aspect of traffic, and the most important thing that bicyclists should be thinking about when riding as/in traffic, according to him, is the fundamental order of it all. Conversely, I feel that the salient feature of traffic is the basic human mistake, i.e. disorder.
Forester apparently understands your pithy statement better than I do. IF I understand you correctly, both points of view make sense. For safety concerns, certainly order is part of predictability and predictability is part of the foundation of safety.
Also, one would be foolish not to consider human mistakes, i.e. disorder.
I note you have put Bek and I into the same category, to my great embarrassment.
Perhaps you can cite something I wrote that inspired this assessment.
BTW, I agree with the Idaho law and would appreciate more sharrows as opposed to bike lanes and fully endorse your statement:
"I believe infrastructure is an important factor determining the future (and present) of bicycling in America. That is why I am against 'cycle tracks' and strongly in favor of well-implemented sharrows and bike highway-like MUPs (class I bikeways)."
My own preference is for sharrows and separate bikeways that do not encourage curtailment of cyclists rights to the roads we share with motorists.