Well, 40 years ago it wasn't all that tiring because I was a very fit young bike racer, but I get what you mean.

No potholes?

*Laughs in Saskatoonish

I'll beg to differ... Stanley Park in Vancouver is an example. Stanley Park Drive is an automobile path but running alongside it is the Seawall, a bike and separated pedestrian path. In many sections the path is too narrow to pass, due to a cliff face. They've improved it somewhat in the last couple years, but I think very fast riders still prefer going on the car path so that they don't have to wait to pass people on rented bikes going slowly trying to simply take in the park.

I do think fast cyclists should be able to select their risk level and speed, though speed limits should be no more than 40km/h (25mph) to even begin considering a road to be a safe path for cycling.

More importantly, Mr. Forester tried to use dedicated bike paths like a freeway, trying to maintain 30mph and only dodging obstacles. Because he almost had a few collisions, and he claims he only almost had a collision once in many years of road cycling, he calls bike paths 1000 times more dangerous.

There's quite a few other instances of lying with statistics, and using studies to disagree with those same study's conclusions thinking himself smarter, but I think the one time he tried to collect his own data was the worst.