Looks like a euphemism for segregation, then. And do you not worry about the connotations of having to "protect" cyclists and give them "refuges" as they go about their normal business? These are words about fear. If we, or pedestrians, need refuges, then we ought to be controlling the thing that we are taking refuge from.
Pedestrians already have refuges, with footways alongside most major roads and protected in law (although enforcement is currently rather weak and even worse outside London). Yes, these are words about fear, but fear is almost a bigger reason not to cycle than the actual dangers - look at the Get Britain Cycling report for a reminder.
Protection is no euphemism for segregation. I don't want to change the cyclists that find mixing in with motor vehicles works well for them and I will do my best to defend our right to the roads. No cycleway network will go everywhere or accommodate every cycle type, no more than the motorway network does for motor vehicles, so we will still need the roads.
I agree that we ought to be controlling the motor vehicles better, but that's the beauty of things: we don't have to campaign for just one thing. The Die In has a list of ten demands.