An interesting perspective from @rossatkin. However he makes a number of assumptions that, to my mind, demand a response.

1) the idea that cyclists want infrastructure on any street with ‘more than a trickle’. Well, there are always some who want the moon on a stick, but most... https://twitter.com/TransportXtra/status/1197483781877370880

... I suggest, want a sensible approach which starts with a classification of streets /roads and a systematic approach to identifying and responding to risks by designing out errors and bad road use as much as possible.
...

What this leads to is a widespread combination of self-enforced low motor traffic speeds, filtered permeability measures, pedestrian only zones, school streets etc as the primary and dominant measure.
...

Cycle infrastructure is therefore reserved for the busiest roads that are also important for cycling.

2) Dismissing the comparison between uncontrolled side streets and bus stop bypasses is wrong. There is considerably more risk to disabled people at side roads, yet...

... I don’t hear him saying side road junctions should be opposed. Well actually the cycling community also feels those risks and lobbies to filter side roads or design them in ways that emphasise pedestrian priority. This can be achieved while introducing cycle infrastructure...

3) Bus stop bypasses are indeed a compromise and in many cases they should certainly be better designed. There should be clear pedestrian priority across the cycle tracks and a single point of crossing that incorporates tactile paving or detectable kerbs. There should also be...

... sufficient space on the island for all who need to wait for, board and alight buses. Where it is necessary to introduce shared space - not ideal - it should be clear, using different surfaces and give way lines, that pedestrians have priority in that space.

4) Ross seems to think that cyclists as a group are ignorant of the needs of people with disabilities. Perhaps I am wrong to suggest in response that this isn’t true and that the majority are aware and do make adjustments. The minority, as ever, will not behave considerately...

... in any circumstance, in which case we should ban drivers from having roads as well, because cars insulate even the best drivers from what is happening around them.
...

5) The final point I want to raise is the idea that cycling is a ‘choice’. Well, maybe but I would argue that it is a necessary choice if we are to address a wide range of issues, not the least of which are obesity, heart disease and diabetes, all of which can lead to...

... disability. The gradual loss of mobility, the risk of diabetic amputations and sight loss are all things that could be substantially addressed if only people felt they could choose to cycle. And why the emphasis on cycling rather than walking? ...

... Because with less effort than walking or running a cyclist can travel further and gain more utility from their mode of transport.

There is another argument that Ross doesn’t mention but which also deserves attention. It is related to the idea that Dutch people drive just as much as British people. What is often said is that cycle tracks take from bus priority. I certainly ‘feel’ this as a bus user myself...

... and the last thing I want is for buses to be so delayed that they are no longer a choice. But I think we need to look more widely than bus lanes and consider traffic management instead. So many door to door car journeys could be cycled instead (ref TfL research)....

... A combination of filtered permeability, restrictions on parking supply, car free development, pay as you go driving, city car clubs, caps on minicab licences, last mile zero carbon freight consolidation and distribution systems and so on should lead to reduced car use...

... overall. A transport planning approach that uses a combination of low cost measures and high quality interventions should be designed to facilitate uptake of walking and cycling. This would be combined with road danger reduction measures and good design to increase...

... accessibility options for people of all abilities. Every scheme should be subject to an accessibility audit procedure independently carried out, a procedure that systematically learns from experience and genuinely includes people with disabilities.