-
Ok I get it, so it's going to be a long, natural process then, we just need more people to start cycling, in order for more roads to be changed right?
Are you anti more people cycling? You don't to be 'pro' to see the current situation as iniquitous, favouring the strong and the brave.
Woah no don't get me wrong here, I love cycling, but I have a whole lot of "non cycling friends" and they live in town and they don't cycle.
I don't get that they don't cycle, they don't get that I do. That doesn't mean I'm forcing it down their necks, I'm in the pro do what ever you want camp because at the end of day that's all that people are going to do.
Antidotes-
I'm in the pro do what ever you want camp because at the end of day that's all that people are going to do.
Well yeah, but people's decisions aren't made in a vacuum. I don't use my rocket-pack to get to work because the rocket-pack infrastructure round here is shocking. If you continue to provide a road network that is biased toward car use, people will continue to favour using their cars.
ffm
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.