Cycle Superhighway Extension - East.

I think the main problem is that drivers will give cyclist a lot of grief for not using the cycle lane if it is there, even if they are not mandatory and the driver is completely in the wrong.

Going along Gordon Square and Tavistock place, where there is a completely dangerous segregated cycle lane (due to cars crossing it to turn onto side roads and peds who don't look before stepping into the lane, also the lane is too narrow, so it's impossible to overtake slower cyclists), I often get grief from drivers for not using the cycle lane, even though I am traveling just as fast as they are and not "holding them up" in any way.

I can't image there will be any difference in aggressive attitude of drivers with a cyclelane extension, you can explain until you are as blue in the face as those lanes why they aren't fit for purpose, and they will still come back with "you've got a lane there, you should be in it".

I've had discussions with other cyclists about that cycle lane before. It is, at best, a mixed blessing and I've yet to hear anyone endorse it unequivocally. The side roads turning through it are bloody dangerous and I've had trouble crossing them on foot, let alone on a bike.

It does look like quite a different situation from the one in tbe BBC report though. On Tavistock place it's single carriageway and fairly low speed so there should be no real need for a bike lane as cycling becomes more ubiquitous. The new proposal is for one to run alongside a 3 lane road, where the benefits of integration are more marginal.