If you support segregated cycling infrastructure in Hackney

that's exactly what pavements are. Their function is to corral peds out of the way of cars so that drivers can have clear roads. They "protect" peds by restricting their movements

Also so that we don't have to walk along in the thick mud and small rivers that form along the sides of cambered roads.

They've done it a few places.

Poynton is a famous one http://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-services/what-we-do/route-design-and-construction/shared-space-busy-intersection-poynton

Is nice.

But @chameleon wants more Stevenage.

I once had sex with a girl from Stevenage. #csb

Also so that we don't have to walk along in the thick mud and small rivers that form along the sides of cambered roads.

Why would we be walking along the side of the road?

Why did the chicken walk along the side of the road

etc

For those interested in the Far East of Camden and Tavistock Place: http://www.lfgss.com/conversations/261192/

segregation is a drivers agenda.

drivers want cyclists off the roads so they don't have to slow down etc / they just want the roads to themselves.

i don't want to be segregated. i want to be integrated. i want 20 mph in all built up all areas.

building a segregated system for cyclists is difficult - it will take £billions and take years to achieve.

in london there just is not the space.

20 mph involves some paperwork = road traffic regulation, some public awareness and some signage. IMO much easier.

so true

in london there just is not the space.

I'd argue it's simply the former you've mentioned is the main reason and always turn out to be more of a abstract conception than an actual cycle path.

CS7 - Abstract Conception.

No matter what mode of transport/ethnicity/disability/class/etc., segregation is never a good thing.

20 mph involves some paperwork = road traffic regulation, some public awareness and some signage.

It needs some extra effort on enforcement though (at least the threat of random speed checks or mobile cameras) otherwise a 20mph limit just means many people do 40mph+ because there's going to be very little chance of being caught. It depends how much you read into the Police attitude to enforcement of 20mph limits.

Anecdotal but I see this on some roads near me that have been made 20mph. The residential area I live in is mostly OK but on roads like Putney Heath (from The Green Man to Roehampton) that have gone from 30mph to 20mph and whilst average speeds may have gone down, I'm sure the number of people doing more then 40mph has increased.

otherwise a 20mph limit just means many people do 40mph+

Precisely, a good example is Richmond Park, even if you're doing 20mph, everyone still overtake you at 25-30mph.

Side street involved the usual slam on brakes before speed hump, and speed up right up your back.

My general experience of 20 zones is cars just belting along between whatever traffic calming measures they've put in place to slow the traffic down at which point the cyclist they've sped past then has to slow down because there's a car blocking them from going through the traffic calming at their full speed.

Personally I quite like 20 zones. You can hold primary at 20mph and generally not care about slowing the cars behind you as you're on the speed limit. For the theoretical granny on a dutch bike, small child cycling to school, etc though then it's not much help. They can't hold 20mph out in primary so it makes little difference.

Saw this over the weekend. Don't know how widespread the usage will be, but sounds like a step in the right direction.

They can't hold 20mph out in primary so it makes little difference.

They don't need to, as the drivers is (theoretically) driving at 20mph, overtaking them will be less nerve wrecking than being overtaken at 30mph.

That's exactly what I like to be implemented, too many people got away with speeding in quiet street because they know they will never get caught.

Once drivers start realising that they may get caught speeding in residental areas, they'll start to drive at the limit.

Kerbs, pedestrians, speeds bumps, narrowing lane, turns..

The road looks much safer (for everyone) to me.

I realise theres a big thing about 'perceived safety' being important in getting people onto their bikes, but there are other ways to convince people that they are safe, without conning them into being out of sight and out of mind. How a person cant see that this is for the benefit of drivers more than cyclists is beyond me.

I'd much rather see more cycling proficiency, better legislation against bad driving, and better junction design before I see any more of those stupid segregated paths.

Someone on here crashed into the kerb and broke their hip there this morning.

Yet the kerb nerds still clamour for cyclists segregated ghettos.

I've just seen for the first time what they are doing at Oval- what a joke- forcing cyclists off the road to a segregated path (there is a sign instructing cyclists to use it) and then running the 'cycle lane' back onto the road across two lanes- all just to head straight on to Kennington.

(there is a sign instructing cyclists to use it)

What type of sign?

Blue signs (like "Cyclists Dismount") are not mandatory.

Signs like 951 on this page: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/02311398.gif are mandatory.

If someone wanted to get more involved in this type of thing, where do they go? @Oliver Schick i'm guessing you can give some pointers..

Have you ever been to the Netherlands?

It crosses the left turning traffic under light control...

theres more to the Netherlands than segregated cycle lanes.