My thoughts:

While I don't t think this was a good moderation decision, I think I do somewhat understand the reasoning behind it. I am pretty much in favor of a rapid roll out of a complete network of bicycle infrastructure as rapidly as possible, removing whatever minimum amount of parking is necessary to achieve that. But, even as a supporter, many of these bicycle related posts are very repetitive. People supporting the change bring up the same points they brought up last time a similar change was rolled out; opponents trot out the same objections, which are then disputed in the same way. I feel like I could write a computer program to have these conversations for me.

On top of that, many times these discussions get sort of nasty. Like, even though I think the status quo is bad, I recognize that many people have adapted to it in various ways and it probably has some upsides for some one. There's no need to castigate some one because they prefer to drive for some trip or another. And it's not like the other side of the debate is any better; its a lot of useless "Some one using mode of transportation X did something bad once!". This being the Internet, some one will always read a post in the worst possible way, and they are the most likely one to reply.

So, those are the reasons I can imagine for implementing this policy. I think trying to justify it with an anecdote about an expectorating cyclist was not a very good explanation, however personally enraging that might have been.

Now, why I don't think it is a very good policy: Changes to the roads and infrastructure more broadly are news. Its important for people to, firstly, be aware of the specific changes. And I suppose if this is a discussion site, to have the option to discuss them.

That said, I'm not sure what is the best way to have a less repetitive and mean discussion. Maybe a weekly or bi-weekly mega-thread?