I love the use of phrases like "it is commonly believed...", which is basically a way of saying, "I believe" and therefore to convince you of the weight of my opinion I will say, "it is commonly believed".

But that aside let's examine the second part of this statement in a logical fashion.

If "the behavior of cyclists in Northern California, as having been a center of bicycle activism for many years, is somewhat better than that in the nation as a whole."

then should we conclude that all areas with a high degree of "bicycle activism" (whatever that is?) produce better behaved cyclists? Is John saying that areas like Portland, OR or areas with a larger percentage of cyclists actually improve cyclists skills over areas with fewer cyclists? So, does more cycling activity produce better, safer cyclists??!!

The Rutger's study, recently debated thoroughly in these forums, shows evidence that bike facilities (bike lanes, bike paths) encourage cycling and increase the numbers of people on bikes and that those increased numbers actually promote cycling safety.

John, I believe, disputes this conclusion, but it seems to me a well-documented study and one that certainly corroborates my own personal observations. Do others have similar experience?

Given the volume of posts in the commuting forum of BF and the percentage of cyclists who ride either exclusively or a large percentage of their daily commute on a bike path I would think the Rutgers study to be correct. If there were evidence to the contrary either in documented studies or consistent individual observations then I would be inclined to change my opinion.

I think many of John's statements are worth calling into question- they often lead to quite interesting conclusions.