Highways England's Cycling Strategy short on detail and funds

"it will begin by reviewing the existing cycle network"

This will take about a day and a half, because this so-called "network" does not exist in any meaningful way and consists of a miniscule number of sh1t paths and a few miles of decent-ish paths.

I predict that, despite this, this "reviewing" stage will take years and cost millions siphoned off the uselessly tiny budget.

And other than £100m being a pittance, how will they ensure the lanes start and end properly, don't have bollards on, aren't next to heavy plant growth that will block the path, don't give way to side roads and be wide enough - including wide enough for a road-sweeper vehicle to drive along, etc.

This strategy needs to form part of a wider government plan covering both infrastructure - (all roads not just A roads) and behaviour.  There is lots of evidence of the need for safer roads to increase cycling levels for both health and environmental reasons.  One of the most important aspects of that is changing the behaviour of all road users to focus on safety (including the behaviour of cyclists and pedestrians).   This will need a series of coherent changes to the law and sentencing, presumed liability may well be part of that.  In my opinion there is no point of the threat of prison unless there has been reckless or aggressive behaviour.  I've witnessed the charade of the defendant turning up for sentencing with their suitcase 'expecting' to go to prison for careless driving. However where an accident results in injury or death, the competence of the driver is compromised and they should be taken off the road promptly and be re-tested to earn their licence back.  Some whine about the financial impact of the loss of the licence for a driver - taking risks with other road users lives needs to become socially  unacceptable (as drinking and driving is).  There seems to be little consideration of the impact of an accident on vulnerable road users.  In the case of a death there are usually dozens of family and friends whose lives will never be the same again.

At the moment we have dozens of local and central government departments - no single point at which pressure can be applied.  As for cycling we have the various bodies CTC, British Cycling, Road Peace and many local groups who do excellent work.  But I think we might get more done  with a single set of representatives supported by the various cycling and safety bodies pushing government into  appointing a single department who is responsible for getting something done.  Now is a good time to act - the prestence of 'clean diesel' is over.

for all the talk of new roads, how about a very radical thought! fix the roads we have!

From a cycling point of view a large proportion of the existing network verges on dangerous not just because of cars, but because of the road surface, cracks, potholes that sort of thing. 

I am well aware that repair is not as sexy as new, that no one ever got the publicity by saying they kept the road smooth! That cap-ex and maintanance are two separate pots of money.

All the governments investment will mean, is that in a few years there will be more potholed substandard roads to add to the decades long road repair list.  

Road planners in this country start from the position that motor vehicles are the 'default setting' and that cycling is  a recreational activity rather than a method of transport.  Unless this position is challenged then there will be no effort made to make the roads safer for all users and the only cycle facilities provided will get you from the middle of nowhere to the outskirts but no further.

"cycling facilities .... separate from traffic"

Bikes ARE traffic!!  Until they get this through their thick skulls there will be no progress.

Highways England aren't responsible for the UK's A-road network. Their remit is England (hence the name) and it is only the strategic road network, a mere 4,400 miles of road. About half of which are motorways. I think that this is a positive start, but to be honest the majority of cycle infrastructure should come from local authorities as most cycle journeys are short and within urban environments. So the real question is, why a strategic highway authority can ring fence funds for cycling when local councils refuse to do so

How to combat decades of underinvestment? Continued underinvestment.

It'd be funny if it wasnt so tragic.

5% would be good 10% stupendous. 1% will take decades to improve the network if you can call it a network