Police crackdown on pavement cyclists in Cardiff

[John Benn]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477

Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using pavements
in parts of Cardiff.

[jnugent]

On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
>
> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using pavements
> in parts of Cardiff.

When I see the results (if any) is when I will believe it's any more than an
idle threat.

[Djornsk]

On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
>
> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using pavements
> in parts of Cardiff.
>
>

As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of the
more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of transport, but
would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to how inevitably the
growth in cycling will soon come up against an infrastructure ceiling?

j

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100, djornsk > wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
> >
> > Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using
> > pavements in parts of Cardiff.
>
> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of
> the more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of
> transport, but would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to
> how inevitably the growth in cycling will soon come up against an
> infrastructure ceiling?

I don't think so - the infrastructure ceiling for bicycles is a lot
further away than the infrastructure ceiling for motor vehicles, due
to the so much lower infrastructure demands of bicycles compared to
faster, heavier, larger motor vehicles (and especially goods vehicles).
In central London, for example, it has been deemed necessary to
create an artificial pricing structure to keep out motor vehicles
(and therefore keep their numbers below the ceiling), but bicycle
numbers have increased markedly, and are actively encouraged
(borisbikes). You wouldn't implement a system whereby you encourage
and make it much easier to cycle in an area where the infrastructure
cannot accommodate more bikes.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Djornsk]

On 12/07/2012 13:37, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100, > wrote:
>> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
>>>
>>> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using
>>> pavements in parts of Cardiff.
>>
>> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of
>> the more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of
>> transport, but would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to
>> how inevitably the growth in cycling will soon come up against an
>> infrastructure ceiling?
>
> I don't think so - the infrastructure ceiling for bicycles is a lot
> further away than the infrastructure ceiling for motor vehicles, due
> to the so much lower infrastructure demands of bicycles compared to
> faster, heavier, larger motor vehicles (and especially goods vehicles).
> In central London, for example, it has been deemed necessary to
> create an artificial pricing structure to keep out motor vehicles
> (and therefore keep their numbers below the ceiling), but bicycle
> numbers have increased markedly, and are actively encouraged
> (borisbikes). You wouldn't implement a system whereby you encourage
> and make it much easier to cycle in an area where the infrastructure
> cannot accommodate more bikes.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

I see - so it's a matter of increasing restrictions on motor vehicles
in towns and cities to make room on the roads for cyclists.

So we are straight away in the realm of politics.

I wonder to what extent cyclists are riding on pavements as a politcal
act - I know they do it largely for safety reasons, but is it the added
sense that their needs are not being met which is pushing them to ignore
the rules?

j

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 12/07/2012 14:18, djornsk wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 13:37, Ian Smith wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100, > wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
>>>>
>>>> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using
>>>> pavements in parts of Cardiff.
>>>
>>> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of
>>> the more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of
>>> transport, but would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to
>>> how inevitably the growth in cycling will soon come up against an
>>> infrastructure ceiling?
>>
>> I don't think so - the infrastructure ceiling for bicycles is a lot
>> further away than the infrastructure ceiling for motor vehicles, due
>> to the so much lower infrastructure demands of bicycles compared to
>> faster, heavier, larger motor vehicles (and especially goods vehicles).
>> In central London, for example, it has been deemed necessary to
>> create an artificial pricing structure to keep out motor vehicles
>> (and therefore keep their numbers below the ceiling), but bicycle
>> numbers have increased markedly, and are actively encouraged
>> (borisbikes). You wouldn't implement a system whereby you encourage
>> and make it much easier to cycle in an area where the infrastructure
>> cannot accommodate more bikes.
>>
>> regards, Ian SMith
>
> I see - so it's a matter of increasing restrictions on motor vehicles
> in towns and cities to make room on the roads for cyclists.
>
> So we are straight away in the realm of politics.
>
> I wonder to what extent cyclists are riding on pavements as a politcal
> act - I know they do it largely for safety reasons, but is it the added
> sense that their needs are not being met which is pushing them to ignore
> the rules?

No, just that they are selfish arrogant ****s.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Ian Smith]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:18:25 +0100, djornsk > wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 13:37, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100, > wrote:
> >> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
> >>>
> >>> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using
> >>> pavements in parts of Cardiff.
> >>
> >> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of
> >> the more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of
> >> transport, but would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to
> >> how inevitably the growth in cycling will soon come up against an
> >> infrastructure ceiling?
> >
> > I don't think so - the infrastructure ceiling for bicycles is a lot
> > further away than the infrastructure ceiling for motor vehicles, due
> > to the so much lower infrastructure demands of bicycles compared to
> > faster, heavier, larger motor vehicles (and especially goods vehicles).
> > In central London, for example, it has been deemed necessary to
> > create an artificial pricing structure to keep out motor vehicles
> > (and therefore keep their numbers below the ceiling), but bicycle
> > numbers have increased markedly, and are actively encouraged
> > (borisbikes). You wouldn't implement a system whereby you encourage
> > and make it much easier to cycle in an area where the infrastructure
> > cannot accommodate more bikes.
>
> I see - so it's a matter of increasing restrictions on motor vehicles
> in towns and cities to make room on the roads for cyclists.

No. The ceiling for cyclists is much higher than current levels, even
as motor vehicle ceiling is reached.

On my commute home tonight I was alongside a substantially stationary
queue of cars for more than half the five miles. That was slightly
busier than average, but not particularly abnormal (and a lot less
busy than it often is). I very much doubt you could increase motor
traffic by even 20%. However, even with motor vehicles at that level
you could increase bicycles five or ten-fold and it wouldn't slow
anyone down.

The ceiling for cycling is much further away.

> I wonder to what extent cyclists are riding on pavements as a
> politcal act - I know they do it largely for safety reasons, but is
> it the added sense that their needs are not being met which is
> pushing them to ignore the rules?

I doubt it. I expect that they cycle on the pavement because they
think it's not safe on the road, not as a protest that it's not safe
on the roads.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[roger merriman]

djornsk > wrote:

> On 12/07/2012 13:37, Ian Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100, > wrote:
> >> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
> >>>
> >>> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using
> >>> pavements in parts of Cardiff.
> >>
> >> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of
> >> the more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of
> >> transport, but would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to
> >> how inevitably the growth in cycling will soon come up against an
> >> infrastructure ceiling?
> >
> > I don't think so - the infrastructure ceiling for bicycles is a lot
> > further away than the infrastructure ceiling for motor vehicles, due
> > to the so much lower infrastructure demands of bicycles compared to
> > faster, heavier, larger motor vehicles (and especially goods vehicles).
> > In central London, for example, it has been deemed necessary to
> > create an artificial pricing structure to keep out motor vehicles
> > (and therefore keep their numbers below the ceiling), but bicycle
> > numbers have increased markedly, and are actively encouraged
> > (borisbikes). You wouldn't implement a system whereby you encourage
> > and make it much easier to cycle in an area where the infrastructure
> > cannot accommodate more bikes.
> >
> > regards, Ian SMith
>
> I see - so it's a matter of increasing restrictions on motor vehicles
> in towns and cities to make room on the roads for cyclists.

no the space used by bikes is tiny, the limit is due to
conjestion/politics etc.
>
> So we are straight away in the realm of politics.
>
> I wonder to what extent cyclists are riding on pavements as a politcal
> act - I know they do it largely for safety reasons, but is it the added
> sense that their needs are not being met which is pushing them to ignore
> the rules?

I rather suspect, like most folks that, they haven't really thought
about it as such.
>
> j

Roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Djornsk]

On 12/07/2012 20:24, Phil W Lee wrote:
> > considered Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>
>> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
>>>
>>> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using pavements
>>> in parts of Cardiff.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of the
>> more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of transport, but
>> would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to how inevitably the
>> growth in cycling will soon come up against an infrastructure ceiling?
>>
> Not at all, in fact the reverse is true.
> There is plenty of infrastructure, as (almost) every bicycle is one
> less car.
> Once we have similar cycling levels to the Netherlands, we will find
> that the roads are largely empty, and we will have a surfeit of
> infrastructure.

Well I am a little surprised but nevertheless delighted that you and the
two other posters see such a bright future for cycling, and that my
fears are seen as unfounded by those who ought to know better than this
relative newbie.

j

[Djornsk]

On 12/07/2012 18:24, Ian Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:18:25 +0100, > wrote:
>> On 12/07/2012 13:37, Ian Smith wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:29:13 +0100, > wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2012 14:03, John Benn wrote:
>>>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-18736477
>>>>>
>>>>> Police have begun a "zero tolerance" crackdown on cyclists using
>>>>> pavements in parts of Cardiff.
>>>>
>>>> As a newly born again cyclist one rapidly becomes aware of some of
>>>> the more obvious problems and limitations of this mode of
>>>> transport, but would it be right to say that Cardiff just points to
>>>> how inevitably the growth in cycling will soon come up against an
>>>> infrastructure ceiling?
>>>
>>> I don't think so - the infrastructure ceiling for bicycles is a lot
>>> further away than the infrastructure ceiling for motor vehicles, due
>>> to the so much lower infrastructure demands of bicycles compared to
>>> faster, heavier, larger motor vehicles (and especially goods vehicles).
>>> In central London, for example, it has been deemed necessary to
>>> create an artificial pricing structure to keep out motor vehicles
>>> (and therefore keep their numbers below the ceiling), but bicycle
>>> numbers have increased markedly, and are actively encouraged
>>> (borisbikes). You wouldn't implement a system whereby you encourage
>>> and make it much easier to cycle in an area where the infrastructure
>>> cannot accommodate more bikes.
>>
>> I see - so it's a matter of increasing restrictions on motor vehicles
>> in towns and cities to make room on the roads for cyclists.
>
> No. The ceiling for cyclists is much higher than current levels, even
> as motor vehicle ceiling is reached.
>
> On my commute home tonight I was alongside a substantially stationary
> queue of cars for more than half the five miles. That was slightly
> busier than average, but not particularly abnormal (and a lot less
> busy than it often is). I very much doubt you could increase motor
> traffic by even 20%. However, even with motor vehicles at that level
> you could increase bicycles five or ten-fold and it wouldn't slow
> anyone down.
>
> The ceiling for cycling is much further away.
>
>> I wonder to what extent cyclists are riding on pavements as a
>> politcal act - I know they do it largely for safety reasons, but is
>> it the added sense that their needs are not being met which is
>> pushing them to ignore the rules?
>
> I doubt it. I expect that they cycle on the pavement because they
> think it's not safe on the road, not as a protest that it's not safe
> on the roads.
>
> regards, Ian SMith

Things seem rosier than I had thought - although I bet your commute is a
bit rough on the lungs.

j

[Ian Smith]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:40:18 +0100, djornsk > wrote:
> On 12/07/2012 18:24, Ian Smith wrote:
> >
> > On my commute home tonight I was alongside a substantially stationary
> > queue of cars for more than half the five miles. That was slightly
> > busier than average, but not particularly abnormal (and a lot less
> > busy than it often is). I very much doubt you could increase motor
> > traffic by even 20%. However, even with motor vehicles at that level
> > you could increase bicycles five or ten-fold and it wouldn't slow
> > anyone down.
>
> Things seem rosier than I had thought - although I bet your commute is a
> bit rough on the lungs.

Probably no worse than just living here, and probably better than
being in a car in the queue.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|