Recently Robert Hurst posted an article pointing out the extremes of cycling advocacy:
"On one side there is a group of earnest, innocent fledglings who honestly believe that any new semi-separated facility will be good for bicyclists and good for America. They hold a precious vision of Amsterdam-izing the country which is dangerous in its simplicity. On the other side is a cadre of pompous, personality-challenged streethogs who offer aggressively insecure and selfishly uncooperative riding in the guise of law-and-order, rights-and-responsibilities cycling."
There are of course, 'lunkheads' as Hurst calls them who advocate both positions. If I am correct in my reading of the article, Hurst points out that both of these extremist advocates can do cyclists political damage and in his words, '...they may actually be calling for a significant diminishment of your existing freedoms as a bicyclist.'
Although there are some who would try to forge a big distinction between Forester and Hurst, I see more in common between the two than I see differences. John leans more toward following the law, while Hurst sees times when a cyclist is better off with a more liberal interpretation of the law as it applies to bicycles.
What I'd like to see is a discussion that seeks to find common ground on a reasonable approach to cycling on the road so that we can have a more unified voice regarding any necessary changes and avoids extreme positions that may serve to diminish cycling freedom.
My own view is that the Idaho law should be pursued in other States, and a rolling near stop at stop signs makes more sense than a full, foot down stop. I am wary also of bike lanes because I see the lane stripe as sending the message that cyclists must stay in 'their bike lanes,' which is contrary to law. Sharrows on the other hand, tell motorists to share the road with cyclists without implied segregation.