Originally Posted by JohnBrooking
On a serious note, I'd be interested in hearing what people think of the Hiles paper. Unlike most of the OP's reading list, this does not seem to be promoting just the VC side. Instead, he claims to want to strike a balance between what is usually referred to as "VC" and what he refers to as "affordance cycling", meaning whatever you think works best for you in your situation, regardless of VC. It's an old paper (1995?), but it's the first time I've read it, and I think I can see strains of his thought continuing to be developed in the present day conversation, not least among the various viewpoints that have been represented on this forum. He certainly states coherently thoughts and objections I've had myself on both sides of the issues.
It's too bad he apparently has no interest in updating the paper. I'd be interested to hear what he thinks now, what he's done since he wrote that, and how the paper has influenced bicycle advocacy since then. But certainly some of you are able to fill me in on that. (And some of it I could certainly Google.)
I wrote a review of his paper many years ago. Here is my final paragraph:
"Hiles is dissatisfied with all of the current systems or theories about bicycle transportation. He asserts that the American bicycle transportation system ought to be emotionally attractive to people with all the different opinions about bicycling. He explicitly states that he makes no recommendations about the design of a system that might achieve this goal. In fact, his suggestions about the philosophy that might be followed to start to learn about that design are mutually contradictory."
My review earlier states that since Hiles thinks that all views are equally valid, he can make no recommendations at all.