Whilst I accept and endorse the danish approach we are campaigning for I do wonder if it does disadvantage the experienced road cyclist. I accept that the main advantage of cycling infrastructure investment it to increase cycling take up. However I want to see a similar effort into curbing bad driver attitude, probably through better enforcement and stiffer penalties.
Infrastructure to increase take up yes, but not the logical extension that may exclude cyclists from roads where there is infrastructure.
A road near me was a typical 1 lane 2 ways 'A' road in a city, I used it daily and had no issues at all over 5 years. Now the road has been narrowed by a segregated bike lane and now I feel compelled to use the bike lane. However in 1 year I have had 3 near misses despite extreme vigilance. The increased dangers consist of:
less maintenance, so more debris, flooding, tree litter etc
pedestrian's aimless meandersings
cars turning across lane despite cyclist right of way
people driving down lane!
erratic novice cycling
other users (skateboarders, mobility scooters, skaters, E-whatever...)
Now, when we have this massive investment (ha ha) and more cyclists feel compelled (bullied) into using the new facilities, then the presence on the road is reduced. How much I have no idea. It is presence that contributes more than anything to safer roads. I am sure you have experienced the attitude difference between a city where cycling has taken off as opposed to some provincial backwater (I'm thinking Lincolnshire here btw). It is just down to presence, takes years yes...
So my real question here is, has any of this been considered by any of the cycling lobbyists?