I think the problem with criticizing LABs method in dealing with this issue is that they have been at it almost as long as people in the US have been riding bikes. They understand that to advocate for cycling you have to be multi-lingual. They know how to speak the language of the current cyclist. They can even speak the language of the non cyclist that is looking at becoming a cyclist. But more importantly they know how to talk to policy makers in a language they understand. But they are three different languages. In trying to talk a company, City, County, State, or Federal agency key words that get their attention are Safety and Protection. You can sell safety to most politicians but if you offer a way to protect potential voters they are far more likely to help you build infrastructure for endangered voters, (cyclists) However if you tell the same politician there is nothing dangerous about going one on one with unrestricted traffic then additional infrastructure seems unnecessary. You might tell other cyclists that we are as safe as the guy in his BMW about to shove you off of the road but just like he doesn't stand a chance against the Peterbuilt in the next lane. But we all know that there are some streets where we (cyclists) are at risk and we are at risk from cars and trucks. Tell a politician that we aren't at risk and it is the same as saying, life is good do nothing, we don't need anything.