in central London (Southwark borough). Crossing traffic has an extra give-way before crossing the cycle path.
Note also this is an A-road with a 20 mph limit.
Nice example of a good design in the UK. Minor remark from a Dutchman: ideally a cut-off would be added between the cycle path and the main road opposite Nicholson Street. That would save a strange manoeuvre when turning left from Nicholson Street and that means more cyclists on the cycle path instead of the main road.
In the example you linked to there wasn't really a space between the junction and the cycle path (hence the recommended 5m with give way lines and triangles etc)
The space over there is sufficient for cars to wait, I've seen it happen frequently at exact that spot.
Maybe Netherlands cyclists are different, but here you would get cyclists hammering along that would be a problem for drivers to spot (and wouldn't slow down because they have priority), and you would get drivers who didnt want to stop (or didnt realise they were supposed to).
Dutch cyclists don't 'hammer' along a path. Maybe our disagreement stems from the fact that many current cyclists in the UK are lycra-wearing people on fast cycles, not a commuter on their way to work. Average speed in the Netherlands of cyclists is about 18 km/h (11 mph, I think).
A worrying number of drivers don't stop for the very obvious zebra crossings and a worrying number of British cyclists seem to think that exercising their legal rights is more important than trying to stay alive!
That's everywhere in Europe! Everyone should be aware and paying attention of course. Using this line of reasoning it would be even more dangerous to cycle on the main road as vehicles might not have seen the cyclist in the mirror and then the cyclist has even less of an opportunity to see what the driver is doing!
From the link about Dutch cycling provision (apologies if it was yours, I forget) it seemed that quite a bit of hard cycling provision was being removed in favour of on road lanes and slow mixed streets.
Certainly not the case. The only trend towards shared spaces is on squares and in shopping streets with many pedestrians, many cyclists and some cars. Outside these areas, cycling paths are still the norm, especially along busy roads with a higher speed limit (30 mph or over). Another trend is to create 'cycle streets' which are normal streets but they seem narrower by changing the paving at the sides and are painted red. The idea is that cars slow because of the presence of the cyclists and they are discouraged from overtaking as the paving at the sides is unattractive for cycling so the cyclists are more to the middle of the road. Maybe you mean this type of street, although these are never replacing proper cycle paths or lanes.
Dutch cyclists also have the advantage of being accepted cycling all over the place - here there are vociferous groups who will demand cyclists are kept away from pedestrians ( a lot of which I believe is the envious car drivers continuing their anti cyclist crusades)
That's certainly true. As more people will cycle, more car drivers will also cycle and thus be aware. That's a main advantage over here. Every car driver will have cycled at least once in their live and will probably even cycle at least every week. I am also pro keeping cyclists away from pedestrians, as it isn't comfortable having someone cycling just behind you, but that's another argument for having proper infrastructure.
Back to the main topic: A tax on cycling will not help anyone, cyclists will get upset over the lack of proper infrastructure, and infrastructure that is present will be underutilised. That means more cars on the road than necessary and therefore nobody will be happy.
