Originally Posted by
buzzman
snips
But there is plenty of evidence that the building of infrastructure is more than just a correlation to an increase in the number of riders. We've presented some of it in this thread. Much of that evidence seems to be dismissed by some as propaganda or even part of some vast government conspiracy to sideline bicyclists to inadequate side paths. As if federal, state and local governments and bike advocates have that much time on their hands and are so organized that they are able to devote energy and resources to such a propaganda campaign or so intricate a conspiracy.
To write about "so intricate a conspiracy" is nonsense. Conspiracies are things arranged and largely done in secret. There's no secret about the American anti-cyclist campaign; it has operated in full public view for decades, largely through the actions of government. Motordom's propaganda campaign to reserve the streets for motor traffic started in the 1920s. The laws that deny cyclists the rights of drivers, being the far-to-the-right (FTR) and mandatory-bike-path (MBP) laws, started appearing in the 1930s, and in 1944 got into the Uniform Vehicle Code. These were largely enforced by two psychological campaigns: creation of fear of same-direction motor traffic and belief that cyclists were incapable of obeying the rules for drivers. When cycling, particularly by young adults, started increasing despite that fear, California's motordom got the state government (1971) to more strongly protect the convenience of motorists through bikeways and more stringent laws, creating the system that exists almost nationwide today. By government fiat we now have an army of bike planners to administer this system and funds with which to do it.
To refer to this as a conspiracy contradicts the definition of a conspiracy. To refer to this as something that governments can't spare the time to do is contradicted by the very facts that they have taken the time to do them.