If there really was an infrastructure fairy who could, at the flick of her magic wand, grant us Dutch standard infrastructure but cost us the right to ride on all roads, and if I was sure that would work well for the majority here in London, then i'd be in favour of that change.
I'd mourn the end of riding on roads like the A4 and Marleybone Road, which are so much fun when you're in the right mood. But i do believe in the greater good, and i do want parents to let their kids ride to school.
But...
I'm not totally convinced that segregated cycle routes are the best possible answer for London. Part of the answer? Sure, but not all of or the most urgent or most important part.
And what i *really *don't like are people whom, convinced that segregated cycle paths are the whole of the answer, seize on this certainty as an opportunity to indulge in picking on and bullying cyclists who don't agree with them. Both because this is odious behaviour and because it's a stupid plan that won't do anything positive even if they are right.
I agree with lots of this, especially the last bit, but I'm far more concerned about the impact on traffic more broadly in the scenario you outline. Cyclists - and peds when there are a lot of them around - act as a traffic calming measure. I don't mean cars bounce off them and slow down, but where there are many cyclists a road is more likely to have a slow speed limit, people driving with more of an awareness of cyclists (and yes I know there are many awful drivers in London but try a similar sized road in Peterborough) and the road is consequently less polluted, less noisy and less offputting for anyone who's not in a car.
Obviously as you say this is a magic wand scenario but if the focus is on the comfort and amenity of cyclists who are less confident in motor traffic, that leaves the powers that be in a position to justify measures that focus on smoothing traffic flow - higher speed limits, fewer crossings, environment that prioritises motorists getting around swiftly with peds/cyclists getting in their way.
Anyway, it's a concern but not one I feel comfortable addressing in more public spheres than this - not because I lack confidence in my arguments (whatever you may think of them, I've worked for two cycle campaigning orgs with a huge amount of collective knowledge) but because I find the combative approach of the loudest cycle campaigners extremely daunting.
I agree with lots of this, especially the last bit, but I'm far more concerned about the impact on traffic more broadly in the scenario you outline. Cyclists - and peds when there are a lot of them around - act as a traffic calming measure. I don't mean cars bounce off them and slow down, but where there are many cyclists a road is more likely to have a slow speed limit, people driving with more of an awareness of cyclists (and yes I know there are many awful drivers in London but try a similar sized road in Peterborough) and the road is consequently less polluted, less noisy and less offputting for anyone who's not in a car.
Obviously as you say this is a magic wand scenario but if the focus is on the comfort and amenity of cyclists who are less confident in motor traffic, that leaves the powers that be in a position to justify measures that focus on smoothing traffic flow - higher speed limits, fewer crossings, environment that prioritises motorists getting around swiftly with peds/cyclists getting in their way.
Anyway, it's a concern but not one I feel comfortable addressing in more public spheres than this - not because I lack confidence in my arguments (whatever you may think of them, I've worked for two cycle campaigning orgs with a huge amount of collective knowledge) but because I find the combative approach of the loudest cycle campaigners extremely daunting.