-
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-
I'm not sure I know any kerb nerds who deny that cycle training will help people (I am not sure about the evidence on strict liability, though can't see how it would do any harm). All children get cycle training in the Netherlands. I think what they are saying (rightly) is that we need high-quality protection on busy roads and all these other measures. Just one or the other is not enough.
chameleon
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..