“Shared space” just means the legalisation of cycling on the pavement. If you think the former is OK, then you think the latter is OK. They’re the same thing.

Statistics have nothing to do with it. Cycling organisations sometimes talk as if they accept – pro tem – that cycling on the pavement is illegal, but in fact they can’t quite see why they shouldn’t muscle in on our territory as long as we’re not injured too often, and as long as we’re hardly ever killed. The problem with this is that they don’t really understand what pavements are for. Pavements are for everybody: old, young, including very young, blind, slow, incompetent, stupid, everything. We walk at very different speeds, some very slowly indeed, some of us uncertainly due to advanced age, disability or ill health; we stop, we forget things, we suddenly turn back; we move sideways across the pavement to enter someone’s front garden or to talk to a friend. In summary, we are unpredictable and amateurish in our behaviour. And this is fine, since there can hardly be a qualification to use the pavement since it’s the only way of getting anywhere on foot.

And what does this tell us? What it should tell us is that the pavement is not simply a route for travelling. It is quite different to the road.

The road is solely for travelling, and it is reasonable to require all kinds of rules, training, skill tests and codes of behaviour, since without all of these there would be mayhem. Bringing road users onto the pavement completely ruins this system, making the pavement part of the road. This completely changes the character of the pavement, and much for the worse as far as pedestrians are concerned.

There’s also a weird displaced-religion saving-the-planet idea that we need more cyclists by any means necessary, and if anyone objects to these extra cyclists making a nuisance of themselves, then those objectors are evidently not true believers and their views don’t count. There’s no-one more intolerant than a liberal. Strength through Hoy! Or you just pretend that it’s a tiny minority and that nothing has really changed at all. Ha!

The problem is that there are more cars than in previous years and plenty of bad driving, and the relationship between cars and cyclists has degenerated. The solution is to sort this out, however, not to take the easy option of just stealing other people’s territory. One hugely overdue requirement is compulsory training. Anyone who thinks compulsory training isn’t necessary should watch the way cyclists behave on London Bridge, for example. I’m amazed someone isn’t injured there every day. As for car drivers, they evidently need to be much more aware of, and tolerant of, cyclists, and you can’t just stick this in the driving test. It’s a whole mindset. I think part of the answer is that you shouldn’t be allowed to learn to drive a car until you have passed your bicycle test. It needs a whole culture change.

Personally, I would also remove most cycle lanes, unless it is a fast road. Cycle lanes work fine as long as there are no drains, potholes, parked cars, delivery vans or people turning left, and as long as cyclists never turn right. Cyclists are road users and they should use the road. Richard Ballantine’s injunction to “ride big” was the best advice I ever had.

Nor would I spend trillions on special cycle paths. On fast roads, yes, absolutely; but on normal roads, it shouldn’t be necessary. As for the Venus fly trap system above, what on earth is that?!

However you sort out what happens on the road, that is where the problem, and the solution, lies. Hiding from the traffic amongst old ladies, small children and everyone in between is just miserably dishonest and cowardly, whatever term you refer to it by.