Narrow streets?

When discussing the need for additional segregated infrastructure for people riding bikes in the city of Worcester (there's so little you've got to be in the know to find it) a common response goes as follows:

'Worcester is an ancient city, with narrow streets, there simply isn't any space for segregated infrastructure for bikes.'

This is clearly incorrect, and an attempt to construct a barrier that will cause people asking for said infrastructure to shut up, and go away. That said, some of the streets are narrow, and lined by ancient buildings; perhaps it would be better to remove cars from these locations, improve the streetscape and create a more liveable environment, and enable and encourage more walking and cycling on these streets? Just a thought, but I digress.

As a result of transport and planning policy from previous decades the reality is many of the ancient and narrow streets and historic buildings were flattened to build roads, which are now neither ancient or narrow. The car centric design approach in fact has created a series of barriers to people walking, and a challenge for those trying to navigate the city by bike; sharing the road with 4 lanes of traffic certainly keeps you on your toes.

The map highlights the number of lanes dedicated to motor vehicles in each direction on the main roads around the city centre, essentially a series of dual carriageways.

So if you're ever confronted with the 'ancient city with narrow streets' argument, please point the person parroting this line to this map, and have done an excellent job in designing roads that act as barriers to the movement of people not in cars.