I really really want to share Jane's optimism about LCC and its future strategy. I've been a member and supporter for the last 13 years but am having some doubts about future support.
When this thread first started, my feeling was that the detail of implementation is so important here. I'm not against the principle of street redesign that ends up segregating cycle traffic from motorised traffic, but clearly its success depends on how it is implemented and what other soft measures are brought into place. I was, and I think still am, willing to give LCC a chance since there is some considerable talent among its ranks.
But, there are some warning signs that leave me feeling really uneasy. The publicity surrounding the Go Dutch campaign seems to be putting a large emphasis on segregated cycle routes. The well-publiscised bus lay-by replaces cycle-motor vehicle interaction with cylce-pedestrian interaction to the detriment of both more vulnerable groups. Digging down a bit (and Jane has explained this well), there is clearly much more going on with LCC's work, but the headline stuff is at best a distraction from the much more widespread and achievable measures necessary to transform our urban environments (e.g. cycle training at school and work, pavement widening, speed control, parking restriction, line-of-sight engineering etc.). The problem with associating in people's minds 'segregation == safe' is that it implicitly reinforces the fear that 'roads == danger' and so you create a dependency on the inevitably limited mileage of separated cycle routes. I am hoping this is just a flawed LCC publicity strategy rather than actual flawed policy itself. Mike Cavenett's email, assuming it is not out of context, leaves me with no confidence in future LCC publicity though.
There is a parallel with discussion of, dare I say it, helmets in that both segregation and helmets generate huge amounts of discussion, provide an easy-to-grasp concept of cycle safety, but (in my view at least), are largely irrelevant in comparison to other aspects of behaviour and design. As tempting as it may be for LCC and others to latch on to segregation as a way of engaging infrequent and potential cyclists, I think the approach is ultimately self-defeating in that it sends the wrong message about public road space and long-term transformation of our cities.
The Hackney experience is an important one in that the transformation has occurred without a large emphasis on segregation. I am relieved to see Oliver Schick from Hackney back on the LCC Elected Policy Forum, so perhaps there is a greater plurality of influential views than one might assume from the publicity.
