• In response to the various other posts I think my pro-segregation thoughts can be summarise fairly simply:

    1. Nobody is arguing for crap infrastructure
    2. Nobody is arguing for poorly maintained infrastructure
    3. TfL can't necessarily be trusted to do things right, but much of what is being proposed is better than what has gone before, we should maintain pressure on them to, as Boris said, "do it right or not at all"
    4. A change in motoring culture is absolutely necessary for many reasons (reducing motorist and pedestrian KSIs, reducing pollution etc.)
    5. A change in motoring culture will be accelerated by having more cyclists on the road. I think people will behave differently if there's a reasonable chance that the cyclist in front of their car is family or a friend and if they will be out on a bike tomorrow.
    6. The current gradual increase in cycling numbers isn't fast enough to induce #5. Segregation in specific places will increase cyclist numbers and will work in combination with direct measures to change motoring culture (e.g., strict liability, proper enforcement etc.) to accelerate a motoring culture change.
    7. Not every road needs to be segregated (most small roads should be made safe for cycling simply by being made safer and more pleasant for everyone), but unless you make certain stretches of busy road objectively and subjectively safer you will exclude a large number of people from cycling e.g., people who want to ride with their kids to school/the park/the shops etc.
    8. Cycle training is a good thing to help people ride with other traffic
    9. Cyclists should not lose the right to ride on the road, but inconvenience to the small percentage of people who currently like to cycle fast, should not be a reason to exclude the majority from cycling.
  • small percentage of people who currently like to cycle fast

    Having asked 'how' peoples desire for a fast, direct route is deployed in this kind of argument, you've just made my point for me.

    Pro segregation writers have used this reductio ad absurdem technique - people arguing against them just want to 'go fast' and can therefore be discounted. However as was shown above, and particularly by the suggestion that protected routes should go along main roads, rather than back streets, I think the idea of having a fast and direct journey is actually a consideration for many people, including some who favour segregation.

    From what I've seen in London creating a path alongside a busy arterial route is always likely to bring cyclists into conflict with roads feeding into that arterial route, pedestrians, bus stops etc and is therefore an inferior approach to creating a quiet, direct route on roads parallel to the main one. It's both safer and, yes, faster.

About

Avatar for ffm @ffm started