Colin McKenzie wrote:

No, it is important, in producing a more cycle-friendly and
pedestrian-friendly road system. A couple of illustrations. (snip)

I wasn't suggesting 130kph limits where bikes are, or pedestrians!

Even though many European countries have more cyclists than us, they
don't appear to share the main road on faster routes. Do they have
cycle lanes, are they too scared, or do they (as seen quite clearly on
the autobahns) have a car with their bikes attached to the back of them
for longer journies?

In Sweden, cyclists rarely have to go on a main road. Therefore you
don't have to worry about trying to create a magical road where
cyclists at one speed share roadspace with cars at another without any
problems. Oh, and the roads are wider too, even though they have less
traffic. The cars here respect the limit and drive spot on 50kph
without the need for cameras (reserved for the faster roads where they
will do 130-140kph in a 110).

It's shockingly rare to see kids racing around like loons, and the
boy-racer brigade simply doesn't exist in the way it does in the UK.
Forget modded Novas and 206's, it's more likely a V6 saloon cruising
around and only taken at speed on an E roads. There's much more
influence from the US than UK! I do wonder if the increased likelihood
of being pulled up by the boys in blue also plays a part?

We have a multitude of problems in the UK to address before you can
solve the problems on the roads. Many aren't solvable at all without
starting over with road design, and in London that's as good as
impossible. I can understand why cutting speed is deemed the easy
option, perhaps the only option, but we can see it isn't enough.

Jonathan