-
I think I'm taking the anti-segregation argument to the next level: Even when implemented as-best-as-possible, if not perfectly, they're still a poor solution.
But what would be a perfect solution? No matter how much you calm motor-traffic on the roads there will always be some and a percentage of that will (unfortunately) be driven less than perfectly and that will make a substantial number of people reluctant to cycle. Much of anti-segregationism seems to be based on wishful thinking about how people actually view cycling. Yes, cycle training definitely helps, but if you want cycling to be open to everyone you have to separate it, in at least some locations, from motor traffic.
ffm-
If all (or at least, the vast majority) drivers were considerate, attentive and law-abiding, and that consideration was backed up by strict liability, excellent road conditions and a wide culture in which cycling was prevalent, people wouldn't be reluctant to cycle. You could learn in a park or similar, and then take the road in the knowledge that you would be safe and catered for.
That's the perfect solution.
MechaMorgan
You're right, and a video showing 10 examples with absolutely no pedestrians or buses using the stops isn't much help either. When a bus load of commuters and school kids piles off, halfway down the CS7 at 1730 and no-one steps off in to the tidal wave of nodders then it might be a feasible thing.
I think I'm taking the anti-segregation argument to the next level: Even when implemented as-best-as-possible, if not perfectly, they're still a poor solution.