[u801e]

> I can tell you from experience that the introduction of a physically separated cycle lane on a 30mph road which is part of my commute as reduced the number of close calls I’ve had from every couple of days to zero.

What happens when you cross an intersection? The physical separation doesn't extend through the intersection and intersections are where most crashes and close calls happen.

> I would strongly argue that your opinion on this topic is somewhat simple and desperately lacking.

You're not arguing. You're just dismissing without an actual counter argument.

[avianlyric]

> What happens when you cross an intersection? The physical separation doesn't extend through the intersection and intersections are where most crashes and close calls happen.

Traffic lights prevent car movement, at other junctions the lane is set back, and road is elevated to the level of the cycle lane, creating a natural speed bump. That plus bright paint and very sharp corners on the junctions forces cars to slow down, substantially decreasing both the probability and severity of collisions.

> You're not arguing. You're just dismissing without an actual counter argument.

There’s plenty of literature, studies and statistics out there. Bikes aren’t some new invention, methods for making roads safe for vulnerable road uses is well documented and tested with decades of data.

It’s not my job to educate you. You can do that yourself, if that’s too much effort for you, then don’t bother sharing your views, as they’re clearly going to be poorly informed.

[u801e]

> Traffic lights prevent car movement, at other junctions the lane is set back, and road is elevated to the level of the cycle lane, creating a natural speed bump.

There are virtually no intersections like that in the US where there are barrier separated cycle tracks, nor do they have separate signals for cyclists. And the intersection configuration you're referring to will not work for mid-block intersections due to lack of necessary space.

The one intersection I know of[1] that meets some of the criteria you mention was studied and they found that turning motorists yielded to cyclists 87% of the time. That doesn't sound very safe to me (more than a 1 in 10 chance a motorist won't yield when I go through the intersection).

[1] https://twitter.com/OakDOT/status/1289407831695745024

[avianlyric]

That’s nice, that just means US road planners don’t know how to build safe cycle tracks, and US drivers aren’t very good.

Thankfully I live in a more civilised country.

I also see you’ve taken no real effort to educate yourself. I assume you’re going to continue finding way to blame cyclists for road issues, rather than consider that the issue is more complex than cyclists = bad?

[u801e]

> I assume you’re going to continue finding way to blame cyclists for road issues

Where have I blamed cyclists for road issues?

> rather than consider that the issue is more complex than cyclists = bad?

> that just means US road planners don’t know how to build safe cycle tracks, and US drivers aren’t very good.

>

> Thankfully I live in a more civilised country.

It seems that you have simplified the issue into government/countries and motorists = bad and that they're uncivilized. You appear to be blaming everyone else for road issues besides cyclists.

[avianlyric]

> It seems that you have simplified the issue into government/countries and motorists = bad and that they're uncivilized.

Hardly. More like US government and drivers = bad. Specifically around the subject of vulnerable road users and sustainable transport. An opinion backed by person experience, and plenty of statistics.

[u801e]

It's a lot easier to change the way one rides than it is to change society to match the norm in another country. I ride in traffic using the full lane and have been doing so for close to 20 years, riding several thousand miles per year. If I waited for infrastructure, driver education changes, law changes, etc, then I would still be waiting 2 decades later.