Patrick Herring wrote:

But why - if the road has no attached cycle way you could go on the
road, if it does it'll be better than the road (for security anyway).
I suppose you might say that drivers will get used to not having to
think about cyclists so will be worse when they have to share, but
separate lanes will get many more cycling and we just might end up
like Holland and Denmark.


Bach, Rosbach, Joergensen. Vejdirekforatet, Denmark, 1988

Traffic safety of cycle tracks in Danish cities.
Before and after study of 105 new cycle paths in Denmark, introduced 1978-81,
totalling 64km. Cyclist casualties increased 48% following introduction of
paths.

Wegman, Dijkstra. SWOV, Netherlands, 1992.
Originally presented to Roads and Traffic 2000 conference, Berlin, 1988;
Revised version included in Still more bikes behind the dikes, CROW, 1992.

In built-up areas cycle tracks 25% safer than unsegregated road between
junctions, but 32% more dangerous at junctions. Cycle lanes 36% more dangerous
between junctions, 19% safer at junctions. Seriousness of accidents greater if
tracks or lanes present compared with no facilities. Cycle lanes narrower than
1.8m particularly hazardous.
Outside towns, cycle track safety depends on car and cycle numbers.
New cross-town routes in Den Haag and Tilburg had produced no safety gain and
had not encouraged much new cycling.

Tony