The BBC is on our side!

It's been a bad week for us, what with the Times going over to "the other side"

Yet we are pleased to see that the BBC came out on our side, with a report on Bristol.

Yes, it lights our bollards up. We see someone wearing a helmet and hi-viz to cycle along the segregated bit of Prince Street Bridge, the one where the only vehicle likely to hit you is a boat if you ignore the "bridge swing" signs -although there is always the ice cream van at the end.

Later on, we see the BBC Bollard Man on Park Row, where he then faults someone for not having lights on as they approach the centre. At that point you can be sure the reporter isn't local -if he were he'd fault her for trying to cycle over the centre with the goal of reaching the other end alive, though she may be appearing to turn right to head towards the Watershed. Either way: in need of criticism.

We also liked the viewer's emails to back up the theme that the real problems are the people trying to cycle round our city, with both the classic evening post comment themes surfacing

• Taxpayers money is wasted on cycle paths unless they are made to use them.
• Why don't cyclists stop at crossings?

Congratulations to the BBC to standing up to this menance, not considering whether the infamous Magnatom did actually have a helmet, bright clothing and the right of way when that HGV lorry nearly ran him over.

Reminiscing about the time before the war began

We see this video of Bristol on a weekday last week.

It looks to us like old market to counterslip lane then down to the St Mary Redcliff roundabout, a loop back towards queen's square, along the harbour front then up Prince Street towards Baldwin Street.

Some people say this is an anti-cycling road design, but the reality is this congestion is a result of the war on motoring. Prince Street bridge was made alternating to cars, hence the congestion on Prince Street and nearby. Queen's square was converted from a dual-carriageway to a so-called-public-square a decade ago, and all those people stuck in the Redcliffe roundabout will be reminiscing about the temporary flyover they took down late last century.

If they can't use the pavement, they jump the lights

When the politicians were in town, they blocked off the pavements to bicycles, and early on in the evening, Prince Street Bridge. We got complaints from some of the Southville folk, for which we say: if you had a car, rather than walked, it would have been less of an inconvenience. Therefore, no sympathy, not even a little bit. And don't say there's nowhere for you to park, we all know about the Coronation Road pretend bike lane, you have no excuses.

What the police did do, and for which we are grateful, is close off the pavements to bicycles. We would have hoped this would have been sufficient to stop them cycling, but no, one chose to use the bike crossing of Prince St Bridge. Only now, no pavement option afterwards. What does he do? He runs the red light, a few seconds before it actually changes.

Unfortunately for him, an Airport bus coming from The Grove is executing a turn, and also ignoring the red light which they must have seen, unless the lorry in front blocked their view.

The tax-dodging cyclist almost got clipped by the bus, and you can be sure the green party or some other bunch of troublemakers would have been blaming the real politicians for the death that would have resulted. And we drivers would have been held up.

Scooter parking

"E" sends us this pic of a scooter outside the Louisiana Pub.

As they say, "Creative". What's good here is that you can be fairly confident no passing car is going to scrape you unless they go fully over the traffic island. If there is a problem: nowhere to lock the scooter to. One of those sheffield racks would help.

A dream of the past

There's a lot of fuss going about Council plans to do things to "The centre", namely stop vehicles other than buses, taxis or bicycles getting to and from Baldwin Street.

Obviously, some people are against this, such as Robert Bull, presumably the Bob Bull of the Bristol and Somerset branch of the Association of British Drivers. Bob proposes an attractive roundabout with an attractive pedestrian crossing:

Cars need access east/west also from the south ie Baldwin street, perhaps a large traffic light controlled roundabout with attractive central area for pedestrians, wait a minute thats how it used to be

Revert to a roundabout with some attractive high level walkways for pedestrians, job done.

This is missing the point. There are no roundabouts so attractive that families pop down there for a quick picnic, nobody says "It's a sunny saturday, lets' go down to the Bearpit or the Lawrence Hill roundabout and have some sandwiches there while the kids play with a ball". There are no high-level walkways in the city that pedestrians find attractive. Nobody thinks "I will take my dog for a walk over the M32 pedestrian walkways as its more attractive than the bits of the downs that aren't used as zoo parking".

These commentators don't realise this as they do find the M32 and roundabouts attractive. These are the people who take their family on holiday up the M6, not to enjoy the lake district, but to enjoy the view from the Lancaster service station, the one with the restaurant overlooking the motorway. They do this in their beige Austin Allegro, while wearing drivers gloves and a special driving cap.

You see, those of us who have to get round the city know that bus lanes are hint, like no parking and no-entry signs. Important people can ignore them. We do! Because of that, while making more of the centre bus, taxi and bicycle only irritates us, it is only mildly inconvenient.

By pining for the old days of the roundabout, these people are fighting not just a losing battle, but an irrelevant one. And in doing so, they forget what the council really stole from us: the dual carriageway through Queen's Square to Redcliffe.

Who remembers the old days, when this was a busy, useful, dual carriageway joining up Templemeads and its flyover with the Centre? Always in use, always popular. And then one day it went away. For some years the road remained, in the park, but now even that is covered over.

We believe that the dual carriageway is still hidden under this grass, and that removing it and the parkland would return a valuable missing link to the inner city.

We don't care about bus-only signs, but the loss of a dual carriageway through heart of our city has left it crippled. Empty. Dead. Bring back what they stole from us!

Bullies

See this?

Part of the problem with Bristol's public transport system.

Those bullies at First Bus have forced the driver of 4x4 BMW X5 HT03DNF right off the road and onto Bristol's famous traffic island. For a whole day!

Luckily, the driver of this VIP vehicle apparently has high suspension and no low slung tackle.

Bristol Traffic says: Bollards

Bristol Snow Chaos: Breaking News

It seems that the blogosphere does have a use. Here at Bristol Traffic we use it to promote the car and pavement parking, whilst relentlessly pursuing an anti-cyling agenda.

Others, however, appear to use blogging as some sort of way getting messages across, to Bristol City Council, for example. Over on the BristolGreenBlog Chris Hutt managed to be challenged to a dual by Cllr Jon Rogers.

It seems that today, possibly as a result of that dual, we motorists are now being scorned as Bristol City Council begin to actually clear the pavements. We have photographic evidence, gathered by our roaming reporter, that highly visible gangs of ex-Street Cleaners are actively trying to improve the conditions of Bristol's pavements.

When will this nanny state pandering stop?

The war on cars continues!

We'd seen signs of this last week, and now more proof comes in -this time from contributor "IW" that the council is continuing the same anti-car madness of its predecessors. Yes, In the centre of the city, the traffic island that provided the best free parking in the centre, with its car park area all safely marked out, is now blocked off.

Hopefully it is just temporary, a left over from some harbour event or something, or put in while BT need access to their manhole. If it does not, then we will have to write a stern letter to the Evening Post, complaining about this anti-car madness.

RIP Bristol Urban Design Team

They've gone and removed Bristol's famous Free Parking Space.

In what appears to be a concerted attack on motorists, fly-parkers, and anyone concerned with quality in the 'Public Realm', Bristol City Council have unilaterally blocked access to this well-known Bristol attraction. This is pedestrianisation by stealth.

What was an apparently well-designed and considered contribution to our inner-city highway infrastructure is now little more than a fly tipping opportunity. Or an exclusive 4x4 parking bay.

Or are the cycling-city mob about to fill it with bike stands?

Bristol: not car friendly

The BBC has an article saying Bristol is one of the UK's least car-friendly city, with Edinburgh and London being worse.

London is obviously car unfriendly, as there is the C-zone and money and space wasted on Transport for London's offerings. Edinburgh has a vast resident parking zone and no motorways into the centre. Compare it with Glasgow, where most open space has been turned into motorway,and wherever you live you hear that soothing background hum of speeding cars. In Bristol, you have to live near the M32 or the portway to get that reassuring sound.

There article also picked up on how excessive car parking is in the centre. Yes, it is outrageous. People should boycott these garages, see how long they will charge excessive fees if everyone refuses to park there!

Of course, you do need somewhere else to park, which brings us back to the Prince Street Traffic island.


This place -a traffic island which has a designated, free, parking space is the symbol of a city's lost freedom. It's the one place in the centre where you are utterly free to park on the pavement, in the way of whiny pedestrians, stopping those criminal cyclists. One square of car friendliness in the middle of an anti-car city.

Which is where the bad news is. Today, while looking for somewhere to park our new 4X4 (bought on the scrappage scheme, lovely), we came across some officials standing over a car that had got here before us, holding open a printed map.

Apparently, this parking space should never have gone up here -it was put in by some consultant, and people are complaining. Not those whinging cyclists, always unhappy. No, it's BT, complaining that the parking space blocks access to their manhole cover, and hence telecoms operations in the the city. This is wrong. If they need to get there, they should just turn up early and occupy the space.

If the council do take this parking space away, it will symbolise the end of all chances of car-friendliness returning to the city. Still, unless they block it off with bollards, we will be able to retain our historic right to park there. Furthermore, the idea of unofficially painting up new parking spaces on roundabouts, traffic islands and pavement extensions is appealing. We can think of many places in the city where cars park entirely on the pavement often enough that they deserve legitimate parking bays to be painted there. And if the council won't recognise this, we will have to paint them ourselves!