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.
People email us and say things. A lot of things, most of which we can't print, as they assume the team are some group of bicycle-people. Not so. it is just that we don't film from our own vehicles, so have to send out "expendable tax-dodgers" to get footage for us. Why don't we film ourselves? This video from London shows why.
As you can see videoing from the vehicle doesn't help
It stops you being able to make and take calls with the camera phone.
Holding a camera over a passenger while driving along makes it hard to maintain full speed, especially when you are hanging back to disagree with the cyclist.
The troublemakers all gang together when the police get involved
That's the worst part. Your own video can be used as evidence against you. As for the whole nature of this dispute -the tax dodger wing-mirror-taxing the smart car as it pulls out into his lane, well, if you have wing mirrors, you aren't a proper Bristol driver -a fact which the very presence of wing mirrors radiates to everyone nearby and puts you at a disadvantage in all right-of-way negotiations.
Anyone thinking of visiting the city -just stick some duct tape round the mirrors to create that local-driver look without having to actually do Richmond Road, Montpelier, at full speed.
Ever since Elvis first went on stage wearing underpants a size too small causing a lack of blood flow to his knees, resulting in what was to become his trademark dance moves, music has always aligned itself with forces of evil and sin. You'd think that with modern technology and advances in manmade fabrics times would have changed, but no.
If you need proof then you need look no further than popular music act "30 Seconds To Mars" and their latest insult to our ears, eyes and sense of moral decency.
Not only do they underestimate our intelligence by providing us with a music video that is almost 9 minutes in length when their proposed trip to Mars is only thirty seconds, the video appears to be promoting cycling on public tax funded roads. Not just any cycling either. At numerous points in the video the bicyclists can be seen blatantly riding more than two abreast, lacking any sort of helmets or high viz attire, and I'm sure at one point someone can be seen riding backwards without using the appropriate hand signal. They then have the nerve to use an altercation with a car as the crux and dramatic turning point for the video when it's obvious that the only reason the altercation occured is because the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet rendering him very difficult to see.
Well, "30 Seconds to Mars", I hope you're pleased with yourselves. I have just one thing to point out to you. When you do start making your journeys to Mars, you might find it actually takes a little bit longer than 30 seconds on a bicycle. Think on.
Whenever you monitor humans, you have to worry about The Hawthorn Effect; the fact that people behave differently when being watched. This is notorious for skewing the results of many experiments, and you should always ask experimenters how they compensated for it, to make sure they knew what they were doing.
We solve this problem by not telling the cyclists that it's a camera. They think its a light. Of course, having the bicycle with lights on would effect the experiment too, so to avoid that it doesn't actually work as a light.
By monitoring without them knowing, we get to see the world from their point of view, hear their complaints, then dismiss them.
Today's video: Dove Street Kingsdown to Broadmead, by way of the Marlborough Street Bus station.
Notice that in Dove Street, those vans parking 3/4 on the pavement ensure that passing bicycles do not get hit by open doors, and make it easier for passing vehicles to get by them.
The Honda LG57XPV that appears to pull out without indicating before veering across the road is not victimising the cyclist, it would behave the same regardless of whoever was behind it. While driving along, had its brake lights on, "tourist lights" as we call them, which warn the vehicles behind that it is planning something.
Pulling in to Dighton Street at 1:00 we see a line of bicycles using this road to avoid the St James Barton Roundabout/Bearpit options, or to head over to Clifton without cycling over the big hills. [Incidentally, we hear a rumour that the Bristol Cycling Campaign, as well as promising free drinks at their EGM on Thursday, are planning a Bastard-Hills-of-North-Bristol ride that will not avoid those climbs].
At 1:20 the instrumented cyclist and another cyclist both slide past a taxi to occupy the remaining half of the ASL. This does not leave room for the two other cyclists following. What will they do?
At 1:28, the cycling-chic woman passed earlier appears to be having braking problems, as her bike only stops after she has shot halfway over the junction. Notice how she stops by putting both feet on the ground. That means fixed-speed or broken brakes. Given that cars are still heading across this road from the right hand side, only three sets of lights/two junctions from the M32, everyone anticipating a bit of speed, this is a brave things to do, she has earned her ghostrider label.
At 1:35 we see that the vehicle waiting to turn right is in fact a police car. Presumably our little ghostrider was too busy looking for cars from the right to worry about what cars were waiting to turn.
At 1:41, the police car pulls forward, and by 1:45 is parallel with the rider. Is she going to get told off?
No, it turns right, as do the vehicles behind. Even the lorry at 1:57 doesn't clip her, despite her being positioned on the inside of the bend
At 2:02 the high speed sprint of a van through the lights tells us that they have just gone red for that lane, and that the bicycles will now get a green light, which kicks in a couple of seconds later.
At 2:06 our camera enhanced cyclist sets off and never sees the ghost rider again. She had not only tried to cycle across the red light and the lanes of traffic, she had positioned herself so she could not see the lights, and so missed them changing.
Our cyclist uses the bike lane until it ends, and is then forced to turn off the road, to go down Whitson Street to the bus station. There then follows 30 seconds of dullness.
Where things get entertaining again is 2:44, where the bicycle is in the bus and bike only lane heading towards Broadmead. They have a red light. Will they wait? Or has the previous junction given them ideas?
They wait for three seconds, then veer over to what appears to be a pedestrian crossing -but actually has a bicycle on it. Therefore we must sadly conclude that this bit of crossing on bike is legal, and we can not report it to the police.
We are not so sure, however, about the pavement riding they do afterwards. They do not go straight on, where they would encounter the car, but instead veer left past some phone boxes, over the bus lane and then on some more pavement. We were beginning to get hopeful again, but then saw that they were actually riding up to some bicycle specific traffic lights -which were going green- and then they set off again, into Horsefair and hence Cabot Circus.
As you can imagine, we are unimpressed by the cyclist who ran the first red light. Not only was it dangerous, it didn't gain anything. At least when we speed in a car we get something in exchange -the feeling of speed, reduced journey time. She got nothing, and forgot to keep an eye out for police cars. The second junction though, leaves us confused. The bicycle clearly went up on the pavement, over a pedestrian crossing, on some more pavement and then up to some lights. We do not whether to be
Upset about the behaviour of the cyclist
Upset that an anti-car council added these features
Confused by the fact that these features seem to not be at all rational. Surely to make it easier to get from the bus station to broadmead, the crossing lights would be on the left of the junction, so the bicycle would not have to zig-zag everywhere? We suspect the lights were put in on a budget to help tax-dodgers head the other way.
We have decided to go for all three options. Bristol Traffic: confused and upset.
Last week we suggested that bicycles should be banned from the main Montpelier through route, Picton Street-York Road-Fairlawn road, instead sent down Cobourg Road.
However, we no longer support this proposal.
Our research shows that there is no room for bicycles on this road, even on the pavement. Instead bicyclists should be forced to use the one-way Lower Cheltenham Road, when heading west, and St Andrews Road, when heading east. The uphill involved in the latter option will discourage them from cycling at all, we hope.
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.
FirstBus would like to make clear that this footage of a bus failing to observe rights of way rules is not one of theirs.
All their buses respect zebra crossings as well as Advanced Stop Lanes for bicycles.Furthermore, anyone who states otherwise will receive an injunction from some well-known libel lawyers to prevent them spreading such lies.
Posts
