There's a perfectly good path right next to the road ..

[drystonepaul]

Sweden is another country with a great urban cycle network and a much more positive attitude towards cycling.

Unfortunately successive governments in the UK have failed to remotely deliver any sort of integrated transport policy. The net result is a failing public transport network, an over dependance on cars and road haulage and little space or thought for cyclists and pedestrians.

In terms of creating cycle lanes in particular, when implementing the design guidelines set by national government, the responsibility to maintain and interpret these guidelines lies with Local Authorities.
I say 'interpret' as LA's work towards the guidelines rather being bound to meet a defined standard and as such, can and are, often compromised by ignorance and conveniece on the part of the commitees who make the decisions. By the time the work has been sub-contracted and budgets have been squeezed the results are often laughable at best and dangerous at worst.

The architects of a recent major rebuild of my local college, were legally obliged to provide dedicated cycle access and lanes throughout the site.
Now completed, using the lanes is a ridiculous indirect dodge through car park spaces with multiple 90 degree turns and changes of surface.
It's a relief to get back onto the road...
:roll:

 

[orange71]

found this blog from Michael Hutchinson (just read his book about his attempt on the One Hour record) that sums it up rather nicely: http://www.michaelhutchinson.co.uk/blog/

There is also some stuff about how injuries rates are vastly higher here than they are in the Netherlands or Denmark. This is more interesting, since the Danish model is the one that we keep hearing about. The problem, as far as I can see, is that Copenhagen (or Amsterdam) is very different from most British cities. It’s more compact, and the population is much more centralised. Most bike journeys are therefore short. In London especially, most trips are longer, so riders want to go much faster, which is why sales of fast commuting bikes are high, and why those crappy little shared bike-pedestrian paths are useless. They’re designed for pottering, not commuting.

I was originally booked to talk about this on Radio 4 last night, and got pulled at the last minute. But I got to hear the transport minister Paul Clarke explaining how much money they’re spending on bike lanes and the like.

You need to spend money wisely for it to help. I have only very rarely seen a bike facility that I thought was designed by a cyclist. Everyone who rides in London knows, or ought to know, that the one golden rule is never, never ride up the inside of stationary traffic coming up to lights. Never. Yet that’s exactly what the bike markings at most junctions require you to do. Obeying the current markings places you in danger. And that’s what they’re spending money on.

The other thing he said was that the government was spending money on training young cyclists – which is nice, but for the most part, injuries aren’t caused by bad cycling, but by bad driving. The dangers that cyclists are exposed to are not their fault – despite the efforts of the government to claim they are.

I’d rather they spent money on training drivers – like the ass who nearly flattened me yesterday, because apparently no on had ever told him not to overtake round a blind bend in a busy village. Improving the quality of driving would do more for cyclist safety than any number of bike lanes and ‘cyclists dismount’ signs. But I don’t suppose we’re going to see any such thing.

 

[Neil]

Improving the quality of driving would do more for cyclist safety than any number of bike lanes and ‘cyclists dismount’ signs. But I don’t suppose we’re going to see any such thing.

Summed up perfectly there.

That said, it's not always just a training / skill thing for drivers, but an attitude thing as much as anything else. The whole driver environment, and "modern" traffic calming measures may calm traffic, but seem to do the complete reverse for drivers.

 

[drystonepaul]

Good points well made in that example from Michael Hutchinson.

The other thing he said was that the government was spending money on training young cyclists – which is nice, but for the most part, injuries aren’t caused by bad cycling, but by bad driving. The dangers that cyclists are exposed to are not their fault – despite the efforts of the government to claim they are

I am also in favour of the increase in available training for young people which encourages them to cycle more. One of the longer term benefits of this is an increased awareness of the needs of cyclists when these young cyclists get to the age when they start driving.
Take France as another example. It is common for teenagers to spend their first few years of 'iicensed' road use on low powered mopeds. The experience and knowledge gained from this informs the way they treat two wheeled road users when they begin to drive cars later on.

One of the major sources of ignorance amongst most drivers in the UK is the fact that they probably never cycle on the roads, and therefore cannot fully recognise the needs of cyclists.
One of the best forms of education for drivers, would be to get more of them cycling.
Some HGV driver awareness courses actually include getting the driver out on a bike to recognise the perspective of a cyclist. That sort of insight is invaluable to any driver.