I am aware of buzzmans "agenda" but at least so far I've been able to reason with him so I will answer his questions honestly. Someone having an agenda is not a problem that will push me to the point in and of itself of having problems with that person so long as they are willing to engage critical thinking skills and actually have a reasonable conversation. Heck, I have agendas of my own, but if you ever get to the point where you are so blinded you can't engage your critical thinking skills any more that's when you have gone off the deep end with your agenda. I have yet to see evidence that buzzman has reached that point.

Me personally on low speed roads, anything with a speed limit of 25-mph or slower I am almost completely pro-VC and anti-segregation with the exception of semi-separate hill climbing lanes. I am especially adamant in this "agenda" of my own when it comes to either residential roadways which are supposed to be traffic calmed anyway regardless of the presence of cycle traffic or not for basic safety concerns alone (especially kids) and any roadway residential or business district with roadside parallel parking so if the traffic and behavior of motorists in such areas are such that it is dangerous for cyclists to ride VC that is only a symptom of a far bigger safety problem that is being cause by aggressive belligerent drivers and possibly also aggravated by infrastructure engineering and condition and regardless of cyclists presence or not that larger problem must be dealt with and in so doing it once again becomes ideal for cyclists to VC ride in such areas. Also, when there are more then one lane in a direction of travel on such low speed roads allowing faster overtaking vehicles to pass without having to wait to use the oncoming traffic lane its ridiculously stupid to be claiming VC cycling is causing undue hardship for motorists especially at those low speeds anyway.

However, once speeds start getting higher then that, especially on high traffic roadways I consider VC riding to be only a coping mechanism implemented due to infrastructures failure to safely and properly accommodate the effective travel needs of all users. On such high speed roads I strongly support the implementation of appropriate and well engineered infrastructure that is designed to safely meet cyclist needs for effective travel as well. In order for this to actually happen such infrastructure must not be designed by people whose desire is to get cyclists "the hell off the road, the hell out of the way, and the hell out of our sight !!!"

For me personally on many of the roads I travel that are both high speed and high volume traffic the only infrastructure accommodation I need is a ride-able shoulder edge of sufficient width and surface condition. And I am perfectly happy with just that and in many cases it would be my preference since its hard for them to goof up that request, where as if you specify bicycle lane instead they often goof that up or even worse if you specify separated side-path they really, really, tend to goof those up very badly and not just at the intersections.