So far we've been silent on the topic of the elections -it's down to the conservative and UKIP candidates to see who gets the white-van vote. Although the tories are targeting the white van constituency at the national level, Cllr Gollop is now being pro-cycling city, which makes us worried. It could just be he's realised that the elves of Somerset and the dwarves of Gloucestershire have no vote, so there's no point promising anything to the commuters who keep this city afloat.
What we haven't seen from that candidate is any sign that he really does support these bicycle things, which is why we do think it is just a facade. It's the other candidates that worry us.
Here we are shocked to see Cllr John Rogers, LD candidate for the election, alongside his folding brompton bicycle and looking cheerful, here in the autonomous district of Montpelier, leaning his toy vehicle against the community bike rack put in to help the vans turn the corner.
The Bristol Traffic Project is considering conducting interviews with all the candidates, to see where they really stand on the issues that matter. What questions should we ask? And remember, they have to be questions that support our agenda, not some hippy-hobbist anti-motorist plot
This is heartbreaking. It doesn't actually mean much as the only time you can put your foot down is in the 11pm+ "minicab hours", where 40mph is the defacto speed limit -but it's the thought that counts.
This proposal is clearly pandering to the people who live in the city, at the expense of the commuters from the edges of the town, from North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Those people, the wealth bringers, need to drive in to the city in their status-vehicles, and now have to face a council even more war-on-motorist than before.
Why do the councillors choose such a short-sighted policy? It's because of the forthcoming mayoral elections. The wealth bringers outside the city don't have any vote in the election, so their needs can be ignored. Such a plan can only bring financial disaster to the region.
One councillor, Peter Abraham, has been bold enough to stand up against this, "it will cause frustration to motorists" he says, before slipping the code-phrase "driving at the right speed for the right conditions". This is the secret handshake of ABD, just as the phrase "indigenous people" is to the BNP.
Sadly for Peter Abrams, the ABD are as completely out of touch with a modern city as the BNP are. Look at our previously documented video of the 20 mph zone of Montpelier:
The frustation that YY03YGM, experiences is not the 20 mph speed limit, which they manage to get past while overtaking the cyclist. No, what is frustrating is
The cyclist with the camera doing 18-19 mph in the 20 mph zone.
The oncoming bicycle at the junction which forces the car to come to a complete halt.
The person walking their dog in the road at 0:56
The oncoming bicycle at (1:03)
The oncoming bicycle at (1:06)
The two children playing in the road on a pogo stick at 1:15
The bicycle at 1:25
The people walking the road carrying a box at 1:28
The car parked in the road with its hazard lights on at 1:30.
These are the problems. Not the speed limit, but the way it encourages people to walk, cycle, -even play in the streets. This is the real problem. It downgrades the residential streets from "rat runs where the right conditions are 30mph even through corners" to "quiet roads where people are walking, cycling and playing there as if it was 1908 and cars hadn't arrived; a country where people driving are viewed as unwelcome invaders instead of an essential part of the life of the city".
This is exactly what threatens us. When the council says "encourage walking and cycling", it means "encourage anti-motorist activities in the city".
As Peter Abraham says, "Are we going to harass the motorists every mile they drive?"
If you look at Montpelier -that's exactly what they are doing. And it's exactly what the council is planning on rolling out across the entire city.
Someone posted us this video complaining that it shows a car driver unable to think ahead, because the driver overtook a bicycle aggressively on the way into Montpelier, whereas everyone knows that you only put your foot down on the way out. The tax-dodger not only ended up being held up by the Audi YY03YGM, they had to drop down Brook Hill, sprintg along Upper Cheltenham Place and then squeeze past the car on Picton Street blocking the road with the hazard lights on, while the Audi was still stuck on York Road negotiating rights of way with whatever was coming from the other direction.
We feel that the whole incident documents a more fundamental problem. The 20 mph zone isn't delivering what was promised.
The opening sequence shows how a bicycle doing 18 mph held up the car, but as soon as they go a little above 20 mph to get past them, there's another oncoming bicycle before the blind zig-zags. Even the bicycle video documents the other problems: the pedestrian and their dog on Brook Hill, the two bicycles on Upper Cheltenham Place, the two kids playing with a Pogo Stick in the road -our road- at 1:14, and then another bicycle. At least the car with the hazard lights on has paid for the right to be there.
Where are the 20 mph zones? The signs show them, but the car would have been lucky to have an average speed of 10 mph across the entire journey. We were promised 20 mph limits, yet it only takes one or two people walking, cycling or even pogo-sticking around and you brought screeching to a halt. We have been betrayed.
We are shocked and appalled that militant eco-activists would attack our petrol stations and deny us our right to keep the government afloat. And Shell make record profits -as is their right.
We do not know who these people are-they claim to be "Bristol and Bath Rising Tide"
We condemn them utterly. One of our 4x4s was help up for 15 minutes.
That said, they did appear to make Muller Road more cheerful than it normally is. And while none of them appear to be wearing helmets, many are at least wearing hi-viz, -unlike the troublemakers in South Gloucestershire.
They have stolen our Road! York Road, from the Thali Cafe up to Fairfield Road, the secret locals-and-minicabs-only route from Stokes Croft up to Ashton Vale, is closed with a diversion onto an even narrower road.
What's worse, bicycles are still being allowed through.
As well as doing something to stop bicycles, they should take away the bollards closing Richmond Road off to traffic, which would give us an alternative. Instead the build-outs get abused as a place for small children to play.
With no road, and less parking, Montpelier residents are being forced to park across the city and walk home. How can you recognise them? Wherever they have to park, they do it Monty-style:
You soon recognise it: as far up on the pavement as you can get without damaging that wing-mirror; with the roadside wing-mirror folded in. Shown by Monty refugee X931BFB, forced by the York Road closure to park on Duchess Road, Clifton -over a mile away!
Again, we send our undercover cyclist and pedestrians into the city streets. Unlike in the Panorama documentary, we aren't going to make them do some in-mirror filming where they cry about the hard time they got -that's because we don't care about their feelings. Instead we just watch with bemusement.
Here, then, is an evening crossing of Montpelier. The bike is apparently equipped with LED head lamps, though this doesn't show up well in the video. Fairfield Road, a zigzag on Richmond Road then a descent on York Road -with oncoming traffic- followed by a drop down Brook Hill and along Upper Cheltenham Place to join York Road again.
What does show up is that there isn't much through traffic, and what there is gives way to the bicycle. It's hard to say that Bristol persecutes cyclists when every one of the approaching vehicles comes to a halt. The photographer claims that this is due to the fact that "My LED helmet lights cause physical pain to drivers I look at", which is something we aren't sure about, though it is certainly possible that they may be stopping because they can't actually tell that it is an oncoming bicycle. We would have to do some A/B testing with different lighting options to reach a conclusion. For now we shall just assume that in this city everyone is gracious to bicycles, even though they are clearly inappropriate for these narrow city streets.
Note how at the end of the ride, the cyclist has the rudeness to tell off a car for driving round without lights. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander we say, and if bicycles are going to nip round our streets without lights, not stopping at traffic lights or zebra crossings, then we car drivers should have the same privileges -and that includes the option of driving without lights. Its more environmentally friendly, you know.
However, that's not what we really want to cover. What we do want to raise is that Montpelier is simply too narrow for cars to get past bicycles, and that Picton Street-York Road-Fairfield Road route is not some residential road, it is the primary rat-run of Montpelier, cutting out two sets of utterly needless traffic lights and two mini roundabouts. If you want to get from Stokes Croft to Ashley Down hill, you are in a hurry and you know the back roads, this is the secret route to take. Yet all it takes is one single bicycle and there's suddenly a tail back of traffic, and all that time advantage is lost. The cars parked on either side of the road are as far over as they can be, and now with the police sending them threatening letters, it's going to be hard for them to provide any passthrough space for bicycles.
We should ban bicycles from those roads! This is a key through route in the city for well-informed locals, not some back route for bicycles. They should be forced to use Cobourg Road and Upper Cheltenham Place or Shaftesbury Avenue, not this, the main road through Montpelier. Especially during morning and evening rush hours. Banning bikes here would make it much easier to get a car over to St Werburgh's and then onto the Mina Road. Here's our proposal -red is the red-marked car route, green for the tax dodgers:
Those drivers trying to use this route are important revenue earners for the city -pootling cyclists aren't. And independent of whether or not this area gets 20 mph zones, oncoming bicycles delay cars here, and that costs all those people money. Ban them from the main streets in Montpelier -give them the back roads- and all will be well.
York Road heading into Bedminster on my morning commute. Nice to see several weeks of roadworks are coming to an end with the road being widened. But hang on a minute - where's the cycle lane which should be where the plastic fencing is?. Have the workmen forgotten to put it back or will it be reinstated?. The double yellow lines are back. Technically, the Advance Stop Line should have a feeder lane so that you can ride into it. This is very inconvenient. How are motorcyclists supposed to get into the ASL without a feeder lane?. Honestly- it's bad enough for them when those pesky cyclists occupy the box. Now they'll have to ride all the way down the right hand side of the traffic jam and barge into the box, scattering those no-good, liberal, non-polluting tree hugging lazy hippy cyclists.
Yes, but we'd rather things were peaceful out there. they continue
I was chased by a van through Montpelier today, I had to hide in someone's house to get away.
That's scary
I have a photo of the van
In that case, your contribution is welcome.
I was cycling up Stokes Croft, waiting to do a right turn onto Ashley Road. We had a green light but there was two lanes of cars heading in to town, so I just stayed where I was -in the right hand lane waiting. Suddenly this van that was waiting behind me swings left and then goes in front of me, almost turning on top of me. This is not only dangerous, as there is still two lines of traffic, pointless. I go forward, shout "what the fuck are you doing", get in front of him, and then, when there is a gap, cross the road. I then turn off onto Picton street and carry on. Before I do that I look back, and there is the driver of the van swearing and shouting at me. I carry on.
As I get to the end of Picton Street, past where the famous Range-Rovers live, I look right down the road to Herbert's Bakery (ed: Wellington Ave) and what do I see? I see the van coming up the road. The driver of the van was now chasing me into Montpelier. That gave me a fright. I was wondering if I should turn round and use the shortcut to Richmond Avenue to avoid the van, when I saw someone I knew getting their bike out of their house. I ran up to them and tucked my bike inside.
The can driver stopped, got out the van and was screaming at us "not so brave now, all words, come on then!" -he really did want a fight. But I don't understand why. All I know is that I was waiting at the lights to turn, he swung round and over me, and when I got upset at that he chased me round Montpelier.
We said we were calling the police and waited inside, then, as he got back in and started to drive out, I grabbed a photo.
Here is a photo of the van (ed: T455LBO) -it had Roman Windows written on the side.
This was very frightening. My journey only has one bad bit -Jamaica Street and Stokes Croft- and then I'm the safe quarter of Montpelier. I was good to pedestrians and didnt cycle through the pestrian crossing period, instead I waited patiently. And this is my reward -a mad white van driver chasing me through Montpelier.
Our local contacts reassure us that David who runs Roman Windows on Stokes Croft is really nice, and they checked this out. The vehicle is actually being borrowed by A&M motors this morning. So this incident must be because one of their drivers is having a bad morning or something, going off the deep end. Possibly they felt that you weren't waiting patiently for a green light, but instead blocking them, so while you were happily waiting, they were getting more and more worked up -so when you pulled past them and asked them WTF they were doing, they finally exploded. That doesn't excuse his actions, only gives us a possible explanation.
We can understand why this scared you, it must have given you a fright to see the van coming after you instead of going on to wherever it was going. In situations like that it is good to have a good "exit strategy" -you were lucky you know people in Monty. Otherwise, any bike-only option is good, as is doing a full U-turn on the road and heading off in a random direction. This can leave you with a new problem: how to get where you are going when there is a chance that somebody mad is after you.
The thing to remember though, is there are people like that. If someone does something aggressive like overtake you while you are waiting to turn right -it may be easiest to let them. Take a photo (discreetly), think of something witty to say, send it in. Rather than escalate the situation, which is exactly what you ended up doing, sadly.
Returning to the van in question, it's being driven dangerously by someone from A&M motors, known for their war-on-trees in St Werburgh's. We shall chase this up.
Leafleting cars on the pavements is one thing, are the police really going to turn on the car drivers and start persecuting them?
Oh yes.
This photograph is going to become one of those timeless pictures, the taxi NK55KYC given a ticket and a £30 fine for parking on the pavement of York Road.
Nothing like this has ever happened before. For Montpelier, this is as profound an event as it was in Northern Ireland when the army came in from the mainland in an attempt to impose order and provide an impartial police force.
The whole Northern Ireland low-intensity civil war theme is such a source of content we have to keep milking it for all it is worth.
Today, The Troubles. If you talk to the unionists, they pine for the days before the Troubles began, when they could march their Orangemen marches and the Catholics would come out and join in and everyone was happy. If you talk to the nationalists, they tell you how they'd stay in their cottages on the Garvaghy Road, in fear of the marches. From their perspective it was their attempt to mimic the US Civil Rights movement -and the unwillingness of the opposing party to adapt- that led to them adopting that other popular US idea: firearms, and so The Troubles proper began. What is key is this: attempted assertion of legal rights led to 30 years of armed conflict.
Here in Montpelier, 20 Feb 2009, something happened that may well be as significant. The PCSOs are going round ticketing cars. Here is Brook Hill -three cars on the pavement have notes on their windscreens telling W763VBO and VA53LVC amongst others to stop parking there.
They are not alone. On the corner with York Road, more cars have leaflets
This is persecution. The cars WR56YZM and DY02UXL have historically acquired the right to park on the pavements and on corners. Yet, here, on Fairfield road, all around this quarter of the city, the leaflets are out. And more than just the leaflets, the tickets.
What has happened? According to conversation with the PCSOs someone -and we think we know who they are- has been complaining to the police about the issue, and the police -not Bristol Parking Services- has come out to act.
This is exactly the kind of assertion of rights that leads to trouble, or even worse, The Troubles.
When the CPZ is rolled out to York Road, Clifton, it won't be live on a sunday, so this taxi will be able to park on the pavement by the double yellow lines on a Sunday lunchtime.
Some aspects of Bristol life will remain unchanged. Taxis are allowed to park where they like.
[taxi #2036 PX55SVL]
Posts
