-
That's a very good view, right now the new design of Vauxhall mean that those who don't want to take part in the huge road populated by drivers going at high speed will have to take ages by going onto pavement, wait at several traffic light and then get to the end of Vauxhall.
There's something wrong with this if it take longer for a cyclists to get to the other end than a drivers stuck in traffic jams.
-
The problem is in the context of the whole 'segregation debate', the desire for a quick direct journey keeps being used by the likes of Copenhagenize as part of their polemic against vehicular cyclists
How? The main point that I've heard is that if you put a segregated cycle route parallel to a route that cyclists actually want to use, they won't use it. Therefore, put the segregation on the actual desire line or don't bother at all.
Kingsland Road is closely paralleled by some excellent (and equally direct) routes on quiet backstreets though. Putting a segregated lane in the restricted space available on KR itself seems like a solution to a nonexistent problem: a lot of effort better invested elsewhere. As far as the rest of London goes my experience is mostly with the south, but in most cases there I can think of viable parallel routes to the main roads which only require a bit of Hackney-style innovation to bring them up to scratch.
I agree that cyclists who don't want to take the main arterial roads deserve to have the 'fastest most direct' alternatives, either by clearly signed use of good quality side routes (my own preference) or by a separate route where necessary. It should be a reward, if you like, for choosing a mode of transport that minimises pollution of the urban environment. The problem is in the context of the whole 'segregation debate', the desire for a quick direct journey keeps being used by the likes of Copenhagenize as part of their polemic against vehicular cyclists rather than as a concern of a lot of utility cyclists of all kinds.