I've pointed out things that have a likelihood of happening. Each of them can have a detrimental impact on the success of the proposal. Similar to British Cycling's aggregation of marginal returns, there is a significant potential for the aggregation of marginal declines. Using this sort of image and by making the arguments that they are, Hackney PoB are promoting this utopian ideal of segregated cycling. However, I don't see that they're looking at the problems that this sort of proposal will face post delivery and therefore not looking at ways to mitigate them. It's fundamentally lazy campaigning. If it doesn't fail pre-delivery, there's an escalated risk that it'll fail post-delivery and that will be worse.
Some say 'segregation can get more people cycling'
You attack segregation on the basis that implementing it well and operating it is thorny, rather than the central theme - Hackney tactics can only get you so far, let's do more.
Nope, but nobody is answering those questions. It seems like a fairly major ommission in any planning proposal. It's almost as if Hackney PoB have seen a shiny bauble and become so infatuated with it they haven't stopped to ask if it is in fact a turd rolled in glitter.
How so?
I've pointed out things that have a likelihood of happening. Each of them can have a detrimental impact on the success of the proposal. Similar to British Cycling's aggregation of marginal returns, there is a significant potential for the aggregation of marginal declines. Using this sort of image and by making the arguments that they are, Hackney PoB are promoting this utopian ideal of segregated cycling. However, I don't see that they're looking at the problems that this sort of proposal will face post delivery and therefore not looking at ways to mitigate them. It's fundamentally lazy campaigning. If it doesn't fail pre-delivery, there's an escalated risk that it'll fail post-delivery and that will be worse.