Originally Posted by FBinNY

No, I wasn't thinking of you, but some of the stronger advocates or believers who seem to think bicycles = good, cars = bad.

You and I probably agree on more than we disagree on relating infrastructure, though we may have larger differences in the specifics.

BTW- While pure logic definitions are different, I accept that we can discuss real world causal relationships that don't correlate 100%.

I doubt many would dispute that the claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, even though we know that large numbers of smokers will never get cancer.

In terms o bike infrastructure, I believe that if there are numbers of people on the fence about cycling, infrastructure can be the difference between whether they ride or not. However, I'm not sure that the pent up interest of these fence sitters is a big number, except where there's a serious impassable obstacle, such as a bridge link.

But the issue is still muddy as to the goals and metrics to justify public spending. Are we trying to make cyclists safer? Or are we trying to encourage more cyclists, if so why. Also, as a long time cyclist, not dependent on on street segregation, I see downsides to factor, such as establishing segregation as the norm, which could later become justification for road use restrictions.

I think the original causality question is a valid one that warrants discussion, along with others such as the downside questions, intersection vs. passing safety tradeoff, and possibly discussion about the actual safety of bicycling, and the best bang for the buck ways to improve it. Safety is a major issue for me, because increased participation will lead to increased accidents (rate stays the same), creating more of a spotlight on the issue, and leading scrutiny by government.

Originally Posted by CB HI

Here we go again, claims of evidence and calling those that note your attempts at correlation as seeing conspiracy. We do know for a fact that there are governments that do force cyclists into the bike lanes and side paths and even more that have tried to do so. But that is not even the biggest issue. It is the myopic view that if you paint it, they will come.

If the paint proponents would actually work to remove mandatory use laws first, would only accept safe paint and paths and would give as much effort to public school cycling education, then you would not get so much resistance. When someone dies, because of the paint, the paint folks just brush it aside with false claims that more would die without the paint.

Many cyclist get tired of the harassment when they choose to ride on streets without the paint. Most give up and switch to the street with the paint, even if it is not their preferred route. That adds even more of a false correlation for your paint.