In general though, I agree with you. But I feel it doesn't help our cause when we choose to use emotionally loaded words like 'incompetent', 'subservient' etc. Not everyone responds well to sarcasm and arrogance - some of us enjoy it (to some of us it's like an impossibly hot curry - a challenge), but most people respond poorly to it. When people identify with those labels, they simply stop reading and go into attack mode. And that means that even if there were clear studies showing that what we assert is factual, they'll be that much less willing to give such studies credit.
While I'm sure VC arguments are largely correct, VC has a big credibility problem because VC advocates - almost to a man - tend to be raging ********. You and I for example - we're both freaking ********. We both see VC as 'our way or the highway' (hmmm. not a very apt image) and it seems we can't change. But until we stop being ********, we have no chance of gaining converts. We catch more flies with honey. We simply cannot go around calling anyone who doesn't practice effective cycling an idiot. We just can't. If we do, in a hundred years, cyclists will still be getting themselves injured and killed on the motorists' favoured 'bicycle infrastructure' and all the great work you've done will be for nothing. Heck, even now, 'Effective Cycling' is out of print in the US. This book should be a cyclist's bible, yet it seems it is largely ignored here. There's a reason for that, and it's not because your arguments are unconvincing. It's because your audience feels they're being lectured at and ridiculed rather than being invited into the club and welcomed as valued members.
So for goodness sake, John, do what I do when I really want to persuade someone of something - get your wife or a trusted family member to edit your stuff and tone down the assholery. I want cycling to be safe for everyone, not just for you and me and all the other ********.