Forward Thinking.

At last this blog appears to have been noticed.

Not in Bristol, where the council still pretends to be cycle friendly, but by Surrey County Council, who take driving very seriously... especially the school run...

"Following a parent-governor meeting at North Downs Primary School last Thursday, headteacher Angela Ewing said its Betchworth and Leigh bases would be "driving only" from September."

You can read the full details here:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/Children-banned-walking-cycling-North-Downs/story-18210883-detail/story.html#axzz2LjiOOIIt

We admire this school. Pro car, anti-cycling or walking. THIS IS THE FUTURE! And all because they took notice of Bristol Traffic. Also we salute the fact that, across the country, Councils pay £700 million each year to pay for Taxis to take children to and from School. This is a fantastic introduction to Public Transport, and whilst taxis are only for poor people, at least they look like cars, not those hideous buses that get in our way.

This is why the Battle for Flax Bourton must be won now

Some people must have seen our post and and an estimate of 30-40 bicycles an hour and peak times and thought "so what?

This is what. This is the bike path that the petitioners harassed the Elf King himself, about, the one in jeopardy, the one he said should only be built if the sheep used their existing cycle paths. As far as Flax Bourton is concerned, using those cycle paths is bad enough. When this route is finished, their quiet life will be destroyed.

Look at it. 3-4 metres, wide, already built out, with the trees cut back. Raised enough to make it hard to swing onto. And already being scoped out.

The narrowing of the road means that the paint between the the lanes will be removed, forcing us to drive slower. If the 50 mph speed limit is dropped to 30, that will add another minute to the Flax Bourton to Long Ashton school run, again, threatening a lifestyle people paid into.

   
Look at it. Our tax money. It's on the opposite side of the road from the footpath, so there won't be "badly behaved cyclists" "riding on pavements amidst pedestrians". No, they will be cycling as fast as they do now -sprinting to and from Backwell, on this new £1.2M route running parallel to the A370.

Every one of those cyclists could endanger a motorist.

The Elf King said he wouldn't pay attention to petitions from people outside Long Ashton, pressuring him to build this blatant war-on-motoring facility. Well, he caved in. Hopefully he'll listen to the next petition, from local folk.

"Local Roads for Local People! And better commuter routes into the Bristol City Centre"

This is what we want!

The festival way: exposing Long Ashton to the city

Why all of a sudden the problems? When the Flax Bourton to Backwell route has existed for over a year? It's this: a wide bike path from Ashton Court to the western end of Long Ashton.

It runs parallel to the A370, it doesn't have the cars or buses of the Long Ashton road, and even runs alongside the schools.
 

It's designed to give the cyclists an A-road of their own. And because of that, they are coming out. Which is making Flax Bourton suffer.

Back in September, Elf King Ap Rees, leader of the Somerset-Elf-Folk, said "We're spending all this money on cycle ways and yet I'm always getting complaint that say the cyclists don't use them -they use the roads instead!".

It turns out worse than this. Some of the cyclists are using the cycle ways that they spent all the money on -and endangering people by doing so.

When we visited Rosemount Road on a (sunny) February sunday, we saw three cyclists in the space of five minutes. At that rate: thirty six an hour. Thirty-six cyclists that are cyclists are "posing a danger to pedestrians and motorists". And behind it all -the council trying to change the residents behaviour, to make them cycle with their families to school, then on to the city.

Farleigh Green Residents Association chairman Michael Barnes said: "Now the Festival Way route is completed we are seeing a lot more cyclists coming through the estate.

"The issue for residents is safety as the route follows narrow roads through the estate with the longest having no pavements.

"There are at least three blind corners giving no visibility for motorists, cyclists or pedestrians and there have been several collisions and many near misses involving cars, pedestrians, children and cyclists."

He added: "We are not anti-cycling and many of us enjoy cycling."

We have some bad news:  if you think it is bad now, it will only get worse.

Rosemount Road, Flax Bourton -ruined by the cyclists

The residents of Rosemount Road, Flax Bourton didn't just move the countryside for fields and trees.

They moved for the rural dream: a cottage like house with room for two cars. One for one of the parents -and in modern society, that could be the dad- to drop the kids off at school in Long Ashton before driving into the city; the other for the other parent to go straight in down the A370, via a short stretch of road.


Already Bristol city threaten this dream, with their war on motoring. Closing Prince Street Bridge to through traffic makes getting from the south of the city harder. Imposing 20 mph speed limits in South Bristol has killed the rat-runs, leaving only the traffic-clogged Coronation Road. Adding residents parking in Redcliffe has even destroyed some of the near-city parking available to Somerset commuters.

All this was bad enough, but now the city is bringing the war on motorists to the villages!

Look above: a nice cul-de-sac; lots of space to turn around in.

But turn 180 degrees round and what do you see


That's right -a bike route. Going all the way from Flax Bourton to Backwell. And its used! You can see above, that even on a February weekend there is someone out there pretending to enjoy themselves

 

Look at the quality of it! Can you not see what the council is trying to do here -it's not just encouraging cyclists from the city to come out, it's trying to change the behaviour of the residents themselves! It's trying to say "why drive? Why not cycle to Nailsea and get a train into the city or Abbey Wood at the North Fringe?" It's saying "why not go for a bike ride -for fun- with your family on a weekend?" It's saying: you should consider cycling to work in the city
 

In the distance, you can see them: the cyclists. They are coming.

This is why the village has to act. If they do not, they will be turned into the mindless Dutch-style families that Bristol is trying force down our throats.

If they wanted to cycle, they'd live in Southville or Montpelier! Instead they chose to move out here, to realise a dream of a quiet road, two cars, and a drive down the A370 every morning. All this will be destroyed by the council -unless they can persuade the council to change its mind, and ban cyclists from these roads.
 

"we're not anti-cycling, but" -flax bourton joins the bikelash

This site has been quiet recently -but then our business model isn't based on having a high visitor count and then selling adverts to advertisers who want to sell things to those people who visit the site regularly (i.e. losers). We haven't been visiting the evening post much either, not since they started demanding access to the contact details of all gmail accounts.

Today though, something draws us in again: the bikelash is back.

The last decent bikelash we had in the area was in Long Ashton, where the Elf-King himself proclaimed that cyclists were arrogant and that trying to petition him to complete a bike path was sheep-like.

Today, just east of Long Ashton, the village of Flax Bourton joins in the Evening Post Official Bikelash!

Yes, in a picturesque modern rural housing estate, residents are warning that cyclists are a risk to pedestrians and car drivers!

Here is the area.

Rosemount Road is a classic example of a late twentieth century, early 21st interpretation of that rural dream, a country village.

In the background, the birdsong-like hum of the A370, offering the elf-folk access to the city, or Bristol airport, if that is their place of employ. (some day we should cover the airport. If it weren't so anti-all-other-modes-of-transport, including flight, we'd accuse it of being at war with motorists).



Like a traditional village, there are no pavements, just verges to drive over and so justify the 4x4.

 
Like a tradional village there is always somebody petty with a keep of the grass sign and stones to mark their territory.

Unlike the city, there is room for more than one car per household. And, when washing your car on a Sunday afternoon, you can leave the door open without fear that your car will be stolen and the insurance company laugh at you for doing so.
 

According to Zoopla, these houses sell for just under £500K, money well spent to get away from the city and its stress.
In these quiet cul-de-sacs, there is enough space for children to happily bounce and scoot around without fear of being killed by a passing bicycle.

But not anymore. Not now that Somerset council is partway through bulding a quality off-road bike path all the way from the city centre to this rural dream.


They are trying to bring the city to the countryside, to destroy the rural commuter lifestyle these people have worked so hard to attain.

This is the front line in the Bikelash!

Elf-King Ap-Rees: get the sheep-like cyclists off the roads

There's a BBC Radio Broadcase in which Elf-King Ap-Rees, Deputy-King of the Elf-Kingdom of North Somerset, denounces cyclists as arrogant as the "cyclists use the cycle ways instead of arrogantly ignoring them and cycling on adjacent roads".

The issue was a petition"ill-judged and unnecessary" that stirred up people to sign a petition that demanded that the council actually approved of the cycle path by the 50 mph road from Long Ashton to Cambridge Batch. It was always going to be built, just "a bit of a quibble" with Long Ashton Parish Council. Like the way they slowed down the provisioning of a cycle route alongside the A370 by Ashton Court -there were concerns that the council would reject it the way they rejected the Ashton Court stretch of the route -the bit that would cut across the newly-expanded Ashton Court car park.

"We're spending all this money on cycle ways and yet I'm always getting complaint that say the cyclists don't use them -they use the roads instead!"

 Why is his language so inflammatory?

"I'm glad it is! I want cyclists to realise that other people see this money being spent on cycle ways and actually object when the cyclists don't use it. Especially when we have 60 mph roads, and we have a cycle way absolutely adjacent to it -and yet you still find cyclists using that (ed: the road?). They cycle through pedestrian areas, you know, which they're not supposed to do..."

why have you approved this then?

"We want to encourage cycling. We want to encourage cyclists to use the cycle ways. What I'm hoping is that as a result of this...and it's not everybody, you just get a few cyclists -just as you get a few motorists doing things wrong. The trouble is they set a bad example -erm- to everybody else"

People who don't live in the vicinity of Long Ashton have no influence over the decision as as they "have one sheep-like point of view "

Elf King App Rees is the one politician who will stand up and say the prejudiced ill-informed views that we live by! Only he is the one not afraid to call cyclists sheep-like. Indeed, he's proud of it!

"I'm always getting complaints from people about the behaviour of cyclists..."

That said, we don't like this idea of saying "local decisions only". Because that's going to come back to haunt the commuters of N Somerset when Bristol City starts rolling out anti-commuter strategies like speed limits.

Similarly, we worry about the quote : "North Somerset Council has to consider all road users and the decision will be made with that in mind, not to just satisfy a cycling lobby."

This surprised us as we didn't know there was a cycling lobby in N. Somerset. That phrase "all road users" scares us. Why should we -the tax payers- care about the cyclists? If he's going to start taking their interests into account, what will this mean to  features like the new Portishead/M5 junction, where the Elf King said "the misery of prolonged hold-ups for motorists in this area should be a thing of the past.". See that? No need to acknowledge the existence of cyclists there, let alone the need to consider them at a new junction. Similarly, when he's considering parking charges in Portishead, will he actually worry about the needs of tax-dodgers who may want to cycle there rather than all the people who petitioned against the charges? We hope not!

Finally, "sheep-like". Again, that could equally well be applied to most of the people who write to him complaining about tax-dodging cyclists being in the way on the roads or on the pavements. That's the same class of insult as one of the two groups on the Evening Post comment pages calling the other lot "inflexible and narrow minded". No, you don't want to go there.

Elf-King App Rees does like those emails complaining about cyclists, so feel free to contact him on such topics, or where he stands on the battle of Mordor.

While we know he doesn't accept emails from cyclists outside the Elf Kingdom of Long Ashton, we don't yet know if he loves getting message from outside the Shire congratulating him on being the first Evening Post commenter to get radio time on a regional station listened two by a double-digit audience!

Evening Post; Why not a cycle free day?

In the Evening Post' singlehanded counterattack to the "cities fit for cycling" campaign coming out of London, another "Trusted Source", Roy, the disgruntled motorist!, who again wants bicycles banned from our streets, at least for a day a week.

Roy starts off with,

All too often Bristol boasts how cycle friendly it is. Is this really a good thing? Myself, and many colleagues and friends disagree strongly.

We often whine about them in the pubs too. Don't forget that drink-driving laws discriminate against us on the way home from those same pubs.

Now before I go any further, I must point out that I am a part-time cyclist, and when cycling I aim to stay out of the way of proper road users by sticking to cycle paths and lanes wherever possible

The classic "I used to cycle" opener is right up there with the "some of my best friends are cyclists" phrase, which the EP is normally most happy with. We don't say either as they are not true, and the phrases come over like the head of the UK catholic church saying "some my best friends are gay" before denouncing the right of two men to hold hands in public. We do say "some of our best customers come from the catholic clergy", but that's another topic.

Everyday I experience horrendous behaviour from cyclists. Considering they are vulnerable, they often risk their lives jumping red lights, undertaking at junctions, hopping on and off of pavements at their convenience and generally getting in the way of the legitimate road user. I realise not all cyclists behave like this, just the vast majority, especially the Lycra ones who think they are as wide as cars!

Red lights, Lycra, pavements, in the way. Check.  We are going to write some Evening Post bingo cards for these letters -or perhaps an automated evening post letter generator.

I also appreciate not all us car drivers are saints as the odd couple let us down.

Don't forget us van drivers here!

I lay part of the blame with Bristol City Council for trying too hard to please cyclists and look trendy. All these advanced starting grids at traffic lights is the dumbest idea yet. Encouraging the roads slowest users to blatantly sit right in the way of the cars before the lights change, then get in the way of our desire to get somewhere quick. That is, when the cyclist obeys the lights!!!

Now we are confused. Either the cyclists sit in your way in the ASL or they run the lights. You can't complain about both at the same time. It's like saying "50% tax rate for me is too high" and "HRMC keep trying to make us pay tax"

Another gripe is the fact that despite all the cycle lanes on pavements, cyclists still use our road.

Pavements. In or out?

Coronation Road is a prime example. A few months back I was following a lorry along there, who was struggling to get past a dad and two young boys cycling along the road. The lorry eventually passed, narrowly missing the boys. I tried to tell the father this fact, but was met with typical cyclist arrogance.

Ah, Coronation Road. We've covered that before, especially how the mature trees do not make this a cycle path. Because of those trees, it's hard to to say "They should cycle on the pavement there", especially when you shout out the window. Just sound your horn a bit instead.

It should be law to stick to a cycle lane where provided, to protect the cyclist, and more importantly, improve the car drivers progress.

Exactly. There are more people on cycles than ever before -and have you noticed congestion gets worse? Congestion costs our country twenty billion pounds a year -and it's all the cyclists fault.

I feel there needs to be more legislation to protect the proper road user from the menace cyclist. To start with, cyclists should have insurance. Can you imagine the damage they could do to a cars paintwork if they were to get in the way?

Don't use the "get in the way" phrase, as it's one of those "I may need to run them over" claims that the police get back to later. We prefer "crash into our parked car". Actually, this gives an idea. Why not advocate strict liability -whenever a cyclist hits a car, it's their fault!

Bodywork repair costs a lot these days. I find it harder by the day to avoid cyclists who flout the highway code. They should also be made to pay a small tax, and have a registration plate of some description. This would help to hold them accountable for the accidents they cause. The tax could pay for cycle wardens to fine them every time they break the law.

Registration, license, tax. Three more bingo items ticked off. And a new one; cycle wardens. Nice idea. But how to stop them ticketing cars for things too?

I would also like to add, cyclists are also a menace on the pavement.

Again, inconsistent arguments. Either they are on the road when you are driving or they are on the pavement when you are walking. You have to pick your point of view and argue with it: speeding on-road criminals, slow moving families, pavement cyclists or lycra louts. Pick one, not criticise them for: stopping at ASLs, running red lights, being on the road, not being on the road, wearing lycra, not wearing hi-viz. Right now the letter just comes over as an ill-informed rant, not an attempt to communicate your issues to people outside your two mates in a pub.

I'm sure many readers would agree. Trying to walk near Temple Meads station is a gamble. If you think I am anti-cyclist you would be right.

An anti-cyclist part-time cyclist. Now this does make our brain explode. This we would like to see. Someone cycling on the pavement shouting "get off the pavement" at himself, going onto the road and then shouting "get on the pavement!". Please send videos of Roy to the usual address.

Years of trying to avoid their antics have made me this way. I am all for saving the environment, but please do it in a lawful, polite manner, and stay off the road where possible. Do not undertake where its dangerous, obey road signs and traffic lights and respect the car driver who funds the cycle lanes you fail to use!!! Do all this and we can all be friends!

Roy, the disgruntled motorist!

We're not actually sure that people cycle to save the environment, though it makes a nice outgroup to explain why they cycle and we, the important people, don't. We prefer to say "we are not against unimportant people, but why do they have to hold us up"


Summary: badly argued, not that entertaining. The Evening Post is losing its edge. Must try harder.

Let's have a vote to outlaw them

There's a letter in the BEP today, that warmed our hearts. While the city-folk in London are trying to organise a "save the cyclists" campaign, we in Bristol are doing what everyone really wants -trying to make cycling a crime.

I THOUGHT we were living in a democracy? A place where majority decision rules? So let us consider cyclists. I have yet to hear of a cyclist that rides according to the law. Every single one I see cuts through red lights like a knife through butter. It is almost as if they do this to target pedestrians deliberately, as they then switch straight on to the pavement, and then back and forth to the road.
Let's consider the law? It's illegal to ride without lights. It's illegal to ride without a helmet and high visibility clothes. It's illegal to ride more than 30cm from the kerb. It's illegal to ride the wrong way down one-way streets, to squeeze past standing traffic, pavement ride and run the lights. Rule 169 of the Highway Code also insists that cyclists must give way to motorists as they are faster. £20 billion of damage to business is caused by traffic jams and cyclists are the main cause.
The government has said that it plans to throw a whopping £26 million at these rogues "to make them safer." How about spending some money on the poor down-trodden motorist?
I propose a vote, since we're living in a democracy. I propose we have a referendum on cycling (even if it is just a local one that results in a by-law) and we vote to outlaw bicycles for good. No good can come of them. Why bother to complain about road tax and insurance? They won't pay it even if it gets made into law. Who knows how many pedestrians they have killed and injured over the years? There are more motorists than cyclists, it makes perfect sense to just ban them!
TPR Henry

This is heartwarming. Ignoring the fact that he is completely ignorant of what is the law (distance from kerb, helmets, hi-viz filtering), what is he is saying is what should be the law.

To us, TPR Henry's rant about legality only slightly touches the real issue: bicycles hold up cars. Cyclists are the main cause of traffic jams -that and the lights which are there fo those other tax-dodgers, the pedestrians.

We celebrate TPR Henry for daring to speak the truth. And Evening Post for having the strength to resist the populist campaigns in the Times, even the BBC is starting to join in. Only the BEP is strong enough to resist these criminals!

Brian Rogers of Kingswood: speaking the truth

We've been a bit quiet recently. The main problem: thinking of new things to say.

Everyone has this problem. Take this well thought out letter from Brian Rogers of Kingswood.

It certainly pushes our buttons:

1. affluent middle classes cycling
2. holding up important people on their way to work
3. tax-payer funded lycra clad louts
4. sanctimonious, car-hating people
5. fill up the car parks

That would be a good article: tax dodging affluent (actually, this is probably true), car hating, and driving to our favourite parking spaces. It would make a good article, and we have formally invited Brian to actually write for us. All he'd need is "in our lane", "red light jumping" and "speeding along too fast" and we'd win this week's Daily Mail "lycra lout" bingo.

Of course, the same day that George "coke" Osborne announces that air passenger duty won't be applied to people flying in and out of the city on private planes is particularly bad timing for the tax-payer funded text. Remember: those people who live in Monaco and fly in for three days a week may retain non-resident tax payer status, but they hold up the economy, and adding £30/week on the already outrageous cost of (tax free) jet fuel would force them stop flying in to the UK at all.

Brian needs to work on his timing a bit there.

Furthermore, a quick web search shows that he wrote pretty much the same letter  a year ago.

 irresponsible for the city council to pour tax payers' funds into a cycling track that is, well, just a hobby for a privileged and sanctimonious few?

See? The same problem we have. There's only so much orginality you can do from one point-of-vitriol. Brian is having trouble writing the same letter once a year -you can imagine how hard it us for us.

Maybe its time for the team to retire

Dirac's Antipermeability hypothesis

Dirac Road, off Ashley Down. Named after Paul Dirac, Nobel Prize winner for hypothesizing the existence of "anti matter"; something that was later proved to exist.

Dirac Road is named after him. Sadly, due to the large amounts of energy involved when antimatter collides with conventional matter, they cannot put any on display. Instead they have to focus on anti-permeability, the idea of making open space opaque to people on foot or bicycle

First on this corner we can see the car making the pavement antipermeable

Nothing profound there, you can see it anywhere in the city. What is more unique is this barrier over the footpath between Dirac Road and Lilstock Avenue -which connects with the famous "farm pub path". There is a risk that people might use this so called "access point" between the two roads to get to this path -or worse, come up here and then proceed safely on foot or bicycle to Brunel Technical College (scene of the "do not cycle on the pavement" signs and the Happy Road incident), or Sefton Park Primary school.

This barrier makes that hard, so ensuring that there are few high-energy collisions between conventional matter "cars" and anti-society matter "people on foot or bicycle".

It could be alleged that this is a temporary feature while the primary access point to the Farm Pub Path -station road- is closed for roadworks. Yet look at the base of this feature: it is embedded into the concrete

The allegation can be even more firmly disproved by looking in the opposite direction, and observing that the dropped kerb is actually placed to the side of the path.

This is a permanent fixture to celebrate Dirac's work on antimatter, by showing how Antipermeability can improve things.

Speaking of which, we hear rumours of a new Antipermeability project underway in South Gloucs. We will delegate this work to the People's cycling front of S. Gloucs, as an inspection up there would involve getting stuck in traffic jams in the newly widened A4174 ring road, which is a waste of our time.

finally: bicycle wheeling is a crime! In Yate!

We excited to see that even wheeling a bicycle is something that will be banned from the Yate pedestrian area!

Centre manager Andrew Lowrey said: "We have had several complaints that people are either riding or wheeling cycles through the centre and ignoring requests made by our security team not to do so

"The safety of our customers, visitors and staff is extremely important, therefore a decision has been made to ban cycles at Yate Shopping Centre with immediate effect.

"We encourage people to visit the centre and to travel by bicycle. However, we would kindly request that cyclists utilise the ample cycle racks located around the shopping centre. We expect a noticeable increase in footfall when the new Tesco Extra store opens on October 24, so hopefully these new measures will prevent future issues and make the shopping centre a safer place for all shoppers."

We expect this will rapidly improve the revenue in the shops and help it recover from the threat posed by the fact that Emerson's Green is five minutes drive away. Emerson's Green does welcome cyclists, so Yate should actually be able to market their Morrison's supermarche on this feature "Yate: nobody on a bicycle will be there".

Tesco Supermarkets would like us to remind our readers that their shop in Cheltenham Road is accessible by people on foot, public transport, bicycle and car -the bus/bike lane providing the parking area for the latter.

Progress in Oregon

Oregon is usually held up as the hope of cycling in "the third world", a part of the US that has returned to bicycles. For us, the motorists, it is part of the front line of the backlash. This is why were an early supporter of the proposed bicycle tax.

That is why we are pleased to see a proposed law that not only makes it illegal to carry more than one passenger in a bicycle that is not designed for this, it will ban all bicycle transportation of children under the age of six!

This is for their own good!

• It gets them used to driving everywhere
• It stops their parents having a school-kid-dropoff-continue-to-work cycle run, so discourages the parents from cycling.

• It stops them getting into riding bicycles, or even learning how to maintain them.

• It stops their parents taking the kids on bike rides at weekends, such as this MAMIL-dad is doing over Willamette Pass, Oregon.

Such measures may seem harsh, but it is the only way to get these children and their parents to conform to what a modern society expects.

Before anyone complains that we exaggerate the problem, all these photos come from a source in Oregon. This state has a population of five million people, yet is only the same height and three times the width of Britain. There simply isn't room for bicycles and cars to co-exist in such a limited space. And if there isn't in this state, just consider how much worse things are in Scotland -with the same population, or England, with ten times as many people, or London, the place with the highest population density in the country.

This is why we are pleased to announce, along with our partners in the printed and TV media channels, our new 2011 campaign, to have bicycles banned from our city streets during peak hours and school dropoff/pickup times.

It's for the sake of the children!

Whiteladies Road: a weekday dataset

Our last trip down Whiteladies road shows that on a weekend, yes, pedestrian shoppers did hold up through traffic. This implied that yes, the FirstBus/Showcase bus route plans to reduce pedestrian crossing options may benefit their schedules, but we were worried about the impact on us cars getting out from side roads.

This video is different as it's a visit by our expendable cyclist on a weekday morning, down the bus lane from Oakfield Road, and through the Triangle as far as University Road, where they head off. Commentary first, analysis later.

At 0:24 FH56CVV switches lanes early, but as everyone else in the RH lane who isn't turning right also goes left, they are forced to give way to the vehicles in front of them anyway.

From 0:29 to 0:40, a bike lane that even waltham forest would be proud of. Its worn-out nature hints that it's popular with larger vehicles, while the trees keep it bumpy.

At 04:40 A9VNG is in the ASL, but we suspect that it was in there when the lights change. Why the suspicion? One car in the pedestrian area and one in front in the yellow hatched "only enter when clear to exit" area stopping cross traffic from St Pauls Road and Tyndall's Park Road getting across. Incidentally, Tyndall's Park road (on the left) here is no left turn, St Paul's (on the right, into Clifton) is no right turn, so all congestion coming up from the Triangle is Whiteladies Road traffic. Note also this junction provides no time for pedestrians to cross when the traffic isn't actually allowed to drive -if only all major junctions in the city were like this, congestion would be much improved. The BBC offices are on the left, incidentally.

Following the cyclist who is commuting without helmet, body-armour or hi-viz clothing, we eventually discover what is holding up WL-road traffic, it's the "triangle" gyratory system, which our tax-dodger hits at 1:43. The underlying problem is that Whiteladies Road traffic is forced to give way to traffic coming from the right, which initially means traffic from Clifton. Further on, at 2:17 we get held up by traffic all coming into the city from the A4 or the Hotwells's Bridges and then up Jacob's Wells road.

There are four lanes here, one for parking, one turning right at the next junction, and two straight on, but that leftmost one is lost even to vans ignoring bus-lane signs, not just by the police car at 2:41 but by the taxi-rank at 2:53.

WN59UDP is held up by these taxis forcing them to wait with all the in-town traffic, so as soon as they can they cut left in front of the bicycle, through the pedestrians and up University Road -only to find that the Biffa refuse collection lorry is in the way and ignoring the important traffic being held up. Finally passing that, they can sprint up to Woodland Road, where as you recall the Evening Post was campaigning against two paid parking spaces going away, which we felt was overreacting as nobody parks their except arts students, and their tuition fee increases will eliminate that luxury.

However, today we can see that the paid parking area is also popular for parental dropoff outside Bristol Grammar School -and it actually makes for a nice, low-chaos dropoff area. Admittedly, there isn't enough of this short-stay parking right in front of the school, forcing some parents to stop in the double yellow lined areas, but the alternative would be parking on the other side of this (one-way) street, forcing the children to cross the road. Would you want your children to cross a busy road like this? Exactly. Parking on the double yellow lines outside the school entrance is the only safe place to drop your kids off and be sure they get to school alive.

Now, returning to the Whiteladies Road issue, what does the bus plan proposal change on this stretch? The Oakfield Road crossing will be moved further away from the road, so making it less useful to pedestrians trying to walk from Cotham to Clifton or bag. Plus one point. But, this makes it harder for cars to get out or over from these roads, so minus one point.

Heading in to town, the right hand turn to Clifton will be removed for all but buses. This will turn Oakfield road into the primary rat-run option, but as we've seen, the moving of the zebra crossing makes it trickier. What they aren't doing is extending the bus lane any further south, and they are leaving that toy bike lane in there. We say toy as its so half hearted that no rational cyclist will think they are welcome -what with the faded paint and tree roots, but its very presence implies that some people in the city do welcome cyclists. No, better to remove it and put a cyclists dismount sign up.

Entering the triangle is more informative. Congestion is caused here by traffic joining the road from other places (Clifton, Jacob's Wells Road), and whatever is slowing them down on their final journey. There are no pedestrian-only lights or zebra crossings to play with, so there's little that can be done to make pedestrians feel less welcome, no tricks to make the schedule more accurate.

And that's the key problem. The goals of the showcase route are faster bus journey times and a more predictable schedule. Removing and moving zebra crossings will only help with this out of hours, on weekends and midday, because on a weekday morning the problem is more fundamental: Erlang's Laws. Congestion is a result of the ingress rate of a queue being higher than the egress rate. The reason vehicles can't leave whiteladies road isn't that there are vast numbers of people struggling to turn up Cotham Hill (more on that another day), or any of the side roads, it is because the merging of multiple queues at the triangle creates a bottleneck which having one lane dedicated to bus stops and a taxi rank doesn't do much to help.

And do we care about mid-day firstbus schedules? No -and neither should anyone else. People using the bus at weekend and mid-day weekdays are either people who can't afford a car, people with bus passes, or people who have made some ideological decision to take a bus: passengers FirstBus can take for granted. If they want to make money, they need to get the commuter traffic, and quite frankly, changes to pedestrian crossings aren't going to do it. They may help us car commuters by reducing the number of pedestrians and cyclists, but given our dataset implies that the Whiteladies Road congestion is due to problems in the city centre, those crossing changes aren't going to help buses or our cars on whiteladies road at peak hours, which is when it matters to us as well as FirstBus.

Sorry FirstBus, but whatever datasets you have on congestion problems on Whiteladies Road, they were clearly collected by FirstBus or Council staff during their working hours, rather than during am or pm rush hours. This is the only explanation why your proposals don't just do nothing for us drivers while making pedestrians and cyclists suffer, they don't appear to help buses either.

That's the irony there. This proposal has already got the cycling campaign saying "oppose this it's anti-pedestrian and anti-cyclist", it's also anti-car, but we think it manages to be bus-neutral at the same time. That takes skill, that does.

Antibicycle Awards: Bristol Zoo wins, Bristol Council loses

The judges met on site and have decided to give the Bristol Traffic antibicycle award to Bristol Zoo and Bristol Downs together for their 600 car parking spaces on the Downs with 6 bike racks that don't work for towing children to the zoo.

To make this an unbiased process, what we did was invite some of the cycling activists in the city to see what feature they hated the most, and gave the prize to that feature. Here they are, Terry and Chris on the right, talking to Adam Crowther of Bristol Council, about the Zetland Road junction that got nominated for the award.

This is where Bristol Council lost the race. Because they are going to try and fix things by changing the signal times slightly. Not just for the cyclists, but pedestrians too. While the troublemakers were loitering, one of these pedestrian people came up and joined in. She saw the hi-viz people with clipboards and assumed they were professionals, so came up and joined in with her own problems.

Apparently vehicles turning right from Zetland Road have nearly run over pedestrians who have the green man to cross the bit of the A38 the cars are using. She wanted it fixed, yet the obvious solution: don't give pedestrians a cross phase, didn't get a mention. That was it, the final straw.

Here is Cllr Jon Rogers, still smiling, still thinking he is in with a chance at winning the prize a junction where the police ticket bicycles for cycling on a pavement that cars can park on, and a light sequence designed to kill tax dodgers. But if they plan to stop the tax dodgers dying, it's lost our vote.

Chris Hutt breaks the news. Apologies for the sound quality and wobbly camera, but we had to get out of our truck for the video, and we were shivering a bit in the bitterly cold wind. The key point: he promises to do better next year.

We must also say, gracious in defeat. Always handy in a politician that.

Zoo transport

A late-breaking entry for the antibicycle awards, Bristol Zoo.

At first glance, you would think "what does the zoo do wrong, they have provided lots of bike racks". In fact we have a quote from Chris Hutt who thinks its excellent:

"There are two sets of 6 racks, so parking for 24 bicycles.
Can't complain about that." 

Given that Mr Hutt is the official complainer for the Bristol Cycling Campaign, the fact he isn't complaining about it is so unusual that it makes us suspicious. Was it a bribe? If so, how much?

There are two things odd with this picture. The light controlled pelican crossing of an important commuter route, and the strange cobbles on the pavement, just at the back wheel of the tagalong. Their cobbles' role can be a bit clearer from the other side, especially if we move the sign.

The two marked out rectangles on the pavement are in fact two of the very few disabled parking spaces in the zoo, and as they are the ones closest to the main entrance, very popular and in constant use weekends, bank holidays and throughout the summer. With two motor vehicles parked in these spaces, it is therefore impossible to park a bike with a trailer or a tagalong at any of the bike stands during peak zoo visit hours. If one were actually trying to encourage cycling to the zoo, this would be unfortunate, because nobody in their right minds goes to the zoo except with small children.

Anyone cycling would have to have some means of getting the children there, and by preventing trailers or tagalongs from using the facilities, the zoo can discourage anyone from cycling. All without troublemakers like Chris Hutt even suspecting, which makes it particularly amusing. How can the evening post run a controversy article on the zoo without any good quotes?

Well, this is where it gets fun, and where the real award nomination kicks in. The zoo doesn't want cyclists. In fact, it doesn't want any visitors to the city who don't come and park in the zoo's revenue-earning parking spaces. We know this, as they have written it down in their sustainability report. You see, there are some small problems with the zoo's plan to earn parking revenue from visitors

1. There isn't enough space in the zoo's parking space to make much money
2. The area nearby isn't resident parking, so visitors can and do park for free once the paid parking area is full

These are problems, but not insurmountable. The secret is the large unused wasteland nearby, often known as Durdham Downs. Part managed by the council, part owned by the Merchant Venturers, and somewhere we like because of its strong anti bicycle policy. Every path where a child may cycle has a big sign warning them off.

This leads to large amounts of empty space. Space that can be used. And what better use of open city parkland in the height of summer than providing parking for the zoo? It is a long standing arrangement that  at weekends and summers, currently gets turned into paid parking for the zoo.

There's a small problem with that -it's not clear that this is what was meant when the downs were to be kept for the people of the city "in perpetuity". This is why a year ago the Zoo was told that instead of this right to park here being a permanent feature, they had one year to come up with a plan.

They have had a year, and they have a plan. It is: park on the downs, add some signs.

This has taken some effort to pull off, and we will have to see what happens this week when the planning committee reviews it. What we are impressed by, however, is how the Zoo managed to hire some traffic consultants to produce a transport report which makes the case that allowing people to park on the downs is the most sustainable form of transit, all other options (walking, cycling, public transport) can be dismissed, and that Park and Ride isn't economic.

That's a good report. Read it.

First, they look at visitor traffic on a bank holiday

24%	Drove
67%	Passenger
2.6%	Walked or Cycled
3.8%	Bus
2.8%	Train or Train and bus

When you consider how many visitors they have on a bank holiday (hint, the Downs parking area has room for 600 cars), the fact that 2.6% managed to walk or cycle is pretty impressive. Presumably after the 12 bicycles parked with the child carrier poking into the main road, everyone else walked.

What is more surprising for us that nearly 7% used public transport, despite the surveyors choosing a bank holiday, the day in which all forms of public transport are at their least functional. Yet even by choosing a day when you are most likely to get visitors from outside the city, 7% used "legacy" public transport,  nearly three times the number who walked or cycled. Wow.

The surveyors, Pinnacle Transportation, to give them their credit, used this as evidence that driving was the only viable option, but because most people drove with family, it was sustainable. That's good. That legitimises us driving to school to do the sprog dropoff. Yes, it may only be 500 metres, yes we park on the school keep lines and half the pavement -but it's sustainable! We shall use that to dispute the next tickets we receive.

So, what to do? Pinnacle Transportation, whom we presume were well paid for their troubles, looked at the option for Park and Ride, and decided that it would cost too much as £1750/day. Why? First, P&R doesn't run at weekends, external visitors to the city on weekends are expected to drive in, so the zoo pays all P&R costs. That's £1450 a day. Secondly, the consultants estimate that adding P&R would reduce zoo parking revenue -on the Downs- by £300/day. That is: people choosing not to park on the downs are an expense.

That is beautiful, and it reinforces our beliefs that tax-dodging pedestrians and cyclists should be banned from the city. We've long argued they don't benefit central government's coffers, but this zoo transport report is the first time someone has spelled out that people who don't drive and park their cars on one of the city's parks cost money. If there is one fault, the report doesn't come out and denounce the 2.6% who walked or cycled, those who came by bus or train, or those who -worst of all- parked somewhere where it is free to park.

By marking down all lost parking revenue as an expense on the P+R, the transport plans can then say "too expensive". What they do propose instead is

1. Have a park and ride, but if it proves too expensive, stop it.
2. Provide better (permanent) signage to the Downs parking area for visitors

Option #1 may look good, but because of that offset-expense trick, the zoo knows that it won't be hard to make it look uneconomic, so it will die a death "we tried that, it didn't work". Instead the Downs parking area will remain, and with the better signage get even more visitors, because they won't get lost and accidentally park somewhere like Pembroke Road or College Road where it won't cost them anything. Which will make residents of those roads happy too.

Now, how does the Downs committee react? Let us look at the Nov 2009 meeting minutes. There's a fairly brutal submission from the Ramblers who argue that turning the downs over to parking is a fundamental abuse of the city's parkland, but what do they know? They may think that somewhere they like to walk is denied them -but nobody is stopping them from parking in the zoo parking area either. That leaves the "Friends of the Downs", who come out in favour not just of giving the Zoo the parking area they deserve, but making a rolling five year lease, which effectively means "forever". We are curious as to what the membership of the Friends group is, as one would, if one actually cared about the green stuff, be a bit concerned that they were more "Enemies of the Downs".

This then, is why the zoo is up for an antibicycle award. Not for the bike racks that don't actually work once there are some disabled visitors. But for the way they've managed to get the Downs friends and committee -the same people who spend so much of their paint budget on ensuring there is no safe way to cycle across most of the Downs.- to support the zoo's plans for 600-650 parking spaces there in high summer weekends and bank holidays, the dates when park visitors would be highest. That is, they have got these people to sell out the entire notion of park and replace it with parking. When you then look at the transport report, where the consultants argue, with a completely straight face, that having 600 cars drive to the city and park on the Downs is sustainable, that these people cannot walk or cycle, and that all lost parking revenue must constitute an expense for a park and ride scheme, well, it just rounds it off!

SCOOTing near Zetland Road

We are too lazy to go there ourselves, but Chris Hutt did our bidding and cycled (sorry, we will beat him soundly later!) to get some pictures of the Zetland Road/Gloucester Road nomination for our anti-bicycle awards. First look how this cyclist is riding without a helmet, and to the left of the designated cycling area.

That said, it is kind of ambiguous what bicycles are meant to do at this give way point? Ride, dismount, or get fined by the police. This is the junction where the police were doing exactly that way back in 2008, and it is still an issue at the local PACT meetings.

The cycling rules are clearer at the junction, where you can see the green light saying it is OK to go forwards and onto the A38, hoping the cars coming off Zetland Road aren't turning left towards Cromwell Road at the time.

Which today, at least one car is. Fortunately the cyclist was slow and did not get in the way, as they rarely have third party insurance, and it would be a complicated argument over liability at this junction. Normally if a car hits a bicycle running a light: the bike's fault. But here, the green light says go. So damage to your front bumper might be something you have to pay for yourself.

What say the council? As part of our anti-bicycle awards, we want to make sure the winning feature is not some transient accident which will shortly be fixed, but is in fact a deliberate design decision, implemented according to the plan. It looks good here.

Here is the answer from Adam Crowther, Head of Traffic Signals. 

"The sequence was changed recently to improve capacity thereby reducing the cycle time and reducing delay to pedestrians. We have also introduced SCOOT to better coordinate the signals.

A right turn filter was installed on Zetland Rd so that when the green man at the bottom of Elton Rd runs traffic from Zetland Rd is allowed to turn right - traffic cannot turn left. When the green man goes out traffic from Zetland Rd is allowed to turn right and left.

Cyclists will therefore only be in conflict with traffic from Zetland Rd that is turning right and they will not be in conflict with traffic turning left from Zetland Rd. Although this sounds a bit pedantic cyclists should remain between the studs - although this is not really a good idea as the opposite pavement is too narrow for shared use. Prior to the changes if cyclists turned right from Elton Rd into Zetland Rd they would have been in conflict with the green man. This indicates that the cycle crossing is essentially there to allow cyclists to go inbound on the Gloucester Rd not right into Zetland Rd.

This was a minor change to signal timings so we did not go to TAA as there seemed little point. I can understand that this is not perfect for cyclists but I do not feel it is particularly unsafe as cyclists have good visibility of right turning traffic and can merge in with it.

Signal priorities/sequence changed signs have been erected around the junction to inform people that the sequence has changed.

Whilst in hindsight it would have been beneficial to inform cycle stakeholders of the proposed changes I do not think we would have changed our proposals in any significant way. There are significant benefits to all users of the junction aside possibly from cyclists from Elton Rd. Buses have seen significant improvement in their reliability and after the changes all buses were running on time between the St James Barton roundabout and this junction. Similarly as the capacity has been improved the cycle time is lower and pedestrians experience less delay. It is also likely that rat running will be reduced over time due to the increased capacity. Cyclists have also benefited on most approaches due to the increased capacity and shorter cycle time. In particular the outbound Gloucester Rd movement receives significantly more green time, this is a movement heavily used by cyclists.

I apologise for not informing the cycle stakeholders but we did not consider this a significant change. The benefits to all road users including cyclists are clear. There are no similar signal phasing changes planned in the near future. Let me know if you need any more info.

Thanks,

Adam"

This is wonderful, the best quote yet from one traffic planner who is clearly on our side.

1. It manages to ignore the fact that of the destinations of bicycles coming off Elton Road, into-town is the main one, as anyone heading North would stay in Bishopston until later, on account of the bike lane being full of parked cars, and the pavement also being full of parked cars. 
2. The second option would be up Zetland Road; this is no longer possible as you would cycle across traffic.
3. It notes that prior to the sequence changes, bicycles on the shared bike/pedestrian light would have been in conflict "Prior to the changes if cyclists turned right from Elton Rd into Zetland Rd they would have been in conflict with the green man." -and uses this as justification for the feature. They really don't think anyone should be using this route except to get to the bike park across the road, or to turn left onto Gloucester Road northbound.
4. It states that signing that priorities have changed is sufficient cues of the changes "Signal priorities/sequence changed signs have been erected around the junction to inform people that the sequence has changed.". This is subtle, as the signs don't tell bikes that they can now get run over by traffic coming from the right, yet it is enough of a disclaimer "we put signs up" that the council avoids liability.
5. It argues that bicycles benefit, The benefits to all road users including cyclists are clear., because the cycle time at the junction has decreased. To be explicit, there used to be a longer delay between the period in which it was safe to cross the road, now there is a shorter delay between times you can get run over by passing cars.
6. It reminds bicycle people that they aren't important "we did not consider this a significant change", while clearly implies that the bus companies are in-loop on these decisions.
7. Because they didn't bother involving the bicycle people, it is unlikely that anyone bothered to count the volume of bicycle traffic leaving this junction, or their destinations. It is now too late to do so and make defensible accusations of the number of cyclists who are now at risk, because the feature has been rolled out. Nobody will try turning right into Zetland Road; less people will use the junction at all. 
8. Discouraging people from cycling down the A38 will benefit bus times on a showcase bus route, so bring benefits to FirstBus.

Lovely. The best bits come when you think about cycling city. This contraflow, Elton Road, is the primary route for people from Bishopston, the target cycle city community. This change makes it clear that these people shouldn't think about cycling in, they should use a bus instead. FirstBus 1, bicycle troublemakers 0.

This is a showcase bus route remember? And the council's side of the cycle city funding was to come from dual-counted bus lane improvements as well as s106 building development funds. Which means any costs of this improvement may be something we can bill the bicycles for!

We are hoping to get some feedback from UWE about their feature, to round off the pre-award event. In the meantime, can we thank Redland People for their coverage of our site, but point out that we do not consider ourselves local cyclists. They are missing the point entirely. Yes, some local troublemakers like Chris Hutt may be complaining, but Bristol Traffic? We celebrate the irony of a junction where the police have been fining cyclists for cycling through red lights having the signals changed so that cyclists have to cycle through red lights. We relish even more the delicious thought that not only does this stop anyone from Bishopston, the cycling city target area, wanting to cycle into the city, costs related to this junction may be billable as part of the council's contributions to Cycling City.

If we were cyclists we'd be upset, miffed. Feeling neglected, abandoned and perhaps even disappointed. Maybe even angry. But no, we aren't. We are laughing at the profound difference a bit of signal tweaking can make between making a commute by bike if not pleasant, at least survivable, and making it something where only the brave or the stupid will try and cycle round. We are also over the moon about the implications this has for the council's traffic department, where the cycling officers clearly aren't even involved in these kind of day-to-day decisions, and nor are the councillors.

We shall return to "SCOOT" at some other time, it looks interesting, and have engaged in some discourse with the people at the Transport Research Laboratory on its details. They are not yet scared of us, and are answering politely.

2010 Bristol Traffic Antibicycle Awards: Gloucester/Zetland Road

We hinted recently that the Gloucester/Zetland Road junction would get more coverage. It is time. This is Bristol council's entry our 2010 Anti-bike awards, the ones that one of our commenters, maliknant, said of UWE's entry: "UWE has put in a tremendous effort here. If they don't win, the vote has definitely been rigged." Perhaps. This last minute entry could be the rigging by a transport department reluctant to be forgotten.

Here is a view of Gloucester Road: at 0:09 you can see the new bike stands that the Cycling City funding just put in. But that is not why this junction merits a mention. What merits a mention here is the new sign "signal priorities changed" stuck up by the lights. Yes, they have changed.

They have changed the junction priority from "getting cyclists across alive" to "getting cars through and so helping firstbus schedules". This is a major change, and one that only took a bit of signal reprogramming -software, rather than expensive infrastructure. The best bit, being just a software change, no need to announce this change in advance to any of the cyclist complainer groups -the cycle forum, the cycling campaign, whatever. They just got to sneak it in and present those tax dodgers with fait accompli.

First, watch the video.

Note how the cars turning right get a green light, and off they go. Either into the city, or turning right-then-left onto Cromwell Road, and off to St Andrews or East Bristol, perhaps even the M32. That option is the best rat-run route from Redland to the M32 of a weekday morning, after all.

Note how a few seconds after the cars get their green light, some tax-dodging cyclist sets off cycling over a pedestrian crossing, then veers away from the pavement, turning into the paths of the cars. He is lucky that nobody is in a rush to get to the M32, or his hi-viz top and helmet would be no use whatsoever. Just another statistic to show that cycling is dangerous, more proof that red-light jumping cyclists are the great problem of the city, more evidence the local police need to crack down on dangerous A38 cyclists. See that: something goes wrong -the cyclists gets the blame and people stay scared of it. Which is how it should be.

Only here's the best bit. The cyclist, this reckless fool, actually thinks that they are doing the right thing. Because they've just come off the Elton Road contraflow, the "safe cycling" route out of Bishopston, and have sat there, patiently, waiting for the crossing light to give them a green bicycle, a "go" light. They don't know they are being reckless, they are just naive enough to believe that waiting for a green cycle light means that it is safe for a bicycle to be on Bristol's streets. Wrong. They are not welcome. We in Bristol Traffic know that. The city's drivers know that. The Bristol council traffic department knows it too -and have set out to show the cyclists how dangerous their activity is, and how unwelcome they are. The fact that Bishopston is the target more-bums-on-bikes area for cycling city, and this junction something everyone cycling into the city centre would encounter, only makes the change that much richer, the irony more delicious. With a quick change of the signal priorities that didn't even get mentioned to the bike/pedestrian groups, the engineering team managed to push back on all the pro-cycling initiatives coming down from the councillors, from central government. One team -fighting back!

With this entry we now close our entries for the antibicycle awards. Three entries: UWE, Rolls-Royce and now this one Bristol Council Traffic Department. Before voting begins, we are getting some comments from the candidates and some final snaps. Please take the opportunity to nip down to the candidate sites and see what you think. Remember: as well as excellent chocolate croissants, The Bread Store does really good pizza dough.

2010 Antibicycle Awards: Rolls Royce.

We have a new nomination for our anti-bicycle awards, Rolls-Royce, as submitted by "RB". This is the sign at their new car park.

Now, readers may think? So what? It's a car park, of course bicycles should be banned. Nothing odd there and clearly something we agree with. Why is this special?

What we like here is the message. It tells any of their staff who cycle to work in the North Fringe, along the A38, on or near the A4174 ring road, that bicycles are not welcome in this part of the city. It tells them that Rolls-Royce, manufacturer of fine engines for civilian and military aircraft isn't doesn't care about the CO2 footprint of the manufacturing process, as if you are making jet engines the car traffic is background noise. Literally. And anyone who is going all fluffy and trying to make their commute a bit greener is an enemy of this part of the North Fringe industrial community. Not only do they slow down us tax-paying, income-earning commuters as they pootle down Filton Avenue, getting in the way in the first clear gap and a chance to put your foot down, they even get in the way in the car parks. But not here. We like this.

If we can't ban bicycles from our city, at least some of our bigger employers can do what they can to discourage their own staff from cycling, so reducing congestion in the North Fringe area, which is the S. Gloucester commuter destination covered in the cycling city project.

That is two nominations from S. Gloucs, none yet from Bristol. On that topic, please can cyclists stop submitting copies of the Muller Road toucan crossing, part of the Farm Pub to North Fringe route. Work only starts there on Monday, not eligible until 2011. We do have an alternate nomination though, the Gloucester Road/Zetland road junction. Subtle but lovely. Wait and see.

2010 Bristol Traffic antibicycle awards: UWE Nominated!

We are pleased to announce a new event for this web site, the Bristol Traffic anti-bicycle awards! These are for :

The development in the cycling-city coverage area which does its best to make bicycles feel unwanted and below other forms of movement. This development must have taken place in the previous calendar year

The UWE feature we are pleased to nominate is a new arrival, something that has been fenced off for a few months, but now visible in all its glory. It is the gateway between the main UWE campus and the former HP parking lots. Now the University of West of England's lease is expiring on some of its other lots, the old recognised pedestrian route can be withdrawn and staff/students directed here, so it is good that access is now provided. And what lovely anti-bicycle access it is!

We first get a hint that something is good by the signs everywhere, the ones saying "No pedestrian access", along with a little no bicycle sign. This says: pedestrians are not allowed on the road. But it says something better. It says "Bicycles are not a legitimate form of road transport". Presumably the Transport and Society team that are based there will be giving a talk on that very topic before long -perhaps even Josh Hart, who travelled all the way from San Francisco to UWE to learn about town planning.

Clearly bicycles are not allowed on the road, we take that as a given, but it is nice to see the infrastructure enforce this. And here is where it gets exciting. Because what will the tax-dodgers do when they see this? Obviously, they will try to use the pavement.

This is what lights up our eyes. Every bit of pavement here has an anti-bicycle gate on it, a Z-bend to force them to come off in the ice, to hit other bicycles, or at least know that students are not welcome to the UWE campus on bicycles, as it makes it harder for the drivers to get to any of the 25+ car parks!

And look, they are everywhere! Not just one gate, but a series of them, spaced about 5 metres apart. If every pavement in Bristol was kitted out this way, there would be no more letters to the E.P. about bicycles on the pavement!

The thing that really excites is is this, the route to the right in the photo above. This is not just some random path, this is the main bike route from the A4174 ring road to UWE and the HP-Lockleaze route! This is one of the S Gloucester Cycling City bike routes! These are the places where the council and cycling activists have been having their little meetings discussing how to improve walking and cycling in S. Gloucs and the North Fringe! Yet someone -and we'd love to know who, as they will be receiving the award if this feature wins the 2010 award- decided to ignore all that and put in:

• Gated access to the car parks
• "No pedestrians, no bicycles" signs on the road
• Anti-bicycle Gates across every single path other than the road, even when they don't lead to anywhere other than other paths!

This is fantastic. You can't say it is done to stop bicycles being hit by fast moving cars, as the cars are all stopping for the barrier anyway; it would have been cheaper to put a warning-bicycles sign up on the road instead.

You can't say it was done to stop bicycles being on a footpath, as these are bike lanes; they are the only way to get a bicycle from the old campus to the new area, including the vice-chancellor office. [Incidentally, not the old vice-chancellor, the ones whose activities got the Bristol Blogger's blog suspended recently]. Indeed, it is the only way to get a bicycle to wallscourt farm gym, which, with its bike parking and changing facilities would make a good North-Fringe-Cycling-Hub -which is precisely why access to it should be restricted to cars.

No, these barriers have gone in on top of cycling city infrastructure because whoever designed this junction loves cars, hates bicycles and knows that encouraging bicycles to cycle to or near UWE will create traffic jams on Filton Avenue, so slowing down those people who drive to UWE.

If there is one failing, it is this: because they have not planted any fences either side of the paths, there is nothing to stop mountain bikers taking the dirt at speed and then committing through the junction, as happens at the MOD site. This development needs to be finished off with fences and thorny bushes, to round off the routing.