I sometimes wonder if Bek ever realized how close he was to the truly identifying the key to this entire debate when he began the old 'bicycular cycling' schtick some time back.

The problem with Forester and is followers is that they rigidly cling to an old paradigm where you either operated your bicycle like a vehicle or as a pedestrian (and they obviously don't want to advocate that at all). Thing is the world has changed, cycling-specific facilities are much more widespread than they were in the 70s and indeed a reality that is not going away soon. So rather than trying to pigeonhole every cyclist into one paradigm - vehicular cycling, which EVERYONE admits might not be well suited to side paths, bike lanes and such, how about coming up with a new paradigm and teaching it to those cyclists who do not prefer to ride the roadways and adopt vehicular cycling - a paradigm that fits the realities of those cycling facilities and includes not only vehicular and pedestrian rules, but also those that are specific and unique for those facilities.

How about thinking outside the box for a change and adapting, improvising and overcoming to ensure that all cyclists can ride in a safe manner in the environment of their choosing? Which of the zealots on either side of the debate has a problem with this? If the Forester supporters are really concerned with all cyclists and their ability to use a bike as transportation or recreation safely, I 'm sure they would jump at the chance to help define this paradigm, rather than ignore its reality and try to turn back the clock.