-
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-
Well said, even with infrastructure very few people are likely to have 100% segregated journeys. As such strict liability, driver training, cycle training are also required.
The problem is that many UK roads don't have room for dedicated cycle infrastructure and learning/enforcing how to use and share the space is needed to help people with their unsegregated sections of their journey.
The debate becomes more difficult when kerb nerds deny that cycle training/strict liability is going to help people (and they start to cite young or old people) and that the only way is segregation.
dancing james
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.