I thought this was commuting?

@chrisonabike A lot of that isnt needed. why is there a need to add in more infrastructure in this case?

@GMBasix indeed - there are conflicts between "good transport design" and both institional motivations (police making it easier for themselves) but also the overall "criminal safety" brief. In a (much) smaller fashion as there's a fundamental conflict between "freedom to get around by driving" (even in accordance with the licence conditions) and public health and safety (including from "real crime"), to say nothing of costs, ability of non-motorists to get around etc. I would hope that much of "how designing for active travel changes crime patterns" could be resolved by reference to "how it works elsewhere" *. But it's another case of "change *does* mean things do not stay exactly as they are now". * eg the "social safety" design features of non-motor infra elsewhere and how police do police those spaces.

@wtjs He was not on his phone, not drunk, not speeding and it was not an illegal manoeuvre so there were no grounds for an immediate jail sentence. Not least as the government is currently releasing some offenders for all but the worst crimes as there isn't room in prison for them all now. Maybe a longer driving ban and compulsory retest would have been more appropriate for this offence

Opposing this sort of route fits with the "Secure by Design" ethos. Local police teams are frequently consulted on larger planning/transport schemes (as a lot of colloquially dubbed "statutory consultees" are). Secure by Design has a lockdown feel to it. Some of it is good security-conscious design; but some of it is somewhat unsubstantiated but nevertheless prescriptive stuff that needs to be weighed with other considerations using open eyes. They like interwoven cul-de-sacs which limit rat-running escape routes; they don't like interconnecting paths that allow illegal PTWs to escape the feds. You can see why that makes sense to them, but they don't apply their community policing head which should include community cohesion, connectivity and wellbeing. Secure by Design needs binning or overhauling. It is not fit for purpose. If the police think riders are going to escape, they need to equip and train themselves to deal with spaces as they are, not try to dictate a fortress mentality.

@Smoggysteve overall I'm with you here and the stats in from other places show this isn't an issue in the long term (eg. IIRC the Netherlands is the safest country for pedestrians). However to get there is "change". Since we don't all get courses in new infra / rules that certainly means "confusion" and "concern". After all people still make mistakes with car infrastructure, which we've had decades of very bitter experience to learn. The UK is only at the start of a transition (well, a few parts, hopefully...). Not only do people "not expect" cyclists (because few) but UK authorities make this needlessly harder by a) "building" cycle infra by mixing modes (eg. putting up signs on pedestrian infra / directing cyclists into bus lanes) and b) when making the "actual" built cycle infra it's non-standard. (As well as inconvenient and sometimes dangerous for all). Particularly it's not clearly marked. Contrast eg. NL - while not all separated cycle infra there is the same, it is normally pretty standard and clearly marked (red asphalt most places). And their road safety / design system includes the principles of *predictability* and homogeneity. So everyone knows where to expect cyclists. And they aren't likely to design a major cycling through route down the middle of a narrow / busy shopping street.

Kingston upon Thames, one of the most prosperous shopping towns, has no problem with cyclists going through a very busy pedestrian zone. I notice that the cyclists automatically ride slowly and carefully in the pedestrian area.

Would a penny farthing (or other tallbike) be better at scaring off bears ("bigger") or would that just be an invitation to a game of human pinyata?

@mdavidford apparently even Svalbard has more days with >= 12 hours of daylight than not (although the weather might not help with this). I guess it depends what time they're setting off across the ice to work. Of course Svalbard is apparently the "regular" place (eg. not Antarctic research station) with the longest period without any sunlight. Also some thought to what colour is less likely to attract polar bears might come into it also.

@chrisonabike Perhaps they've confused the UK and Svalbard - easily done - both islands off the northwest of Europe.

@cardch To think that the colour of one's backpack will make any difference is insane. If you don't have adequate lights and reflectives, that's insane, if you do and a car driver can't see you it's because they are not looking and the colour of your backpack won't make the slightest difference.