Originally Posted by John Forester

I disagree with your claim that most American motorists are incompetent; they manage to use the road system in the way for which it was designed (except, of course, for a few places such as Boston). Because the American road system is easily used by drivers who obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles demonstrates that this is so regardless of whether the drivers are motorists or cyclists. I agree with you that most American cyclists are traffic-incompetent; the measurements of their behavior show that. That is their problem, one that they have chosen to make, considering that many of them also have motoring licenses.

I have never tried to convince you, or anyone, that cycling in the "VC manner [on American roads] is actually safer than cycling in the Dutch manner on Dutch-style separated facilities." Instead, I have consistently written that attempting to import Dutch designs into the American road system is highly unlikely to produce the supposed results of the Dutch designs, which are high bicycle modal share with few car-bike collisions.

The separated facilities, cycle tracks are the current name for such facilities, that have been installed in a few places in some American cities do not meet the Dutch design standards and it is unlikely that they can be operated in the Dutch manner.

The fact that such defective imitations of Dutch practice so strongly appeal to the general public simply demonstrates the unwillingness of the general public to adopt the safe and useful cycling practice of obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. The fact that you approve of the incompetent cycling manner of the general cycling public demonstrates that you are much less concerned with the safety and welfare of cyclists than you are with some other political objective. The objective that most obviously comes to mind is persuading people to switch trips from motor to bicycle transport.