didn't you just start a thread (recently closed) but saying, "as cycling advocates we should all be disappointed, if not outraged" over a statement that you introduced by saying, "I don't have the exact quote, but he said something like..." where you then proceeded to interpret his comments to mean that the person you were attempting to vilify, ".. is promoting the notion that cyclists don't belong on roads with lanes too narrow to be safely shared."

The thread then continued for some time and the exact quote never appeared and was never offered but instead it continued in this fashion:

"The implication of his statement (and I hope someone has it on Tivo and will give us the exact words)..."

and it turns out you were not even accurate about the route in question and when someone pointed this out you continued...

" Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sufficiently familar with the area/route to recognize where they turned off PCH and detoured along some rural side road. But, it looked very bikable."

Talk about feeding an emotionally based response (outraged?) without presenting sufficient supporting evidence for such a public vilification.

I think in the OP's case there is sufficient information for most of us to draw our own conclusions with a little bit of research.

Maybe this post will be deleted by moderators- I hope it is on topic enough to remain.

But personally I don't put much stock in John Forester's opinions myself. I find them counter productive and divisive of the cycling community and feel that it's a waste of words and time to be constantly bickering about his outdated opinions. I predict this thread, too, will close- and have probably unintentionally contributed to it's demise. Sorry.