Three years ago I took this photo in Bottisham near Cambridge in the UK. It shows the UK's National Cycle Network route 51 distance from Bottisham to Newmarket as being 15 miles in length (turn left here) while the road route for cars is just 6 miles (turn right).
How is anyone going to see cycling as a convenient way of getting anywhere if cycle routes are indirect ? In this case the distance is over double the distance by bike as by car.
Cycling needs to be convenient. Dutch planners know that and you tend to see the opposite on sign posts in this country: Shorter routes for cyclists than for drivers.
The second set of signs are positioned on the route between Assen and Groningen. From this point, the indicated distances on the cycle routes are shorter than those on the driving routes for three out of the four destinations on the boards, and the same for the fourth destination.
Make it safe and make it convenient. That's surely what you do if you want to attract people to cycling.
Car-Sick Glasgow | Documenting the atrocious conditions for cyclists and pedestrians in Scotland's largest city
Glasgow builders: out of control
3 hours ago