-
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-
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.
Ok, a few problems:
- One terrible driver is enough to get you killed if you're mixing with larger vehicles
- Mixing with large vehicles just feels unpleasant
- There may well exist routes that are necessary to cycle, where it's not feasible to sufficiently reduce traffic speeds
All of these would mean that certain people would still be reluctant to cycle amongst the traffic. I can't imagine that people would be hapy to send their kids off to school on their bikes, even in the situation that you describe, so it would fail.
If your aim is simply to define into existence a non-segregated road situation in which everyone feels happy to cycle, then I think you are describing something that is unattainable. The reason it's unattainable is that it requires a key ingredient that you have not included: dramatically reduced motor traffic volumes. In the absence of a vastly improved public transport system (and London's is already pretty good) the only way to reduce motor traffic volumes is to get many more people on bikes. So the proposal becomes circular i.e., we need to get many more people cycling by getting many more people cycling.
To put it another way: Can you give an example of where such an environment has been created in somewhere with comparable amounts of motor traffic?
To put it yet another way: Do you honestly believe that it's easier to change driver behaviour i.e., change some fundamental aspects of human nature, directly or to build some decent cycle infrastructure?
- One terrible driver is enough to get you killed if you're mixing with larger vehicles
-
If all (or at least, the vast majority) drivers were considerate, attentive and law-abiding
Roll on robo-cars
ffm
bothwell
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.