Their muddled thought process of focusing on "ordinary" cyclists, rather than those who wear lycra and ride nice road bikes, seems to have blinded them to the possibility that even "ordinary" cyclists don't like having to carry their bikes up flights of stairs, and don't much care for riding over rough, muddy terrain with rocks and tree roots to negotiate.
I think their idea of 'ordinary' cyclists are basically those who dust the BSO off a few times a year in order to pootle 2 miles with their 6-10 year old. As such their priority is a) no cars and b) see (a).
That might even be a fair assessment of the majority of
BRITISH cycling. Certainly it's what I'd expect to get if you hang around with a clipboard in the average park-that-happens-to-have-a-NCN-route-through-it. I think that's also the priority of the average NCN pedestrian, who just wants some peace & quiet / breathable air while taking a useful shortcut, going for a run or emptying their dog.
They'll make a token nod to other flavours of cyclist, particularly those riding off-road bikes over pretty hills, and those commuting between Bristol and Bath, but seem to have a real blind spot for loaded tourists and faster cyclists who just want a minimum of faff. I do genuinely think they grok the issues of non-standard cycles, child trailers and the like, but are limited by their lack of control over the physical infrastructure.
They've got this catch-22 problem where sticking their brand on any old rubbish to increase the on-paper size of the network gives them more credibility in the eyes of those allocating resources. I think they've realised this wasn't working, and are now trying to achieve some sort of standards. Unfortunately, their priority (for better or for worse) remains the avoidance of motor traffic.