I'm not sure internet message boards are forums for debate so much as a place to exercise our hobby-horses. We may be convinced our's is a champion steeplechaser and form groups that agree the nag is a winner - while spiking the other chap's nosebag -
I'm not so pessimistic about them myself; I think I have learned a lot by debating issues and hearing other people's points of view. I did feel the old Usenet News Group approach was better, though, with a proper threaded news reader, but everyone seems to want WYSISYG editors, pretty pictures and mouse-driven interfaces now.
but definitive evidence on a subject that's been all but written out of the serious transport agenda seems to suggest closer odds than people are admitting.
I have some sympathy with this concern. It can be hard to get ideas that are out of step investigated seriously - just look at the history of Herceptin, for example. Not sure whether it applies here, though; maybe, maybe not.
My point has always been that pretending to act like a six foot wide powered vehicle while riding a bike is useful so far as it goes, but is unlikely to carry the common herd. If you live where it does the best of British to you.
Well, I believe it has helped me, but then I am stubborn and pig-headed by nature, and perhaps a little obsessive.
I do agree, though, that Vehicular Cycling can be very scary to a newcomer in the current car-centric culture we have, with the majority of motorists feeling that the world is in their way, being unable to see past the next obstacle, and displaying a complete lack of patience. (Yes, I think this is the majority.)
However, I think that's a long way from concluding that Cyclecraft is to blame. If everyone were patient and courteous, drove at a sensible speed, and didn't take unreasonable risks, I think the principles expressed in Cyclecraft would be equally valid, and no longer scary. For example, primary position is not just about stopping pillocks from making stupid passes; it is also about visibility (on both vehicle's parts) and noticability, about staying away from the danger areas if someone were to make an honest mistake, etc.
It is the combination of driving attitudes, badly designed (car-centric) towns and cities (as discussed by dellzeqq), and poorly designed and harmful cycling "infrastructure" (hardly worthy of the name) that make it scary. Nothing about Cyclecraft conflicts with addressing those issues.
This is behind my beef with the current cycle lane provision; it is virtually all in direct conflict with the principles that Bikeability is trying to teach cyclists, especially young ones. In this sense, I feel that the "something" we have is indeed far worse than nothing.
