Excellently put, Simon, and no less than I would expect ... except for just one little detail. 'Transport in cities'? Don't forget that we hicks out in the sticks also see a future for cycling, well away from the urban sprawls. I reckon that in my 2-mile commute which stays entirely within the built-up area but takes me entirely across town from one side to the other, is also me 'doing my bit' and me telling the folks of Burgess Hill that 'I'm a cyclist and better believe it'. Better put would be '...in cities, towns, villages and the countryside'. A minor detail, maybe, but one we notice...simon l& and a half said:
Sustrans? Easy to knock it but it has a purpose. Just that the existing 'facilities'* are so often a farce, we just love to decry the tree-in-the-middle, the right-angle-bend, the "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT", all that crap. Simple fact is, four times out of five, I'm trying to put across the pleasures of cycling to a non-cyclist, time and again I get the stock answer "if only there were completely traffic-free routes...". Try as I might to insist, "...but cycling in traffic is nowhere near as deadly as the media portray it", I know I'm just not winning the argument. I venture to suggest that even Simon L doesn't win the argument every time. Do you? Even Roger Geffen doesn't win the argument every time, I reckon. I wish it were otherwise. If every motorist knew and observed a few simple rules, we'd be 100% safe, and then we'd win this argument.
*One thing preying on my mind: I know we're very fond of using the portmanteau word 'farcility': probably invented by the cycling fraternity, I'd suggest avoiding that word (though I have used it one or twice, myself). Why? Well, portmanteaus are generally ugly and indicative of a paucity of expression. But, more importantly, a certain cagers' site we all know and
