I've heard this argument before. It is among the weakest against vehicular cycling in my view. It's a misrepresentation of vehicular cycling, which doesn't requ

I've heard this argument before. It is among the weakest against vehicular cycling in my view. It's a misrepresentation of vehicular cycling, which doesn't require cyclists to keep up with drivers. It also strikes me as an ad hominem attack, attacking vehicular cyclists rather than their arguments. A point I like to make is that perceptions of safety are not the same thing as safety, and I think vehicular cycling is all about that. The strongest argument against vehicular cycling would be the evidence of where cycling infrastructure works well, which many people who accept the basic tenets of vehicular cycling (like myself) admit. I'd call myself about 1/2 vehicular, 1/2 infrastructural.