I'm going to limit my comment for the moment to a few specific statements.
Originally Posted by
CycleKrieg
I mentioned Mr. Wilson’s name only as an example of a vehicular cyclist participating in discussions about infrastructure. Because vehicular cyclists are, by definition, opposed to cycling infrastructure, having individuals with that perspective in decision-making roles can lead to biased outcomes. I don’t know Mr. Wilson personally, but I’m familiar with his writings. I'm familiar with John Allen, too... He largely has taken up the mantle of disagreeable online persona from JF. He has gotten a few special shout-outs by advocates due to his actions.
Based on my firsthand work with a wide range of transportation professionals, "
Because vehicular cyclists are, by definition, opposed to cycling infrastructure" is a materially false statement. I've worked with Messrs. Wilson and Allen, and characterizing their positions as "opposed" is false and potentially defamatory. A review of Mr. Allen's
postings on his website reveals not an oposition, but a critique of designs that could be improved, and this was how I clearly recollect his commentary in the technical committee.
When you say that Mr. Allen is "disagreeable", does this mean he does not agree, or that his absence of agreement is by itself objectionable? As I've posted elsewhere, I have little patience for people who disagree in a manner that is disruptive or damaging to a working relationship, and my extensive past experience with Mr Allen did not reveal such behavior.
Originally Posted by
CycleKrieg
But vehicular cycling, and its advocates, argue that playing human frogger is the answer, people fit the streets, in other words, the results from places that fully implemented the separated approach be damned.
Again, a materially false generalization.
Originally Posted by
CycleKrieg
JF was known for spamming organizations and flooding comment sections. John Allen has done similar things, especially in the Boston area. But much of the friction stems from the core vehicular-cycling belief that there should be no bike infrastructure - which naturally puts its adherents in opposition to nearly every infrastructure project.
Another materially false generalization. The people I've worked with were not opposed per se, but were critical of design details that could create operational problems. If they were opposed to everything, they would not be very productive in committee discussions.
Originally Posted by
CycleKrieg
If the only answer vehicular cyclists have to these efforts is "we ain't the Dutch", then what is the answer? Because the one that the USA has tried, again largely birthed from John Forester, since 1978 hasn't worked and has created a slaughterhouse.
Which brings me back to the core dilemma: How do you integrate people who are fundamentally opposed to the very solutions we know reduce injuries, increase mode share, and make streets safer for everyone? That’s not a rhetorical question, it’s the real challenge.
I've tried to evaluate your word choice of "created a slaughterhouse" in every possible charitable manner, and I just can't. And I'll leave it at that.
And again making a materially false mischaracterization by stating every person who shares that viewpoint as "fundamentally opposed".
One more point: as a full-3-term former member of the TRB Committee on Bicycle Transportation and a peer reviewer until very recently, my professional opinion is that the paper by Schultheiss et al in TRR 2672 was not a high point in the editorial judgment of the National Academies. Although TRR occasionally contains position papers instead of the more-typical research-driven studies, the tone and content of this manuscript can often strike a reader as polemical. And since it was published, it has been referred to as "peer-reviewed findings", which can be misleading in that it was peer reviewed, but does not seem to be actual original technical research findings based on a falsifiable hypothesis and objective and reproducible data.