I would have stopped for a kid but not 'im!

Lovely bit of traffic jam road rage here, with the driver of S164JRP and his dog giving the cyclist a hard time for trying to cross through near-stationary traffic




There's a bit of fun after 1:10 where the driver in front says a lot of kids come that way -would he have stopped then?

To which the driver says "I would have stopped for a kid but not 'im!"

We don't advocate showing preferential treatment to anyone -children, adults, slow-moving elderly. If you let kids cross the road safely, then you will lure them into complacency which will only get them run over as they get older. Furthermore, there's the question of "when does adulthood begin?". Do you stop for kids under 16 but not above that? Is 18 the threshold -even if they are still at school?

It's just too hard to discriminate this way -just abuse everyone and be done with it.

Reminder: We are a data driven organisation that understands how things work

Some people -mistakenly consider us to be some kind of spoof, whereas in fact we are a documentary that has built up a weakly-defensible dataset of the city's transport issues.We also include topics like queue theory, game theory and the like to analyse that data.

This is why we despair when the legacy mass media publish articles that lack both real data and the fundamental understanding behind it

Now, Queue theory, Erlang's core concept: A queue happens when the egress rate of a channel is lower than the ingress rate.

In less technical terms "you get a queue if less things are leaving something than entering". It doesn't matter how big a bucket is, if more watering is pouring into it than is leaving from a hole in the bottom -eventually it will overflow

In evening post commenter terms "there's no point making something two lanes wide if it has to go down to one lane wide a bit further on". The bottleneck is the one-lane bit wide, not the two lane stretch.

We know this is hard to grasp, which is why people are still complaining about the Portway bus lane. Evening Post Commenters: the bottlenecks are the narrow bits beyond the suspension bridge and Anchor Road -removing the bus lane will not increase your journey time by car at all.

Alternatively: it is futile to remove a bus lane in the name of congestion, if there's a single-lane road later on. You are wasting your life on something that will not deliver the benefits you expect. You may argue against this using the term "common sense" -but that is why building things from bridges to computer networks rely on people called "engineers" trained in something called "mathematics". Common sense doesn't cut it when you actually want something to work.

The Evening Post reporters need to pick this up too.

As today there is an article, Traffic lights on Blackboy Hill 'are cause of the congestion'.

A BRISTOL campaigner claims a set of traffic lights at a busy junction cause more congestion than they solve – and should be ripped out.
Simon Brookes, who led a campaign for the removal of a controversial bus lane in Westbury Road, is now calling for the removal of the lights at the top of Blackboy Hill.

We aren't sure what "campaigner" means here. Presumably it means "someone who doesn't understand queue theory but likes to get their face in the regional press"

He conducted a survey and claims that the lights held up lots of buses.

Mr Brookes carried out another survey yesterday between 9am and 10am. He said he witnessed 89 changes of the lights and during that time, only two buses went through on green. But the number of buses going uphill and held up on a red was 26.

We are surprised that Mr Brooks has now started caring about buses. Because if you are trying to get bus lanes removed on the approach to Whiteladies Road, suddenly caring about their performance in Whiteladies Road itself seems somewhat hypocritical -unless you are simply pretending to care.

Furthermore, if you are going to do a survey on congestion -why do it outside the rush hour. Do it at 08:30 at peak commute and school runs. Doing it after 9am is like saying the M32 doesn't get congested because you drove up it on a sunday morning.

Bad data, failure to root cause analysis and then pretending to care about public transport. We don't do any of these.

Mind you, Mr Brooks' pretence to care about buses doesn't make it through the article:

He will also be calling for a cycle lane to be removed from Westbury Park, where it meets with North Road.
He said the lane was not used by cyclists and simply added to traffic congestion.
Mr Brookes also wants to see the removal of the remaining stretch of bus lane from Westbury Park.

Sorry, but the congestion has other causes. It may seem frustrating to be stuck in a car watching bike lanes and bus lanes that are empty most of the time, but that is because they are working. The buses are not being held up until they merge with the cars on Whiteladies road; the bicycles not held up at all, mostly.



Here then is our dataset: a video from  "wheels on the bike" counting the entire set of vehicles on Whiteladies Road, from the top to the triangle, in 1:45.




Most of Whiteladies road is one lane wide. That is the bottleneck -the carrying capacity of the road. Arguing about bus lanes  up the hill or even switching times of traffic lights is irrelevant when there is a lane traffic jam from Park Row and Park Street stretching all the way up to the Downs.

This is why appearing on papers demanding for things to be removed because they "cause congestion" is dangerous. Someone may one day see this video and say "maybe there are other issues". We know that -it's the surburbanites driving into town. Simon Brookes should recognise this, and keep his mouth shut.

Better texting data: only 1 driver in 100 does it

Our morning surveys show that about 1 in 5 drivers stopped at a light is texing or phoning. Pretty damning -but there could be selection bias. The lights stop the drivers who aren't aggressive -possibly because they are on the phone. And its one route, morning only.

More data is needed.

Here then is a short video of the route from Ashton Court to Clifton, initially showing a line of stationary traffic on the A369 (Portishead and M5 Gordano Services exit), heading down to town. Ignore them: our dataset is the line of vehicles heading to the junction from the Clifton Suspension Bridge. It's great for a survey: a row of stationary vehicles, easy to measure from the other side of the road, and because of the toll, many people have their window down.

Count the cars, and see if you can spot the one texting



For the inattentive, it's the Audi 1:88, where both driver and passenger are tapping away on their smartphones. That's the car with the custom number plate RJZ1066, to show how important they really are.

Sadly, even though they are important, they are stuck behind 70+ other vehicles driven by people who also think that they are important, so the Audi driver has to text ahead and perhaps add updates on facebook. It is selfish commuters who are holding up the important people from getting home from Clifton.

What's important is that the new data shows that the claims that 1 driver in 5 is texting at lights is clearly false -at least here, on a weekday evening.

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.

M5 work

"Paul N" sends us this video of what the M5 was like on October 26 between Bristol and Cirencester.

As people say, where were the police? Yes, there was an accident up the road, but surely one or two could have been diverted to direct people to drive up the hard shoulder and then U-turn up the slip road? Without that, vehicles doing that -such as the skip lorry- are taking their lives into their own hands. We pay our taxes so that we can drive the wrong way up a motorway slip road safely!

One for all

Chaos on Barrow Road leading to St Philips Causeway yesterday. One lane was closed on the cycle path due to a sign on the cycle path informing everyone that one lane was closed on the cycle path.


This in turn, caused mayhem on the road as motorists slowed to "rubberneck", each doing their duty as fine upstanding (or in this case reclining) citizens checking that cyclists didn't stray on to the adjacent pedestrian designated side of the shared pavement as those mischevious villains are so often inclined to do. Pictured above is one such cyclist. We won't tell you if she actually encroached on the pedestrian area. I think you can judge for yourself by the look in her cycling induced rage crazed eyes and the flare of her nostrils as she snorts the air for pedestrians to plow down, what happened next. Excuse the blur in the photo, but as is typcal of lunatic cyclists in these situations, she was travelling at speeds well in excess of five miles per hour at the time.


EDIT: Word just in from our man in the Bristol Traffic helicopter that the sign was in fact to inform drivers that the road was down to one lane and not there for cyclists at all.

We have to say that we breathed a sigh of relief when we heard this news. After all the sign pictured looks very much like one intended for use on the roads, paid for by road using drivers. Why should cyclists benefit from it? At the same time we welcome the well chosen placement of the sign giving drivers and cyclists a level playing field. If the road is reduced by a lane then so should the cycle path. It's only fair and just desserts for those cyclists who are always banging on about being equal to motorists.

Extra EDIT: More news just in from our man on the Bristol Traffic Segway that similar signs were placed on numerous surrounding pavements throughout the Barton Hill and St Philips area, giving pedestrians their fair share of obstacles too, some covering nearly the whole width of the pavement.

All in all a good day spent sending out exactly the right message to those misguided tax dodgers who choose to walk and cycle. If anything's going to undermine their disillusioned beliefs that they're doing the right thing then it's schemes such as this. We believe it will be also be of great effect deterring those who are considering getting involved in the seedy underworld of treachery and hooliganism that is cycling. Well done to all involved.

Evening on Muller Road

Muller Road, evening. A line of cars, not moving, heading back towards Horfield. Where are they coming from? A mystery.

Where are they going? That's clearer. The M32, and then onwards: M4, M5. Out. It is everyone's right to live a long way from their place of work, and the duty of the governments to take whatever measures it deems necessary to ensure that the petrol keeps flowing at a price the voters deem acceptable. It is also required to provide the roads needed to keep the cars moving, and here they fail.

This road has pavement on two sides, yet almost nobody walks on this, the purdown hill side. It would be trivial to remove the pavement, take a bit away from the hill, and what do we have? Another lane for cars. That is, provided it is kept for cars. If they turn it into a bus-lane, or worse, a bike lane, that would be a waste.

On that topic, we were pleased to hear the AA on the radio earlier in the week, complaining that it now costs an extra 2p/Litre. Yet they said something we disagree with. Their so-called spokesman actually advocated funding public transport from our road and petrol taxes. This must have been a slip of the tongue, as that is one step from advocating funding bicycles.

MOD Abbey Wood

It turns out that if one cycles up through MOD Abbey Wood before 0900 local time, there is in fact a very large traffic jam of cars waiting to get into the secure car parks.

Unlike Bristol City "secure" car parks like the infamous Trenchard Street car park, where you clearly have to have your name and date of birth tatooed onto your neck to get arrested for stealing from cars, this MOD facility is pretty locked down: guards, ID, and a covered bridge to get to the offices. The Abbey Wood setup is to avoid car/truck bombs: it was built in the early nineties when the Provisional IRA were regarded as a terrible threat, rather than a terrorist group to fondly reminisce about. All parking is a long way from the offices, instead it is close to the ill-fated Cheswick development.

Getting through the security checks to park is pretty slow, hence the tailback all the way to the A4174. Hence also the cars blocking the bike lane. Perhaps we should demand hatched yellow junction markers here, if only to make the junction more slippery and entertaining in ice.