Originally Posted by
Roody
I'm not one for muzzling anybody. All have a right to state an opinion. However, I do see the current OP and author of the article (mighk) as a more positive voice for street riding. There is a lot of good in the LCI approach to cycling, if you set aside their too often strident and elitist approach to bike politics.
And I'll say the same for you and your side. There's a lot of good in your approach to cycling. But too often the proponents of cycling infrastructure resort to a condescending approach that is also anti-car.
For the good of cycling, I'd love to see both sides stress the positive aspects of cycling, and also try to see the value of the other side's approach. In this regard, I think that mighk can be a role model for us all.
maybe 'muzzle' is the wrong word; but still, it doesn't really change my point about all the negativity in his diatribes against 'incompetent cyclists' and bike specific infrastructure.
and it appears you've also mistaken me for an infrastructure proponent. Most of the bike specific infrastructure I see is appalling poorly designed and executed and I'm against that, as well.
Your last paragraph is closer to the heart of the matter, there was some discussion of 'adaptive cycling' here a while ago, but it got subsumed once again in the pro/anti VC/facilities debate.