Colin McKenzie wrote:
On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:52:10 +0100, spindrift

Many of the existing cycle network routes follow residential streets
and, in the outer boroughs, bridleways / footpaths. In many ways I'm
surprised to see the proposed routes following major roads and
keeping well clear of the quieter and safer options,

One of the better aspects (or maybe the only good aspect) of the
Superhighway proposal is that it uses direct routes. If you're
commuting, you want a direct, uninterrupted route. With few
exceptions, back-street routes are too indirect and slow. There are
of course some direct off-road routes (e.g. the towpath) but their
capacity for high-speed cycling is low.

Cycling and high streets don't mix IMO, because of the behaviour of parking
cars and people climbing in and out of them. Many back-street direct routes
have been scuppered for road traffic in various ways in recent decades and
have become decent cycle routes in the process: these could be joined
together to create proper fast safe relatively car-free routes across London
if there was the will to build numerous cycle tunnels or bridges over
railways, demolishing several houses in the process. A plan called "cycle
superhighways" only makes sense if the ride speed and safety are so high
that cyclists will go out of their way to use the highway rather than a more
direct route, in the way that car drivers will prefer a circuitous motorway
to a direct B-road. I'm not convinced this plan does that - if anything, it
makes it less likely that the bridges to join up the back street routes will
ever be built.