-
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 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.
Yes that is what they and you are saying. And by 'busy roads' I think you mean roads where drivers dominate and create real or perceived risk to people outside cars.
The other view, which I think is more visionary, (perhaps the vision of the Hackney LCC and council people) is that in the places where people live, work, hang out, we want to use all these tools to eliminate this type of road use and make a network where people in cars do not dominate & create danger or perception of danger.
skydancer
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.