But what is his solution - more engineering - segregating cyclists onto the margins special facilities for us. Towards the end the irony goes into overdrive he approves of fact that the very same engineers who he castigated for segregating pedestrians were pulling the same trick on cyclists from 1915 (30:36) - but now they are "We".
Unlike 1930s UK where cyclists were being moved out of the way of faster motorists, 1915 Denmark was primarily moving faster cyclists out of the way of walkers - it's a very different emphasis which resulted in a very different approach... but that's still missing that he was using that primarily to show that there's 100 years of development to discover what works, not merely to praise the 1915 designs.
This can be clearly illustrated by the busy Copenhagen junction he shows (13:40 - videos have been shown approvingly here). The vast majority of the traffic (the cyclists) are confined to a single lane to keep the other three free for the small number of motors to have dedicated lanes for each turning manoere.
Lovely description but it would be better if it were more than half true! I believe the junction is Queen Louisa's Bridge with Søtorvet and the carriageway off the bridge is three lanes wide for all of two car lengths! And it flares out mainly to enable a more cycleway-friendly traffic light pattern - it's one carriageway lane each way over the bridge, with cycling getting about the same width as the cycleways. Unlike motoring, the number of people cycling through a junction like that is dominated far more by traffic light time than by queueing space - it's worth surrendering a two-car-length stretch of three-lane-wide carriageway if means the cycleway gets longer green lights.
Also, what isn't obvious from the photo in the talk video is that the cycleway now flares out to about twice the width at the exit, which I think is partly for the new cycleway that he mentioned which flares off right down Søtorvet to an adjacent street, but also enables the inevitable sorting out as faster-accelerating cyclists overtake slower ones when they get a green light to go ahead.
I did actually visit Copenhagen last year. Personally, I feel several Dutch cities do it better, but Copenhagen does seem to accommodate mass cycling with fairly little infrastructure. Both Dutch and Danish approaches are light years ahead of sticking paint and signs on footways that I suspect still forms most signed UK cycling provision.
He points out how (in the US particularly) pedestrians who stepped out of line and encroached the motorists space were mocked as jaywalkers - he could have gone on to point out how cyclists face similar restrictions with laws to enforce edge of road cycling - but no he is just as contemptuous of places where cycling in the road is legitimised by shared lane markings.
Cycling in the road is not legitimised by sharrows which should be interpreted as "[inappropriate word removed] arrows" - it's useless paint, or worse, it's unhelpfully painted in the door zone or used as a "stay in the gutter, scum, and let us close-pass you" direction like old-fashioned bits of Bloor Street in Toronto and you often get the same abuse as you do when they're not present. Washington Avenue in Miami Beach has sharrows but it still feels like you're taking part in an extreme sport riding on that urban dual-carriageway and the East Coast Greenway is infinitely preferable for almost all cycling journeys.
He points out how cyclists are not routable - we want to go from everywhere to everywhere else and our multiple desire lines will be the most direct
lines from our homes to our destinations. Yet what does he propose more cycle routes.
Yes, more cycle routes along the desire lines, like the one along Søtorvet.
Does he not see the bit where he justifies the cyclists invading pedestrian space as "momentumists" looking big with smug grins on their face would be entirely unacceptable if it was expressed by motorists maintaining their momentum as they pass a speed limit sign?
"smug grins" is your invention, isn't it? His description is "stupid" - or more fully, "we noticed when we zoomed in on their faces, they all had this stupid look. It's kind of like they weren't looking at anybody but they're kind of going sorry, sorry, hey everybody, yeah, I'm [rude word removed] with it, yeah, I'm sorry, yeah, OK" - I'd describe that as apologetic more than smug.
And far from being unacceptable, many (most?) motorists maintain their momentum as they pass speed limit signs (people have posted on this forum about not wanting to brake for speed limits placed where they don't see a need for them), motorists wanting to turn right (driving with two wheels on an adjacent cycleway or footway if needed), cyclists who haven't adopted primary position, ...
At 23:00 on the arrogance of space he gets his green paint pot out - (as he says "Any moron could do it") to paint cycle lanes across a junction - then when questioned as to why 37:00 Torronto's cycle infrastructure failed to deliver the cyclists he claimed would be inevitable suddenly "its just f***ing paint".
At 23:00, there's more than just painting cycle lanes - there are lights (note the stop lines) and presumably Copenhagen-style kerbs (the picture in the video seems a bit small too see) - meanwhile, the point at 37:00 is that almost all of Toronto's cycling infrastructure is just effing paint, just like most of the UK. Even Copenhagen's fairly minimalist infrastructure uses kerbs, posts, planters, bridges, lights and so on. He also mentioned Toronto's Bloor St cycleway as what he means by more than just effing paint. At the time of posting this, the link shows the trial version I think, but even that uses bollards and sometimes parked cars to stop phoney drivers straying into cyclists - I'm not sure if there have been changes to make it permanent yet.
But I suspect this was already obvious and it's just the usual selective quoting to prop up the outdated designed-only-for-motoring approach to our streets.