Originally Posted by John Forester

I believe that the term the psychologists apply is projection, the act of attributing to others one's own attitudes.

Arrogance? Thirty years of dealing with people who have such enormous faith in their own erroneous superstitions that they keep repeating them ad infinitum does get a bit tiresome. Equally so with those who apparently know better but keep repeating nonsense for ideological reasons.

I have provided quotations from Traffic Laws Annotated.

However, you are entirely incorrect when you claim that I treat legislators in the same way that I treat you. And, I have created bits of traffic law, although not the three bits that you recognize, the anti-cyclist discriminatory laws. Repealing the mandatory sidepath law has been a partial success, made possible because so many of the sidepaths were so obviously almost unusable, and the AASHTO recommendation against them uses many of my traffic criticisms. But repealing the mandatory bike-lane law, in those jurisdictions that adopted it, has rarely been successful, and there has been no success in repealing the far right law. The problem is not, as you state, "law makers at [as?] being incompetent and inferior not to mention cyclists," but the complete opposite. The legislators insist in mentioning cyclists so that they can discriminate against them. That doesn't make legislators either incompetent or inferior; they have reasons that they believe to be good for their decisions. One reason is quite obvious: motorists have political power and bicycle traffic should be kept out of motorists' way as much as practically possible. But, of course, they don't say it that way. They argue that their method of discriminating against cyclists makes cycling safe, particularly for children. That argument, of course, has no support in scientific knowledge, but that is what the people believe, as do so many who participate in supposedly enlightened discussions about bicycling affairs.