consider your polarized, stereotyped false arguments of 'defensive cycling' as substitutions for 'engineering'. consider the reality that these two disparate elements work in concert with one another and we've got a deal.

you're not a member of the buffoon club because you stand for 'prefer lower speed limits, shareable roads, more law enforcement, and enhanced cycling competency to over-engineered roadways' you're a buffoon because you stand opposed to any bike specificity in roadway design.

You use the term 'shared roads' loosely as you refuse to accept federal guidelines on how shared roads are designed using current AASHTO guidelines for roadway design under federal policy directives to keep and increase lawful roadway bike ridership while emphasizing bicyclists' right to the roadway in concert with enhancing safety for the vast majority of american bicyclists.

pehaps your cause could benefit from getting a clue.

'enhanced cycling competency' how about 'enhanced roadways', it will be easier and more effective

why blame the riders for the problems of road design? lame.

My 'cause'? I direct you to the FHWA, have you heard of them?