Well, for some reason I'm having trouble posting - but here is what I wrote earlier. It might serve some purpose - muddy the waters/show my colours/piss in the wind.
Crankarm said:
Simply encouraging more cyclists to cycle without pushing hard for improving facilities and strenghtening the law and enforcement is just going to increase the numbers seriously injured or killed.
It may seem like putting the cart before the horse but as with so many aspects of modern life a counter-intuitive, seemingly superficial solution may be the only sensible way to effect a change over the behaviour of the millions of people that commute each day. I think the CTC's campaign is probably the most direct route to improving cycling infrastructure and the individual cyclists position in law and society.
The larger the number of cyclists commuting the greater the political power we will carry to improve facilities. Also our voices will be louder and more clearly heard when we call for the enforcement of current law and new legislation.
A large increase in the number of cyclists on the road is also the most effective way of increasing other road users awareness of cyclists and thus our safety. I believe that even with the huge increase in cyclist numbers in London over recent years there has been an actual drop in the number of injuries, not just the injury rate. (I'm also aware that the relevant statistics can be cherry picked to show that since one specific year the situation has worsened.) An increase in cycling accompanied by a decrease in injuries has certainly been the case in other places around the world.
I think the policy of increasing the presence and numbers of cyclists on the roads does more for cyclists and reinforces itself and its purpose more than any other measure possibly could. Compare the Safety in Numbers campaign to the coordinated introduction of engineered and legislative solutions designed to benefit cyclists and others that rely on funding to construct, funding to maintain, funding to enforce, political and public will to construct, maintain and enforce, that also rely on intelligent implementation and a reliance on road users behaving in a reliably consistent and predictable manner* and I would say the chances of a positive, effective result lie with the CTC's current stategy.
*I have always found the drivers of south London to be incredibly ingenious at finding ways of negating such benefits -
enforcement of bus lanes = more left hooks from lanes 2 + 3
traffic calming to lower speeds on the carriageway = drive on the pavement
traffic cameras = unregistered pool car
ANPR systems = cloned car
.
The likelihood that an individual cyclist will be struck by a motorist falls with increasing rate of bicycling in a community. 
