City of London criticises Mayor's Quietways for directing cyclists into historic streets full of pedestrians

They seem to have missed the point that even confident, fast, lycra'd cyclists can feel intimidated by heavy traffic on roads designed exclusivly for motor-traffic.

Until cycling is priotitised as the go-to method of transport as it is in the Netherlands no meaningful change will be achieved. Policy and road design should be aimed at modifying behaviours. In the UK roads are designed in response to demand so more cars = more car centric design. As cycling becomes more popular we are starting to see a slight shift in thinking but it is purely reactive rather than proactive.

"Iain Simmons, the City of London’s assistant director for city transportation, told TransportXtra the proposed Quietway routes in the City were “the best that meet the technical criteria for Quietways, being the least trafficked” and had been agreed by officers at a meeting with TfL in December."

So, firstly you decide we need something called quietways to encourage cycling, then decide where they should go based on where they already are, and not whether they will actually encourage (or be safe for) cycling.

"He added: “The streets with the lowest volumes of motor traffic tend to be more historic, less direct, and generally narrower. This has the impact of directing cyclists into areas that are often full with pedestrians.”"

And yet there isn't a problem bringing pedestrians into conflict with motor vehicles? Maybe this is why TfL are responsible for 1 KSI every day by buses alone...

"As we reported late last year, According to the London assembly: “The proposed Quietway routes are aimed at those who would like to cycle now, but are put off by having to do it on busy roads."

Great, so people have to choose between riding miles out of their way or chancing their lives. Change the busy roads - make them less busy and create high quality, prioritised segregation and people will ride without fear.

Well the city has some form when it comes to crap infrastructure. An example would be narrowing (yes narrowing) cheapside which is a major bus route so that there is no way a vehicle can overtake a bike if traffic is in the oncoming lane. Combine this with traffic islands just in front of bus stops (you overtake a bus pulled in at the stop, it pulls out on you and you are forced into the traffic island).
Anyway, as I said earlier I live in hope.

It's not completely daft, but:

1. I wish they would't go on about the kind of cyclist they want, and de-Lycrafying cycling. Yes, we want to attract more people to cycle; but don't turn it into politicians judging which cyclists are 'good' and which are 'bad'.

2. In the Netherlands, people cycle because it's safe and convenient (direct) - there are cycle routes everywhere there are roads. I'm not convinced that you're going to encourage people to cycle by giving them roundabout routes. People may be nervous about cycling, but that is not the same as them wanting to go slowly or take a long time to get where they're going.

They may have a point, there are narrow quiet streets in london that are effectivly pedestrian areas, and I find it very frustrating trying to pass the slow moving people, who are just ambling along, and who change direction without looking, and thats just when i'm walking, I couldn't imagine what it would be like on a bike.

As above - if these are in fact "streets" then there will be much larger and more dangerous traffic for pedestrians to deal with.

This would be an opportunity for the City to integrate some shared space between pedestrians and cyclists.

I've read the original quote, and I don't see any criticism. It was an observation, and a fairly obvious one.

"this has the impact of directing cyclists into areas that are often full with pedestrians"

Someone will undoubtably have prepared a lengthy risk assessment, whilst someone else in the future will be paid to analyse accident rates for any deviation from the historical norm. But that does make it all sound terribly dull doesn't it?

I would never in a million years describe the embankment or upper Thames street (an HGV infested death trap) as "quiet".
One can only live I hope.

But there are cars on these routes? They're happy to mix pedestrians with cars, but not bikes?

I must have mis-understood...