-
When I say a fast route I mean it's a route where traffic is not stopping at junction after junction, its a route which doesn't provide any hairy challenges that's why there's a good traffic flow and that's why it's safe.
I'm all up for redesigning whole swathes of road to improve traffic flow on the whole for **everyone ** no matter what you're driving. If its better for everyone then all road users can feel the benefit and interact in a safe manner.
Just sticking a couple of cycling lanes in each side of a shocking road does not mean it's all going to be fine.
I wouldn't expect or want a kid to take my old route which was about 70% cycling infrastructure.
Antidotes-
I think key point here is that most of the cycling infrastructure that has already been built is so shit that it's better to avoid it. Infrastructure that's not shit (and that sorts out the junctions, too) is worth having, on busy roads. None of your 'kerb nerds' want shit infrastructure. All of them also want filtered permeability, driver education, strict liability etc - because these will make an effect on the 98% of roads that still won't have infrastructure. Also, irrespective of infrastructure, cycle training becomes more vital as more people cycle. Even with infrastructure, they'll still need to know how to use that 98% of roads without infrastructure safely..
chameleon
But how much stress would you feel if you went fast? Cycle infrastructure isn't about you. It will probably make your life worse. But you are expendable. Yeah sounds like shit but that's it. You wouldn't expect a kid to follow you on that route and that's the point of infrastructure