-
You have some very good points.
I think I get where our different approach to this subject lies now.
If you don't share the aim of making the roads accessible to cyclists of all ages and abilities then we're basically having two separate conversations.
See, I'm not trying to push to get everyone to cycle. And I think that's about it really.
If you want to make it possible for absolutely everyone in London to cycle no matter the skill or ability there will have to be segregated cycle lane on every street in London. You are going to have to level most of London, most streets are not wide enough. You will have to knock most buildings.
So my worry is that you can't put segregated cycle lanes on every London street, there simply isn't enough room. This means the "weak" or inexperienced riders are going to have to share to road with other road users at some point in their journey. This means these types of cyclists are going to need to at least be safe and confident enough to navigate with traffic.
But do you honestly believe that we can find and apply a solution to enough of London's roads in the foreseeable future to provide sufficiently safe unsegregated routes for a mass uptake of cycling?
No again that's where we differ, not mass uptake, just a safer road for all in general for those who choose to use it.
My question is, do you believe we can segregate every road in London to make it safe enough for our imaginary 5 year old to cycle on?
Also lol...
you are (as far as I can tell) quite fit, fast and confident
Fit - no. Fast - no. Confident - I like to pretend I am, positive mental attitude and all that.
But thanks anyway.
Antidotes-
My question is, do you believe we can segregate every road in London to make it safe enough for our imaginary 5 year old to cycle on?
It wouldn't be necessary to do this because mass uptake of cycling brings with it safety benefits ("safety in numbers") that make narrow roads navigable by different types of cyclists without needing segregated infrastructure. A reduction in the number of motor vehicles, for e.g (because the drivers are maybe on bikes instead). The motorists already there being accustomed to being around large numbers of cyclists, for e.g. Motorised through traffic being banned from some of those roads entirely, 20mph zones, for e.g.
People who are campaigning for a high quality segregated network aren't saying "put bike lanes on every single road and street", but that's frequently used as a straw man argument anyway to dismiss the idea of having any segregation at all.
bothwell
ffm
@Antidotes, your response to @hairnetnic's comment about 5-year olds is quite telling. I know 4 year olds who can ride a perfectly decent line on a bike for a couple of miles. It would be great if their parents didn't feel that they had to put them in the car to go to school/the park/the shops. If you don't share the aim of making the roads accessible to cyclists of all ages and abilities then we're basically having two separate conversations. If you do share this aim then I think you need to accept that there is no amount of training that will make many potential cyclists (or parents of potential cyclists) comfortable on the road network that we currently have or will likely have for the next few decades. Your approach of "if I learned to cycle well, anyone can" is simply not true because you are (as far as I can tell) quite fit, fast and confident. Many are not and could never be because they are simply too physically weak or small. To paraphrase someone "a cycle route that you wouldn't send an 8 year-old on, isn't a cycle route".
This whole section from you is just a morass of assumptions about "these people's" motivations and opinions that isn't really any more valuable than saying "all these anti-segregationists are just wannabe-Wiggins-lycra-louts who just want to go fast", but there are a few things worth discussing.
This has been done to death in various blogs. What does it mean for a cyclist to "share the road" with an HGV, van or even a car? The motorist genuinely has to make space for the cyclist because they have the capability to kill them. The cyclist can ride a good line, be aware of what's around them, remain visible and signal their intentions, but this is not "sharing the road" this is the cyclist doing everything they can to avoid being killed or injured by a motor vehicle. It's polite and sensible to do these things, but the motorist doesn't need them from the cyclist in the same way that the cyclist needs the motorist to give them space. Scale this all down to an 8-year old riding on the road and you'll see how absurd this false equivalence is.
As above, children simply do not have the road presence or speed that you have (and even if a small number do, their parents would be unlikely to believe that it would keep them safe). So what's your solution to getting them on the road?
Of course these questions are worth asking. But do you honestly believe that we can find and apply a solution to enough of London's roads in the forseeable future to provide sufficiently safe unsegregated routes for a mass uptake of cycling?
All current road users will benefit and very slowly at that. Simply having to cycle in the same lanes as motor traffic will put a lot of potential cyclists off.
What was it I said about bullshit scare-mongering?
And we should maintain that right, but that doesn't have to be at the exclusion of building decent segregated infrastructure.