I haven’t seen any statistics from Germany, but it’s pretty clear what keeps people in Holland and Denmark safe – far lower road speeds. I think the recent Reid review confirms this. Also, correlation is not causation. The fact that countries with infrastructure tend to be safer does not mean that infrastructure = safety. These countries are very different in their road and road use characteristics than are places like the UK and the USA. To simply copy Dutch and Danish infrastructure and expect it to work in the US and Britain is folly.

The fact that you think what I say doesn’t make sense simply because segregated infrastructure keeps cyclists away from traffic shows that you do not understand what causes collisions at intersections. Clearly you are unaware of the studies done over the last 30 years, the vast majority of which show clearly that removing cyclists from the travel lane causes more danger at intersections than it saves in safety between them. I suggest you read the 1997 Moritz study, the Aultman-Hall studies of 1998 and 1999, the Franklin review of the Milton Keynes Redway, the 2001 Wachtel study, the 2007 Jensen study, the 2008 Agerholm study, and the latest literature review done by Reid in 2011.

As for ‘bringing out the mass of potential cyclists’, I’m all for that, as long as it doesn’t kill more of them than it needs to. I’m tired of seeing reports of mostly young cyclists getting killed by riding too close to the curb and being crushed by turning semi-trucks at intersections. Anyone who has seen the death toll on London’s ‘Cycling Superhighway’ should be thinking hard about their support for bike lanes and other facilities that ‘remove cyclists from danger’ by FLATTENING THEM!

What you write simply doesn’t make sense. Cycling IS loads safer in places with segregated bike infrastructure where it’s needed: in heavy and/or fast traffic. It’s safer for a reason: it keeps cyclists away from the dangers of said traffic.

Now, all this talk about “taking the lane”: more rubbish. It only makes sense in very limited cases. Mostly, it’s just putting oneself in a difficult and risky position. Particularly where cycling isn’t seen as “normal”, because drivers will see the cyclist as arrogant, blocking or slowing down traffic etc. – which to too many drivers equals the legitimation to harass, make close passes etc.

Better “hug the curb”. On most roads, riding on the line will give you at least 30 cm of asphalt on your one side, and as drivers will tend to keep a safe distance to the line (most of them not really knowing how wide their car is and therefore erring on the safe side), dangerous passes will be very few. In the streets? Pray for segregated bike lanes, clearly marked bike lanes along the car lanes and 20 mph speed limits.

Nothing else will make biking “normal” and bring out the mass of potential cyclists.

I often try linking to the various studies that show the reality of the situation, but I fear the attitude adjustment that’s needed is more emotional than rational. Fear overwhelms facts – if a cyclist believes there are lots of scary monsters on the road that are out to kill cyclists, no amount of proof that there aren’t is going to prevail. To a person scared of traffic, every driver is a potential killer, and every report of cyclists killed on the road (no matter how rare) is evidence to support the fear.

The fact that most cyclists who are killed are killed in an intersection while cycling on a sidewalk or segregated infrastructure (or while cycling illegally – i.e. on the road against traffic) is either not reported or ignored.

Most advocates for segregated facilities are focusing on the urban environment. But urban streets are where traffic speeds and motorist expectations are conducive to integrated cycling. And where integrated cycling is the best method of avoiding the frequent risk areas (from turning conflicts to dooring). Cycling is already easy downtown. Segregating bicyclists creates a whole host of movement conflicts which need to be mitigated by increasing delay for everyone. That makes the trip times longer. Or it increases scofflaw behavior. This then changes motorist expectations creating hostility, resentment and backlash. At the same time, it reinforces the unfounded fear of integrated cycling, limiting the usefulness of the bicycle for those it purports to serve.

We should be fixing what doesn’t work in the interest of helping existing bicyclists instead of breaking what does work in the interest of creating a symbolic lure for would-be bicyclists.

I don’t rule out the usefulness of trails in independent rights-of-way (I rather like them; I also like bicycle boulevards and connector paths which allow cyclists to better use the local street network), or even well-designed and well-maintained sidepaths in some very limited circumstances (high-speed arterials with very limited cross-street access and no driveways), but the vast majority of American transportation cycling is done (and must be done) on streets with many unsignalized cross streets and driveways. Bike lanes and cycle tracks along such streets present cyclists with more real conflicts than straightforward, integrated bicycle driving does.

Those who support segregating cyclists and motorists are in effect (whether they realize it or not) striving to reduce perceived conflicts (from overtaking motorists) while increasing the much more common REAL conflicts from turning and crossing vehicles.