to be fair, I'm also not sure what argument could change my mind so we're really just chatting around the subject to no end.
Demonstrations of civility are never to no end. Ditto Honesty. But I understand that changing minds does not principally occur on forums like this- it occurs sometimes with foreign travel, or there are moments after being hit by a car despite doing everything precisely by the book. That contributed in my case, but I date my 'conversion' to the realisation that the Dutch got where they are through political action, in my lifetime, and not through there being something funny in the water.
A lot of talk is that we are in a bit of a cycling golden age again, I'm not sure that segregation can take much of the credit for that.
A golden age is a weird thing to declare when national mode share is pretty match static at the level it dropped to after the fifties, but there is always considearble commercial pressure to declare one, if only to sell books. Inside that overall picture of static mode share, what we are currently seeing is more cycling in Urban areas and less in the Rural. Why?
Well yes, you are quite right that there are a variety of factors that seem to be at play, and that segregated provision in urban areas can't claim general credit for this slopping-around-in-thebowl.
Mostly (and with a few documented exceptions with local impact), that provision is of such low quality and extent that it is hard to see how it could have had an impact on mode shares, but the ew/ns schemes are substantially nearer in style to Dutch provision. One factor at play in cycling going down in rural areas and up in urban is that while the cycling demographic associated with UK conditions remains fairly constant (disproportionately fit, male, well educated) there have been trends in where this demographic lives. This is part of what has happened in London in general and Hackney in particular. But also Hackney has applied filtered permeability seriously- technique that was part of the Dutch revolution in the 70's. They are to be congratulated on that, but the mad part is that they think it's an either or question: segregation on main roads and filtered perm elsewhere are techniques that are meant to complement each other. Lastly the congestion charge and terrorism have both had discernable impact- though there is all the difference in the world between doubling a 2% mode share of restricted demographic and actually realising mass cycling.
(I cycle past miles of cycle lanes/shared use that would do me no benefit to use on my various commute routes) or penalised for having an accident while not using it. All of that might be a worthwhile risk if the benefits were going to be good enough, and that's where you make the judgement call, I don't think the benefits are good enough.
On this, it matters vitally that you be able to discern the differences between the schemes proposed. So I can only suggest you educate yourself to a point of discernment, and, with luck, and the flavour of your remarks there's no reason why you couldn't do that. You will however attract implacable hatred from some quarters if you confess to furthering your researches through some channels, so either curtail yourself to only considering the opinions of DZ, or acquire a thick skin and read up.
