It may be a sweeping generalisation and with no evidence, just what I have observed.

On a related issue, shouldn’t “responsible”, mature cyclists make a point of cycling with due caution on pavements by busy roads where there are very few pedestrians? In Japan, it is the norm to cycle alongside pedestrians.

I quite like a lot of what that document says. In particular I like the recognition that we need to consider potential cyclists as well as existing cyclists (which often doesn’t happen). And the clear recognition that it is, to a large degree, fear which stops those people cycling. It recommends slowing traffic in some circumstances as a way to improve the environment for cycling, as the Dutch do – I already mentioned this seems like an area where the CTC and everyone else agree.

But, again, for some reason it stops short (again) of mentioning separating bikes from big lorries (and the rest) on busy roads – despite that being a key Dutch policy. Instead the CTC seem to want to change behaviour with training and marketing. Plus this vague idea of “eradicating the disproportionate risk presented by large vehicles,”(but no mention of how).

Sorry, digressing again. Back to the matter in hand. A few figures with incomplete references indicating that some places with more cyclists have fewer KSIs leave me unconvinced. Especially when two of the potential best examples are the Netherlands and Copenhagen, which have already been debunked as they’ve had (relatively) huge investment in safer infrastructure. There’s no consideration of the direction of the correlation, or of confounding variables. I’m not saying there’s nothing in it. It would be nice if it was true. I’ve plotted the data from the CTC’s appendix b and you can see the correlation. But if you’re going to campaign on something or base a policy on it you want to know you’re right, rather than go with intuition and hope. By the CTC’s own argument earlier in the document, people will commute more where it feels safer and less where it’s scary. And safer infrastructure has been shown to work where SiN hasn’t (at least to my satisfaction). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Seems reasonable. Or is it mistaking correlation for causality?

Just recently the CTC have been getting some grief for being in a bit of a muddle about what might make cycling more popular in the UK.

( http://departmentfortransport.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/is-the-ctc-helping-or-hindering-bike-use-in-the-uk/ )

They argue that they were the first to know about Dutch style infrastructure, and are in favour of it, but then they put segregated cycle paths at the bottom of their infamous “hierarchy of provision” and the relevant pages on their website have sections dedicated to “What’s wrong with off-carriageway provision?”.

Some of their campaigning seems to concentrate on the low-hanging-fruit – i.e. trying to change behaviour with mantras like “safety in numbers”, and “everyone play nicely”, despite the lack of evidence that much good will come of it.

I say all this as a paid up member. They are also helping raise the profile of utility cycling, campaigning for cycling to school, and campaigning for lower speeds (with Sustrans), which is all great to see. But I hope everyone can agree on what Dutch-style infrastructure actually means, and be clear about it!