Si wrote:Let's turn it the other way round...where is your proof that cycle facilities which may not be up to Dutch standards, but which are used as an integrated part of projects such as the one I work with, are not a key aspect in getting people cycling?
What a strange world it would be if we followed your logic. Drug companies would be able to sell whatever they liked and it would be for the sceptics to prove they were not safe or effective. The convention is that the burden of proof is on those proposing an intervention to prove it is safe and effective not on others to prove it isn't.
But cycling in London has doubled over the past few years to the point where it is now the dominant mode of commuter transport in many areas. It has not involved segregated facilities and it has not involved much in the way of training either. In fact one of the big factors seems to have been untrained cyclists wobbling around London's mostly unsegregated streets on Boris Bikes and then going out and getting a bike of their own. Experience in Dublin with DublinBikes is similar while their 200 miles of Strategic Cycle Network construction was associated with a 15% fall in commuter cycling.
Given that there are half a million bicycle journeys a day in London, remind me of how many people your scheme has into got cycling so I can judge whether it has been a key aspect of getting people into cycling or not?