Originally Posted by John Forester
VC has nothing to do with elimination of separate bicycle infrastructure; it applies only to the operation of bicycles, not to the structure of the roadway.
kickstart, The confusion for many on this point comes in when VC cyclist point out problems created by separated bicycle infrastructure when they intersect with roadways. What rules should be put in place: signs, traffic light, just a crosswalk, should cyclist be forced to dismount and act like pedestrians? This is perceived as VCers wanting to eliminate all such facilities.
The other point of confusion occurs in states/cities that have mandatory use laws. VC cyclist who prefer to ride the road as they always have, will oppose any bicycle facility they are FORCED to use. That is where the paint and path crowd has made their biggest mistake, by not working with VC cyclist to eliminate mandatory use laws and write laws at state levels which would prevent any county or city enacting mandatory use laws or laws that prohibit cyclist from using some roadways with the exception of freeways with reasonable alternatives, they then receive opposition for the paint and paths they desire, forcing the divided front from cyclist. Without mandatory laws or the potential for them, VCers would mostly remain neutral when paint and most path project are proposed. The path projects that John, myself and many other VCers strongly support, are cut through paths.
The final problem is, even when there are no mandatory use laws, VCers get harassed by too many motorist and police to get in the bike lane. I have had more than one motorist use their vehicle to force me (squeeze) into a bike lane or get side swiped.
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.