prestavalve wrote: ↑15 Apr 2021, 12:06pm It is their opinion, and they are entitled to it, but they are wrong: roads are not a prohibitively dangerous place to cycle.
So how are you going to get them out of their cars and onto cycles then? Perception, not reality, is the defining factor that influences peoples' travel choices and therefore it is the perception that we need to address. Vehicular cycling is not a solution to that problem, cars naturally dominate from being an order of magnitude heavier and 2 or more orders more powerful, sure, some of us are happy enough to take the lane, most are not, telling them they're irrational is not going to change that.
And even for those of us that are, if I'm cycling as a form of transport (i.e. in clothes for my destination, not for the ride) dealing with the abject idiocy of people in cars is still something I'd prefer not to deal with. If I could have relaxing, direct and convenient cycle, per the netherlands, vs a not relaxing, shouting at idiots and inevitably submitting footage to A&S to get a few of them fined cycle I'd very much prefer the former.
Of course, ASLs & early greens do very little for the not already cycling, they are measures that somewhat help out the already cycling, or in many cases, simply formally legalise what many were already doing.
As for that paint in oxford, that's just pathetic. It's a very good thing that LTN1/20 makes it quite clear that such things are not inclusive, narrow streets is just an excuse, a network level exercise to remove at least one lane of motor traffic is the answer there - the existence of central reservations and right turn bays is a fairly good indication of spare space as well.
It is clear from existing examples what gets people cycling and that's what the dutch have been doing. And if you want to go cycling in with cars in tight lycra, helmets and 3 bolt clipless shoes you can absolutely still do that. Using your words, you're entitled to the opinion that proper cycling infrastructure is just to get cycles out of the of way of cars, but you're wrong.