mjr wrote: The utility cyclist wrote:
Ron wrote:Your message is unclear, the cyclists in the photo appear to be segregated.
My message is clear enough, you need to look again, It's clearly not segregated
, no barrier or kerb divider, here's another view.
I'm getting sick of posting that that bridge in Copenhagen (Queen Louisa's Bridge IIRC) has a half-step kerb divider everywhere except across the crossroads near the camera. No matter how often you post the misdescription, it won't become true!
The bit where there is no segregation is the bit I'm talking about, I don't care about something I haven't put an image of, stop twisting something that I haven't said or put an image up of, your incorrect analysis of what is in the image is what is the problem here, as it seems others on this discussion cannot grasp. THERE IS NO SEGREGATION IN THAT IMAGE!
THAT is better than segregation, as I said, it is NOT perfect, taking ALL of the road with zero access to anyone except people on bikes would be better.
If you think having 1.5m wide lanes that are circuitous (see my pic for amsterdam) and stop start/junction with motor roads as they are often in NL (hence the high number of deaths at these junctions) is the way forward then you like others are well off the mark. it will not work for mass cycling in the UK, not in 50 years, not in a 100 years! Boardman for all that I like about what he is trying to do is backing the wrong horse to increase cycling in the way that we need it to be, it is also massively more expensive and slow compared to the true solution.
50% increases that are touted are pathetic, however we've seen ZERO increase going down the segregated cycle lane route.
A 300% increase is just about a start for the next 5 years (so av modal share being 6%), in 20 years we need to be aiming for a 1000% increase, so 20% modal share. Segregated cycle infra will not ever bring significant changes in cycling numbers in this country, it's simply not enough and does not address the failures of segregation that we see in NL.