Road Danger Reduction

because banning cyclists from roads doesn't promote cycling,
Building cycle lanes without banning cyclists from roads gives cyclists choice so does promote cycling

But fully segregating cyclists from motorised traffic would mean that all those people afraid of cycling would no longer have anything to be afraid of.

Ergo, it opens cycling to many people who currently consider it too dangerous.

Because cycle lanes do not decrease danger.

Of course they do- if only cyclists can use them, then how can they collide with a car?

But the source of danger is always the motorised transport.
.

This isn't anti car per se, there is room for cars when the environment limits their potential to harm people, like when they are driven a slower speeds in places where people live like cities and towns. If drivers using motorways drive a higher speeds that may be less risky, i don't know but on my road in London or where I ride shop play I'd rather they moved slower

And I'm sure they'd rather you weren't in their way.

No middle ground!

In their way
?
That's a combative way of looking at things. Car drivers are in my way all the time, one person moving around in a huge wide heavy tin box yet I'm happy to wait behind them when they need me to. Shouldn't they do the same when I need room

Why are they in the way? Would paying attention to speeding up traffic flow, reducing congestion and increasing average speeds move them out of your way?

Maybe increasing the speed limit to 40mph on major arteries would be a good thing?

I suspect that many people who don't cycle already fear the roads. People who cycle poorly may also FEEL they're doing something dangerous because they get squeezed a lot (hence the helmet wearing epidemic here)

Training people helps them experience cycling as a low risk activity. So the mum listing to Wigan will who says 'Cycling is a fun low risk activity which anyone can do and it could be even lower risk and more fun if you get training' may decide to let the young person ride and get training.

Haven't followed the trail back to source, but from todays bike blog post by Matt Seaton

the reason most ordinary Britons won't cycle on our roads: fear of traffic

So you probably suspect right. I always suggest it as the biggest barrier to cycling, even if it's often dismissed by others.

On the questions for cycle training, point 2) could (note, not should) be responded with a no, drivers aren't trained to expect cyclists in primary position, so reactions of confusion and anger are not uncommon.

Try this one:

Bikeability Level 3 certificate becomes a pre-requisite to obtaining a provisional driving license.

Easy

WIN WIN

But fully segregating cyclists from motorised traffic would mean that all those people afraid of cycling would no longer have anything to be afraid of.

Of course they do- if only cyclists can use them, then how can they collide with a car?

Yes, if they can use them, which you have already conceded is not the case in most of London or, I would say, most other towns. At some point cyclists and motorists (and pedestrians) have to share space.
Your characterisation of the discussion as being between pro and anti car people is just not valid, not on this sub-forum anyway.

^^ is anyone lobbying for it then?

It effectively makes Bikeability Mandatory (something folks on here argue against), for anyone wishing to drive of course, yet is clearly win win.

edit above, and when all the drivers are doing it, non driving cyclists will maybe feel more pressure to go see what all the fuss is about and do the training? I dunno?

If we take my devils advocate position to it's logical conclusion (which is boring me, so it must be boring you) then no, they don't.

Cycle lane ends=cyclist gets off and pushes until they get to a new cycle lane.

And to the next point- are you serious?

But the source of danger is always the motorised transport.

One could argue that smooth, fast flowing traffic would pose less of a danger than congested, slow traffic that's backed up.

No you couldn't. Ignoring the last 5years or so the roads in London and in a lot of place outside of London still are the preserve of motorists: Check the stats:

"smooth, fast flowing traffic" it wasn't

Ok, so slow all traffic (including bicycles) to 5mph then?

^^ is anyone lobbying for it then?

it has often been mooted. I suppose aiming to train all School kids is a start and there will be a generation of drivers who have had training.

The emphasis at the moment is training professional drivers which is happening due to various legislation and insurance reasons

Ywe tend to agree on things like "a blanket 20mph speed limit is good" without actually giving it any thought.

Knee jerk response, as we see it as punishing the car whilst not affecting us- a real case of I'm alright Jack and sod the others.

And to the next point- are you serious?

Yes, I am serious Neil. Who is this 'we' who have not given any thought? People who spend their lives doing just that - thinking about this stuff, discussing it (and not just with other people who agree with them), going to endless boring meetings, banging their heads against brick walls in order to try and make some progress? They have knee jerk respsonses do they?
Maybe there is a bit of that out there on the wider LFGSS but not in here; and frankly you sound patronising and arrogant when you come on and start talking like that.

Of course they do- if only cyclists can use them, then how can they collide with a car?

Rubbish. Unless you suggest an unimaginable amount of money being spent on increasing the width of roads/current cycle infastructure what happens when cycle lanes are so clogged up with cyclists sticking rigidly to their lane how is that safer for cyclist on cyclist collisions? (I'm thinking of cable street or the cycle lanes on Chingford Road that place cyclists squarely in the door zone of parked cars)

Yes, I am serious Neil. Who is this 'we' who have not given any thought? People who spend their lives doing just that - thinking about this stuff, discussing it (and not just with other people who agree with them), going to endless boring meetings, banging their heads against brick walls in order to try and make some progress? They have knee jerk respsonses do they?
Maybe there is a bit of that out there on the wider LFGSS but not in here; and frankly you sound patronising and arrogant when you come on and start talking like that.

So it's a coincidence that you all sound rabidly anti-motorist then?

Or is that the natural position of any right thinking cyclist?

Looking at ways or reducing the source of danger is anti danger not anti motorist!

(You still in devils advocate mode, good on you for your perseverance?)

it has often been mooted. I suppose aiming to train all School kids is a start and there will be a generation of drivers who have had training.

The emphasis at the moment is training professional drivers which is happening due to various legislation and insurance reasons

Cool.

I do think the RDRF changed URL a while back.

Dr Robert explained that they changed the website because:
"we were re-invigorating the organisation and putting regular blogs up on our site - so we wanted a new site. We haven't been able to close down the old one - yet. If we do we will try and find a space for the old publications."

Well, yes. :)

Much to be promoted, and a very useful route into understanding traditional 'road safety' myths. Bob's book is also very worth reading:

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=robert+davis&sortby=3&sts=t&tn=death+on+the+streets&x=84&y=16

From Doctor Robert in an email to me: A few copies of "Death on the Streets: Cars and the mythology of road safety" are still available. It was published in 1993 but is still relevant today.

Send £18 (I charge a bit extra since it is out of print), including postage and packaging to me (made payable to "Robert Davis") at Road Danger Reduction Forum, PO Box 2944, LONDON NW10 2AX. I'll send you a copy, signed if you want it.

Cheers, David. I need to get a copy so I'll contact Bob.

Neil, you shouldn't get too hung up on the term 'benign'. It's a very simple transport jargon convention to group public transport (here 'benign' is often prefaced by 'relatively'), cycling, and walking under this heading. If it's any consolation to you, there is no equivalent use of 'malign modes of transport'. The reason why these modes are considered benign is simply because of their evident benefits, which of course applies particularly to cycling and walking. No need to recite these here.

The label isn't necessarily all helpful, as one thing that puts people off cycling is precisely the idea that cycling is terribly virtuous and the preserve of the sainted few. This is obviously not the case.

Also, beware of the 'segregationist' vs. 'integrationist' 'debate'. This is a massive red herring for lots of reasons. Most of these controversies are overplayed and very unproductive.

It is true that fear of road danger is typically cited as the main reason against cycling, but there are many other factors, too. This one tends to steal the limelight as it's seen as an unanswerable argument by many. It's not--cycle training answers it, for instance. The psychology of avelopia is quite fascinating, really, almost as interesting as TNRC flouncer excuses. :)

Anyway, if I elaborated on all that it would become an even longer post ...

we tend to agree on things like "a blanket 20mph speed limit is good" without actually giving it any thought.

That sort of thing doesn't need any thought given, the speed limit is literally that, if the people tend to ride right at the speed limit (says 30mph), then a 20mph one would mean motorists are likely to stick to it.

less noise pollution, less aggression (i.e. quick acceleration inbetween traffic light), less chance of a collision (shorter braking distance), less speed difference between cyclists and motorised vehicles, etc.

the reason why we tend to agree on such thing without giving much though is that we've experience riding on the road of London, we've already learnt how much a difference it would make to simply reduced the speed limit, especially when we look back at our own incident such as getting rear-ended due to impatient driver, or getting overtook with millimetre to spare right at the speed limit, etc.