What is it about cycling that destroys some people’s sense of proportion? As London fractionally reduces space for cars, and fractionally increases space for cyclists and pedestrians, some influential figures have quite seriously compared it to world war two.

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor of the exchequer, says that the building of segregated cycle superhighways is “doing more damage to London than almost anything since the Blitz.” Nick Ferrari, the radio presenter, says that “this damned superhighway … is doing more damage to London than the Luftwaffe.” The London Blitz killed 25,000 people. Now there is another rhetorical hundred-bomber raid in progress about something which ought not to be that controversial. As part of a cycle superhighway scheme from Swiss Cottage to the West End, the Mayor and the Royal Parks are proposing to close four of the eight traffic gates to Regent’s Park to motors (except between 11am and 3pm, when all eight gates would be open). You’d still be able to drive into the park at any time, but it would be harder to use it as a through route. The idea is to restore one of the world’s great parks from a rat-run for through traffic to what Nash designed it as, a place of recreation and tranquility. The scheme would also remove a particularly hideous and dangerous gyratory at Swiss Cottage, creating a new public space outside the library which people have wanted for years. Vast numbers of non-cyclists – the millions from around the world who visit Regent’s Park, and everyone who walks in Swiss Cottage – would benefit. There’s even a win for motorists. Because they wouldn’t have to go round the gyratory, southbound car journeys would actually be quicker. The proposals are out for public consultation until Sunday.

Alas, much of the opposition seems to be based on a largely-imagined scheme, quite different to the one we’re proposing. They’ve even got the route wrong. An invitation to a protest meeting – sent out by a solicitor, no less – claims that Finchley Road will be “a cycle superhighway [where] you will only have access to two lanes shared with buses.” The superhighway will not run on Finchley Road at any point.

The actor, Tom Conti, says the scheme will go to Brent Cross, meaning that “the whole area will be destroyed” with a “solid queue to Hatfield.” There was an aspiration to do a scheme to Brent Cross, but it has not been pursued. The scheme proposed will not go to Brent Cross, or within five miles of it.

A Tory GLA candidate, Dan Thomas, says that supposed banned turns will “seal off Hampstead”. Those turns will not be banned and there was never any suggestion that they would be.

There is in fact only one major piece of engineering in this scheme, the removal of the gyratory. The rest of it consists of closing some gates to a park. In the unlikely event that this causes the traffic meltdown some predict, we can just reopen the gates.

The reason for this excursion into north London geography and politics is to illustrate something which applies across the UK: if you want cycling improvements, you have to keep fighting for them. Stuff may be happening in London, but we in City Hall cannot keep it going on our own. It is only the overwhelming public support of ordinary Londoners that has brought the cycling programme this far.

Our opponents may believe that “everyone” drives. In fact, only 7% of Londoners drive in the centre once a week or more; 71% never do.

That is part of the reason why the scheme that so upset Lord Lawson – the mayor’s flagship east-west superhighway, now nearing completion along the Embankment - got 84% support in the public consultation and 64% support in an independent YouGov opinion poll, even when respondents were reminded that it might delay traffic. A UK-wide poll last month showed 71% support for segregated cycle routes.

Cycling improvements, in short, are massively popular, including with non-cyclists. Everyone who gets on a bike is freeing up space for someone else on the bus, or the train, or indeed the roads. Everyone who cycles is improving not just their own health but other people’s health, because bikes do not cause pollution. Our improvements are not just about cycling. They are about breathing. But we need to keep saying all that to new sets of politicians, including the new faces vying to take over the mayoralty, otherwise the antis are the only people they hear. And we need to recognise that our opponents, too, are becoming craftier. Opposition to cycling used to be based around themes such as: “I want to drive and park wherever I like” or “Why should cyclists affect my clearly much more important journey?” But of course this risks sounding a little harsh: not a good look in our PR-conscious times. So the Regent’s Park protestors, for instance, have held up banners telling us that reducing traffic would, er, “ruin” air quality. Opponents of the “mini-Holland” traffic-calming in Waltham Forest claimed that it was a conspiracy against the poor by middle-class cyclists, rather neglecting the fact that poor people don’t drive cars.

One group in New Malden even warned that a cycle path above a water main would allow terrorists to poison the water supply. It had to be pointed out that most main roads in London run above water mains.

It’s encouraging, in a way, that our opponents feel the need to dress up their arguments like this. It’s certainly telling that many of the Regent’s Park people can only oppose that scheme by misrepresenting it. But what it all means is that though a lot’s been achieved in London, no-one can afford to relax. The campaigning momentum needs to be sustained, both in Regents Park and in the mayoral elections, or the loud voices of the naysayers could still be heard over the majority for human streets.