You mean after CTC took Cyclecraft bias seriously and systematically downplayed the infrastructure role? Dunno, maybe you could start listening to cycling embassy people instead of dismissing them out of hand.
The Embassy have a few problems to surmount here - in my view;
1) The "cum hoc, ergo propter hoc" nature of the central argument for infrastructure. (As remarked previously, I think, the Dutch began with a higher level of cycling, and have been spending without a huge increase (although still one that would make many here envious, and there are cultural differences too).
2) The fact that British designed and built infrastructure is generally poor, badly maintained, rarely linked - and because of that there's a huge lack of belief in it as an end[1]. (And the argument that the new stuff will be "good quality" generally comes across as special pleading, if not what we've heard from our councils for years)
An antipathy towards infrastructure is often described as "bias", when, if you've ridden any of it in the UK, it's a perfectly defensible, evidence and experience based position to hold. The leap of faith here surely comes from the segregationists, who want us to believe that the same councils, highways engineers &c cresponsible for the largely dire stuff we have now can produce something that isn't at best useless, or at worst dangerous.[2]
3) The willingness of (some) of them to dismiss enthusiasts as an irrelevant minority[3] "We are speaking to/for the millions that don't cycle". Which may be so, but some are quite willing to abandon all measures around vehicular cycling, even as a stop gap to keep current cyclists riding while the utopia is built.
4) Civilising the roads fits into, and allows us to make common cause with, the aims of other movements for road danger reduction. Segregation fits more readily into the old "Road Safety" paradigm, in which people are kept out of the way of motor traffic.
[1] although often cited as what "non-cyclists want" it's interesting that new cyclists will usually be ignoring the crappy bits of green paint within a few months of beginning.
[2] Again, to be fair, I think one of the central planks of the CEGB is minimum design standards for infrastructure, that are properly enforceable.
[3] Is a recurrent trope from some ardent segregationists (not those associated with CEGB, necessarily) - I've noted Copenhagenize's sneering contempt for "sport" cyclists, bicycles &c on my own little corner of the web before. The zealots are convinced that they don't need "us", so I suppose in that sense it doesn't really matter.
Interestingly, David Hembrow is a lot less po facedly "STOP ENJOYING YOURSELF" on this score - a number of his posts talk about speed (for both commuting and leisure) and what he sees as the misconception that Dutch paths are for leisurely pottering and nothing else.
