What do the Southwell Street changes mean? It'll be hard to tell until next term. Already, though, it seems to create the (false) impression that people on foot are welcome, and the zebra crossings appear to act as traffic calming too.
The restored pavement is in use. This will reduce car/pedestrian conflict, so actually be beneficial
That said, it also reduces bicycle/pedestrian conflict, while increasing bicycle/car conflict. This puts the blame on us, not them. Of course, put a van in front of these bollards "Only 15 minutes, guv", with another van on the pavement, and the old regime will be restored.
You can also see that the bollards are set up for a hard right turn into the pay and display car park. This makes it important to keep people off that pavement. It also makes us suspicious that the bollard placement was explicitly designed to remove the short-stay parking option on that side of the bollards. You can't park there without blocking the car park. Yes, you may be able to park the other side, but it's a ten minute journey round the block to get there.
Overall then, the bollards, the pavement and that deviously moved row of bollard don't appear to help us much. It's interesting to compare this with the original proposal, which was very much van-friendlier. Drive-in/back out parking spaces instead of pavement, room to park for delivery on both sides of the bollards. Assuming they dont' actually enforce parking in front of the bollards in the spaces currently in use, the physical parking capacity has been reduced by four. That's going to create tension, and making the bollards "opaque" to people on foot or pedals will create more. Now they will be upset if we park there, whereas before we could do it and not feel bad.
The key tactic here will be to set everyone's expectations up now. During the university holiday. We can take over the bollard area for parking, nobody will get used to cycling through it, and when term time begins, it will stay that way.
The gate has been removed and replaced by bollards.
Yes, you can still park a van against them, but as they are the people doing the roadworks, that may change.
More shockingly, the "ex-pavement" that was to still have NHS vans echelon-parked over it, has been reinstated as public pavement! This goes against the whole "shared space" theory, or, as we van drivers call it, the "our space" road design. It's all ours, see.
The car exit is as before, except the signs blocking off that pavement have been replaced with less bent ones, and anyone walking down that road gets to get in the way of cars pulling out -as you can just make out here through the windscreen of the beetle.
We think that zebra crossing is new. It's hard to see why they bothered.
For visitors from out of town, Eastville park is the park to the east of the M32 flyover.
At least today. A large chunk of the park was given over to that flyover, with nothing but a Glasgow-style concrete picnic bench underneath as a memory of families coming down there for picnics.
We find it amusing that only now are people complaining about bits of the park being turned over to transport rather than greenery, rather than, say, 40 years ago.
More importantly, we worry that if the Friends of Eastville park have their way, they may not stop at the bicycle access. They may start asking for the bit of parkland that is known as the M32 motorway back. This would not be good. We hope, therefore, that the Friends of Eastville park are regular users of the M32 and can see the tangible benefits of it remaining in-situ. Be believe this is likely, given that they clearly don't cycle. And as nobody takes their dog for a walk on the flyover, the liability issue there isn't important.
The tax-dodgers are complaining about Shared Streets this week -that they really mean "streets mostly for cars and vans". Exactly. Given a choice between a pedestrian area and a shared street, we'd go for the shared street. Once you get a hang of the chicanes they can be quite fun.
Southwell Street, our unofficial logo, is being "improved". We know that, as the vans to do it are parked there this week. Expect photos soon. But before that, the plans.
As people will recall, the concerns by the non-drivers about this area were
uphill pavement turned into NHS parking, possibly illegally.
no way for bicycles to get through except on the pavement
the pavement was blocked to give priority to staff cars
both dead ends were used as short stay parking for vans
Overall then a van-and-staff friendly area, with pedestrians as an afterthought, and one of those deliberately created bike/walker conflict zones to divide the opposition, all on the premier walking route from Gloucester Road to Bristol University, and hence full of students. By creating such conflict we could discourage people from trying to do this.
We were initially worried, then, when this draft plan hit our inbox, "a shared space".
Then we saw some emails from Ben Hamilton-Baillie, who we thought would approve of this fusion of walking and driving. Yet he seemed unimpressed
Most residents in Kingsdown feel, as I do, pretty insulted to be presented with a sketch of such pathetically poor quality for Southwell Street.
If the UHB really believes that Southwell Street and other streets in and around Kingsdown can be treated with such contempt, we should not give them any support. I have seen work experience students aged 16 produce more intelligent work than AECOM’s output for UHB. I only hope the hospital trust is not having to pay them fees as well....
Finally, we saw this video from a tax-dodging pavement cyclist who encounters the designers, and provides some feedback.
At 00:10 the Ginster delivery van does a U-turn without indicating, at which the troublemaker engages in discussion with the driver about, that and the fact that it isn't making any beeping noises. Well, the lorry pays more road tax, and isn't of a size where it needs the beeps. That shuts them. Remember that lorry though.
At 1:02 they execute the highly illegal "pavement bypass" option, so endangering pedestrians.
At 1:16 they meet the a hi-viz'd person planning the traffic calming area -and say to them the plan sucks, because painting a bit of pavement, whether it's in coloured paint or some cobbles down the middle of the road is utterly meaningless. They mutter on a bit, and we think their key point is that taking one pavement off for car parking and closing the other off for safe car park access is somehow wrong.
At 1:38 the cyclist, who is standing in the middle of the "person on the road" lane is actually forced to wheel their bike backwards to let a car out of the staff carpark. This shows to us how the "shared space" design will have no effect on our daily lives, so may as well be permitted. There is a risk of some benefit to people trying to cycle here -as they won't be quite so discouraged by having to hop on and off the pavement, but if we block the bollards with vans often enough, they'll be discouraged differently.
At 1:48 the troublemaker demands some of the pavement back. We'd hoped to have some good news there, but based on the building work it looks like these people have got their way. Somewhat. Wait until tomorrow for the specifics there.
At 2:02 they express concern that the dropoff area in front of the hospital is chaotic, and it will remain so. Well, that's why it's called a dropoff area, isn't it? If people were expected to do dropoffs and pickups on St Michael's hill, there'd be an area there instead.
at 2:20 their rant finishes and they finally head off, presumably to the relief of the site team. They then proceed down a road that clearly has room for parking all down one side, yet lacks it. And there are an oddly large number of pedestrians, given the effort the NHS has gone to here to discourage walking.
At 2:43 you can see some people trying to cross Horfield Road. Notice the wide five-junction crossing here. It's a dangerous exposed crossing and people shouldn't attempt it, not when there is a zebra crossing further up the road, as the video shows at 3:07. If people aren't prepared to cross the road where a crossing has been provided, well, it's like people on bicycles not using the bike lanes.
At the zebra crossing they do a U-turn, and at 3:08 show what is paveparked over yellow lines round the corner: Ginster delivery van HN58LVK. Purely because Southwell Street doesn't support through traffic, that van had to do a 180 degree turn in a narrow drop-off street, turn right up St Michael's Hill, right again on to Myrtle Road, then onto Alfred place. One U-turn and two right turns -not just a philosophy for the coalition government, it's costing the company money. The DfT puts a financial cost on critical business motoring, and its clear that closing this road has tangible costs to that key part of the economy: the white van.
Therefore, although the proposals don't take much away from us, they don't deliver what we need, either -the removal of the gate and the re-instatement of Southwell Street as a van-friendly rat-run!
One thing missing from the official opening of the Concorde Way a couple of weeks back was the sponsor. London has Barclays "wealth for the wealthy" sponsoring the bikelanes "a tax-deductible gift for the poor in our society". Nobody was forthcoming in North Bristol, as our main local benefactor prefers to support development in and near Ashton Gate, rather than up here, Bristol Rovers territory.
Hence: no sponsor
This has changed, as J0TCT shows.
The best view is from Dovercourt way, where anyone who avoided a dooring incident gets a lovely view of a better option for the city.
Our tax-dodging troublemaker is here recorded harassing an innocent driver.
Let's review the video and score the discussion
The tax-dodger takes the photograph and says this will be the reference "before" photograph: kick-off!
The driver rightfully points out, no yellow lines -hence legal. 1-nil!
The tax dodger responds: blocking dropped kerbs are illegal as is obstructing a cycle route, and that they could call the police. 1-all!
The driver counters with "you are cycling on the pavement". 2-1 to Brunel Ford!
The troublemaker tries to respond with "that's because there is a large vehicle blocking my normal access point". Offside!
We hope the troublemaker will see the error of their ways and buy a nice new Ford Focus, especially now that our Chancellor has reduced the cost of filling up the car by 50 pence.
Incidentally, can we say that we agree with all the comments added to the youtube page -our site does not in any way condone walking, cycling or public transport.
The new glue-on markings in Dovercourt road "concorde way" are placed in the ideal position to discourage survivors from ever approaching a bicycle again.
Sadly we have been forwarded some email in which the cycling team claim that this was some kind of error and will be corrected.
You are absolutely right about the location of the symbols on Dovercourt Road they have been incorrectly marked due to an error using old plans. We will rectify this.
We agree, anything trying to encourage such subversive actions as not driving in the city needs correction. On that topic, we are pleased to announce the Brunel Ford are now the official sponsors of the Concorde Way, The extension of the Farm Pub Path. More to follow soon.
While the cyclists are still loojking for examples of where the cycle city program stole roadspace from us, we and Cllr Gollop know the truth: even bike parking in the middle of the Centre is stealing space from us.
And that's without even getting us started on the whole roundabout/centre debate, let alone the need to re-instate the dual carriageway through Queen's Square. They took our ring road and gave us greenery. And is that bit up for sale so we can buy it and bring back the road, a group of motivated volunteer Road Builders? Fat chance.
Milverton Gardens, off Ashley Hill. Jon R's constituency. Do you think these voters will be supportive of the cycle city plans? we suspect not.
On the far side of the road, there's not much pavement, and someone must have bashed the (defunct) sign. Will the council pay for the damage? we suspect not. On this side, the ford focus CV05WVC has managed to get its entire bodywork off road, so it will be safe from damage provided nobody is walking nearby. This is why we want to ban pushchairs from our pavements unless the parents have third party insurance.
Fortunately, there is no bike parking to take away space from motorists, which as Councillor Gollop points out, is a key reason for the Cycling City program's failure.
What they have done, though, is dropped the speed limit to 20 mph. The goal here, "supposedly" was to make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. The ABD oppose it because, they claim that it will force drivers to look at their speedometers all the time. This is a bogus argument, because the same rule would apply to 30 and 70 limits, yet they don't complain about that. It's also bogus because the ABD don't realise that busy people are too busy texting to look up at road, let alone the speedo.
No, the real issue with 20 mph zones is this: it slows down people in a hurry just as much as if there was a bicycle in front. It may be designed to make people on the bicycle feel safer, but even there are only one or two bicycles an hour going up or down this road, it slows everyone down all the time, so imposing external costs on the entire city. It may not be explicitly removing road space, but it is removing fast road space, which is the real problem
One or two people are bold enough to fight back. As our van was up on the pavement we caught one who is best appreciated in the sound of this video.
You can hear the motorbike engine revving up as they go past the slow-moving cars, cars forced to slow down by anti-car speed limits. You can also hear the 4x4 revving its diesel engine as it slowly accelerates out of the 20 mph zone, as the 30 mph sign is in sight. And you know the rule of speed signs: if you can see a faster one in the distance you can speed up to it. It's not clear this car is doing over 20, it may just be working overhard in a low gear. This is a steepish hill.
We thought this was one of those videos was going be something we could resell to the Daily Mail "how a 20mph zone forced this motorbike into a head on collision with a 4x4", and so provide a compelling argument against more 20 mph zones in the city. But the motorbike eventually noticed the vehicle coming up the hill and pulled in.
Posted by
Kimberly on Saturday, September 25, 2010
Parking spaces are at a premium in central Bristol.
Even for tax dodging cyclists (ho-ho: serves them right for living in a 'Cycling City'). Notice the problem here? Yep, two bikes chained together due to lack of parking facilities. Poor souls.
So it's nice to see tax-payer funded facilities being made use of by honest traders, instead of freeloading, benefit scrounging anarchists trying to park their 'vehicles'.
With the Muller Road to Dovercourt Road Bridge now all mixed up in the sale of the Dovercourt Open Space, what does this mean for the Great North Fringe Cycle Route, the showcase of the Cycling City?
We have no idea. What we can do is check out the key destination of the route to date -the Farm Pub- and see how it's use has changed since we visited it last year, before the path was officially open. Has the opening up of more bicycle access increased the number of people who cycle there?
Well, there are a couple of bikes by the dogs at the entrance.
Two more people lining their wheeled UN/EU-conspiracy vehicles to an empty bench
In the rest of the garden, yes, every bench in use appears to be used by cyclists, many of whom must have nipped over for a pint or four of Doom Bar Beer.
Given the amount of tax you pay on beer, it's probably defensible: money saved from fuel can go towards beer, and at the outrageous tax rate there it evens out. And if they go there on the bike path they aren't taking up road-tax funded roads. But has enough extra beer tax revenue been raised by this single pub been adequate to pay for the path?
The other issue is that with the pub full of these cyclists, why would we, the motorists, drive there? Have they gained customers, or only chased away an equivalent number of motorists? And if so, who spends the most per evening? Us, the wealthy citizens forced by anti-motorist laws to only have 6-8 pints before driving home, or them, the tax-dodging cyclists who aren't harassed by drink driving legislation which the new coalition has failed to roll back, despite their promise to end the war on motorists?
it could be used in conjunction with the redevelopment of adjoining sites if proposed in the future.
Not wanting to do research ourselves, one of our reporters drove their van to the bottom of Dovercourt Road, the cul-de-sac where nothing happens, and waited for a pedestrian to come by, where we doored them (pavement side) and asked them some questions as they recovered. The open space area is to the left of this photo, incidentally.
Apparently the plan is to sell of the Muller Road bus station, knock down the three bungalows you can see behind our white van, and open up a direct link between Dovercourt Road and Muller road, instead of the turn off and traffic lights you have to deal with today. Looking up the road (open space on the right) you can see there is room to put your foot down here.
Josh's survey showed this road only gets 140 vehicles/day, which leaves them out from the vibrant heart of the city. The opening up of this road to through traffic would let Josh write a followup paper, showing how social relationships change when a road that was a quiet cul-de-sac suddenly becomes busy.
It also has some very interesting implications for the North Fringe route. The cycle path was planned to bridge over the stream, meander through the open space and then the cyclists can turn right onto this dead end road. But if the Muller Road terminal really does go away
This won't be a quiet turning any more, it will be turning right over through traffic.
The road won't be quiet
They may reroute the bike path
Frankly, we think they should just kill the bike route plan now. With direct car access to Muller Road there's no need for it,; the crossing of the former open space just reduces its resale value. And, with a nice fast route all the way to the rugby grounds, why cycle? Why not drive up? Park and walk, or, if we can get that historical access to Abbey Wood sorted out, drive all the way up to the MoD site?
We are against this, because (a) everyone should be fined for riding a bicycle, regardless of where it is, and (b) we don't want anything to encourage more cyclists on the road. That's why we drive the way we do, cut them up closely, drive right behind them to intimidate them. Anything else would encourage more of them out there.
We are also worried that if the police/PCSOs start hanging round junctions, like the Cheltenham Road/Bath Buildings junction, they might look at other issues, such as this tax SF51LDU driving into the ASL on a red light.
We do not to be penalised for doing things like that, and if the police start waiting to spot troublemakers, we might be the victims.
Neither we, nor city taxi 623, want that.
Now, some people may just dismiss this as an idle threat, but we've read the real press release, rather than just the EP coverage, which has the bad news
If the scheme is deemed to be successful it will also be rolled out to include motorists who drive or stop in cycle zones (eg parking in cycle lanes or purposely stopping into advanced cycle lanes). Life Cycle UK will be designing a cycle awareness course for motorists. Again they will have the chance to attend rather than pay the fine.
Scary. Punishing innocent taxi drivers like SF51LDU by making them sit through some presentation about why cyclists matter, or pay the fine. We'd go for the fine, ourselves.
