Originally Posted by
I-Like-To-Bike
Really? What inaccuracy on my part on this thread?
You might be right that you didn't make any inaccurate statements in this thread. You did use emotionally loaded terms and ad hominem attacks, as can be seen in your phrases that I've highlighted below. As logical arguments, these are as fallacious as what you accused the author of.
Originally Posted by ILTB
You are too generous to this warmed over dish of Foresterisms. Like Forester, and almost all of the rest of that group that parrot his theories on cycling behavior and safety, the author of the cited article focuses on "crashes" not the results and pooh-poohs overtaking accidents as inconsequential:
"The problem with this strategy is that bike lanes can only affect about six to eight percent of crashes between motorists and cyclists; the ones involving overtaking motorists."
Surprisingly one of his VC comrades. Khalil Spencer, posted a response to that article that was not a zombie like repetition of the Forester brand "fear of of the rear" mantra.
Kudos to Khalil. Most VC zealots take it as an article of faith that cyclists are unduly concerned (Phobias! Superstition! Taboos!) about overtaking traffic without ever questioning the rationale or truth of their own claims about relative risk.