why is john forester even posting to this thread? the insults merely denigrate the discussion and serve as a thread derail.
its a fact the LAB choose to drop the EC like a hot potato and calls their basic bike ed 'traffic skills 101'. this is indisputable. john calls it a factiod, but then denigrates me for mentioning the truth?
what gall.
john forester is clearly not understanding the threads he responds to and is posting boilerplate screed to advance his faulty dogma.
if john wants to ruin every discussion with his accusations of superstitions and with such acrimony maybe this forum should be called 'john forester's addled soapbox'
time to move beyond the bikelane arguments, to recognize that
Originally Posted by moving beyond the bikelanes
Move away from theories that equate bicyclists’ skill and experience with their comfort in traffic, and toward a philosophy that respects as normal and natural a range of traffic tolerance.
yes, john forester, the design guidance of the FHWA green book has been expanded substantially since the mid 90's. there is no need to explain this in detail. one word - sharrows - is simple and abundant.