Originally Posted by
Six jours
. . .the "vehicular cyclists" who are clamoring to get rid of infrastructure.
Could you cite some specific cases where vehicular cyclists are "clamoring to get rid of infrastructure," please? I suspect that you will find, upon investigation (I'm sure some of us will be happy to help), that the clamoring is to get rid of dangerous or substandard infrastructure, or to upgrade it appropriately, or to not build it in the first place if it can't be done properly. I don't know any vehicular cyclists, including Forester, who would object to properly-designed and implemented cycling-specific facilities, as long as they are not part of a process that threatens our rights to the roads.
Apparently having separate facilities for cyclists is "dangerous".
The devil is in the details, of course.
The vast majority of of separate facilities for cyclists, in America are, indeed, dangerous, either because of flaws in design, placement, implementation and/or maintenance, and/or because they are elements of programs which serve to restrict the rights of cyclists to use the roads safely.
It is certainly possible to design and build cycling facilities that are safe and convenient, and which don't have as their primary purpose getting cyclists out of the way of motorists. But it doesn't happen very often.