Originally Posted by
John Forester
Then explain the purpose of your comments. I see my statement as describing what needs to be done, given the current conditions described by your statement.
I considered your comments, in which you stated that
if one considers the future of cycling in America, that covers a multitude of sins. I am thoroughly opposed to the official governmental program of stupid, unskilled, and therefore dangerous, bicycle use. That certainly is popular, but I consider it to be unethical, even immoral. Therefore, I say that a better policy would be one of properly accommodating lawful, competent cyclists; not that I ever expect that to be adopted. The question, today, is how lawful, competent cyclists can continue to operate in the governmental and social environment that exists and will probably continue.
You say that "lawful cycling" won't be adopted, and that you don't support what you consider "stupid unskilled cycling." You basically put up two options and then close the door on both. I say fine, walk away.
Then you go on and in your reply and push what you call "lawful cycling" which you already have admitted "probably won't be adopted." (can you say "broken record.")
You therefore have nothing left to offer. Go home. Grow roses. Call it a day.
Others have ideas which are supported, which show promise, and which work and increase modal share. But no, you keep beating the same tired horse... which you already admitted is dead.
I already said what should be done... see post 227... to which you again brought up "education for the skill of operating according to the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles," which is something that you have said is "not that I ever expect that to be adopted."
