Producing "proper" cycle infrastructure would involve massive roadworks and demolitions.Disruption to what, exactly?
I disagree, get more people out there cycling and people will see that it really isnt that dangerous. Its not the old folk I see riding on the pavements.The only way you will ever get Old Mrs Smith to cycle to the shops is if there are no cars. Hence dedicated facilities are essential.
I actually think the weather and cycle storage (at both ends) are a bigger disincentive. The car in your drive is much easier to leap in than the bike locked away in the garage (if the property has anywhere to securely store a bike) and it gets nicked at the other end.
People do cycle without dedicated infrastructure.It is doable. The Netherlands didn’t have many cycling paths until the ‘70s. It is not that hard to convert parts of pavements or a lane to a separated cycle path. My main problem with British cycle paths (not only a British problem, also in France for example) is that junction design is very bad.
People won’t cycle if there aren’t good facilities. So dedicated infrastructure is necessary
Converted pavements are a bodge, and get ignored by most cyclists - too many pedestrians and dogs getting in the way, too much broken glass, too many obstructions, too many places where you have to give way.
Even if segregated cyclepaths are given priority over roads at junctions they are dangerous because of the viewing angle involved, its actually safer to have an on-road cycle lane.
Most of our urban infrastructure is too space restricted for cohesive segregated cycle infrastructure, and if its not cohesive its slower than staying on the road.
The Netherlands has way more space for separate lanes, and far more open sight lines.