That's an excellent imitation, except that you didn't mention that I must have a reading comprehension problem. Nor did you emphasize the point (cough, cough) that JF is not opposed ALL bicycle facilities.
The roadway design best suited for motorized travel is one with an outside lane wide enough to allow motorists to pass bicyclists "without delay" (to use the phrase JF used in the paper he presented to the American Dream Coalition).
[/ A pillar of VC-ist dogma is that WOLs are better than bike lanes (although not ALL VC-ists are fond of WOLs)]
To summarize, VC-ists have other agendas, too -- agendas that have noting to do with the safety of bicyclists.
That is erroneous. WOLs are not bicycle accommodations; they are accommodations to motorists to get the bike-lane demanding motorists off our backs. That is desirable because WOLs produce no obligation to disobey the rules of the road; both motorists and cyclists can choose their lateral position without the disadvantages, in traffic operation, in legitimacy, and in social status, of the bike-lane stripe. That is a matter of safety, in that nobody has ever shown that bike lanes make cycling significantly safer than cycling in accordance with the rules of the road, while there is plenty of evidence that cycling contrary to the rules of the road is more dangerous.