"Cycle lanes tend to reduce the perception of danger, whilst actually increasing it" - a bad sentence. It's not clear what your "it" refers to, so you could mean "cycle lanes reduce the perception of danger, while actually increasing the perception of danger". What you actually mean is something like "cycle lanes reduce the perception of danger, while actually increasing the danger itself".
There are some other examples of slightly sloppy sentence construction. Yes, I know the wrong reading is absurd, but if you have to read a sentence twice to make sure you've understood it, it needs re-writing.
You consider types of cycle lane towards the end of the article. But near the beginning, you offer criticisms of cycle facilities. Some of these criticisms apply only to some types of facilities. Maybe the article would be more effective if you defined your terms (on-road cycle lane, with and without hard divider, off-road cycle path, shared-use path, etc), and then delivered your criticism of the different types.
I like the article, but who is it aimed at? Who do you want to read it? You might want to re-cast some sections to suit the "target audience". As cyclists, we know exactly what you're on about; a different audience might struggle in one or two places.
Glad you got in the link to Warrington's gallery. That's almost an indictment of cycle "facilities" on its own.