One little sighting over by our strategic PCSO-state partners, Google, are their self driving cars.
They are utterly not-ready for Bristol. You can see this at a glance
Not only is there a bollard on the roof, there appear to be sensors coming out of every corner.
Here in the city centre we have a word to describe vehicles with wing mirrors attached: visitors.
While having wingmirrors helps you in certain out of town operations, primarily changing lanes on the M4, in town it actually hurts you: it makes your car about 30 cm wider so significantly reduces your choices as to where to drive. And, as their presence broadcasts that you are not a local —but instead have a vehicle you care for— you lose every negotiation that takes place, be it a junction or a "who will give way first" interaction. And, when parked, you don't have to bother looking out the window when you hear the sound of a car-on-parked-car interaction, unless it is so loud that you fear it may be some damage needing bodywork repairs.
Now put something on every corner of the vehicle whose presence is actually critical for the self-driving feature to work. Sensors attempting to detect what is too close, so the multi-layer neural network that is is google self-drive program can make a decision as to what to do next.
It's doomed.
That's before even looking at what complexity of road the cars are exposed to. This road, "Castro", is a complex environment on the basis that it actually has people walking. Yet it is wide-enough for oncoming vehicles to pass each other, all junctions are nice simple right-angled crossings, and visibility is reasonable. Now imagine taking a car trained here and trying to drive down Clifton Vale, the one with the blind z-bend you have to share with oncoming traffic. The car would just give up. And it would share the experience with every other google car, saying "avoid this road". Before long whole swathes of the city would be blacklisted by Google cars, cars who give up on account of their paintwork and external mounts being valued.
Which, when you think about it, could be no bad thing
One of our vast fleet of vehicles has become eligible for paying the wingmirror tax
Which raises a question: when?
Not having a wingmirror
gives you a tactical advantage in negotations with oncoming traffic when that oncoming vehicle still retains theirs.
lets you drive through monty at least 3 mph faster.
stops you having to worry about cars driving past when you are parked in those same montpelier streets.
ensures that you aren't elegible to pay the tax a second time.
Any disadvantages?
unless the mirror is blatantly hanging off, held on only by duct tape, oncoming vehicles may not realise that you don't care about your wingmirrors; you really need to communicate your status and intent to achieve the best outcome in the negotiation over who goes first.
being passenger side, you have to park your car on the wrong side of the road to gain immunity to the passing-car problem.
Pulling out from parked is slightly harder. You may even now want to consider indicating.
it's not great changing lanes on the M4
Bicycles coming up the inside of you on a bus lane have to look out for you switching into their lane before a junction -but they had to do that anyway.
Kills that conversation starter in the evening post "a cyclist smashed my wing mirror and cycled off -and do you think they were insured".
Apart from the motorway lane changing problem, all of these are manageable, and the key advantage "you know you won't break it again" gives tangible tax-payment reductions.
The only time you need a functional wingmirror is the day of the MoT.
Which raises an interesting idea for a new business: wingmirrors to rent by the day.
Survey the streets of monty and the taxis of the city, build up some stats of vehicle brands & types in the target market. (example above; VW)
Identify those mirrors in the market where the cost of replacement is significant: (example above; VW).
Build up a stock of the main mirror types from some of the discount online wingmirror retailers (yes, they exist).
Discreetly let it be known that you can rent mirrors at a rate of £5/mirror/day.
Rent them
The need for building up the portfolio of mirrors could be avoided if you start by requiring a weeks notice "to put you in the calendar". You can then buy the mirrors on demand online, building up the set of mirrors you need driven directly by customer demand.
Yes: this could work.
The main competition is actually going to be mirror theft: you need to price your daily rate low enough that it's not worth stealing mirrors off other vehicles
Other than that though: "wingmirrors to rent" could be the new business to transform the city.
The militant cyclists are saying "It's not our fault that HGVs kill us -they shouldn't be there", and now they even have the Times on their side
We, and our sponsors, Tesco, say "HGVs are needed in our city to deliver an optimised supply chain, if anyone gets run over by one it is their own fault for being on the inside of the vehicle"
This is why a lot of cycle safety training in London is dedicated to
make it clear to people on bikes that they are invisible from a cab of
an HGV, so should never go up alongside them, or end up in an ASL in
front of one.
We have another group of people who need to be better educated.
Take this road, St Werburgh's Road.
If you were in Montpelier, a car with its rear window replaced with cardboard and big scrapes down the side wouldn't get a second glance -but here we are in St Werburghs. What is up?
Apparently, the owner of this car dangerously parked their car on the inside of an HGV.
The HGV -entirely innocently, as the car was hiding in its blind spot- scraped down the side of the car, caught the rear bumper and pulled it off. It also clipped the rear hatch, pulling that up, bending it, and in the process shattering the window.
Why did this happen? Because the car driver, recklessly, parked their car on the inside of where an HGV would go past some ten hours later. For this reason, it is their own fault.
We say: people like this need to go on a "safe parking near HGVs" course, rather than complain about passing trucks from destroying their vehicles. At the very least, they could use that spare space to the right of the picture, the "pavement".
Here in St Andrews Road, Montpelier, we are shocked to see two cars getting tickets for being slightly on the pavement
slightly shocked, but not completely surprised. As there is almost enough space for someone to walk by on the inside
That will hinder passing traffic
And as can be seen here on upper Cheltenham Place, if you don't get fully on the pavement, you get to pay the wingmirror tax.
Note that vehicles in these photos include a fiat, a VW and at least one Vaxhall Astra -built in the UK to a German design.
Now that Cameron has finally stood up to the European oppressors with their plans for friendship and co-operation across countries, we hope that the owners of these vehicles will recognise the error of their ways and buy morris minors. Say goodbye to vehicles that start every morning! Say goodbye to driving over 60 mph on the motorway! these are un-British!
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.
Field Operative "TH" emails this photo of trouble on Bond Street South, outside the new Future Inns Hotel/Phoenix Court BCC Offices heading towards the Underpass in Temple Way at 5:00pm 10th May.
Delivery driver in the Mercedes Van ends up with a Peugot 207 cutting across him. The 207 lost his passenger mirror in the process.
Just to add to the situation, the Bus Driver thinks he can follow other cars by mounting the Central Reservation kerb to pass...
Not enough room - One sandwiched 207!
We express our sympathies to WN60ZXD, and welcome them to now owning a Montpelier-style vehicle. We must remind FirstBus drivers, especially that of WX05RVK that their vehicles are wider than cars, and when they go up on raised pavements and reservations, the vehicle tilts a bit too.
To stop this problem in future, we propose an awareness course for car drivers, teaching them that vans have a tendency to pull out without warning, and that buses not only have blind spots, they may not be fully aware of the width of their vehicle. Just as London has a "don't undertake lorries that come up behind you at ASLs" campaign for cyclists, we propose a "don't get stuck where a FirstBus bus tries to drive over a central reservation to get past your collision with a van". We believe that such an awareness program would be more cost-effective and beneficial than a "how wide your bus is" course to FirstBus drivers.
A lot of cyclists complain about cars passing them too closely on narrow roads, how they get in our way (technical term "the primary position") to stop the vehicle behind doing this.
The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the road is wide enough for oncoming vehicles to get past, an assumption invalid for most of the best rat-runs in the city.
Here our secretly-filmed cyclist causes delays for a driver who is not only paying road tax and fuel tax, they are paying VAT on the telephone call, plus of course the telcos paid lots of money for the 3G networks that modern smart phones like the iPhone seen here needs.
Sadly, by driving one handed without proper driving gloves, the driver cannot navigate the gap between the parked cars without potentially clipping the wing mirror. If the bicycle had correctly deferred to the more important driver, this would not have been an issue. Instead she is forced to back off, here on effingham road, though this doesn't appear to interrupt the conversation, except she may have been swearing more than normal in the call.
People complaining about drivers making and taking calls on the road do not realise that we are forced to do it because of the congestion. If the council re-instated the lost inner city motorway plans of the 1970s, we wouldn't be stuck in traffic, we wouldn't need to phone or text. It is not our fault.
Here's the next in our St Michael's Hill Roundabout series, this time looking at how a single cyclist trying to use the route can cause mayhem and destruction.
Normally when the bicycle/wingmirror collision is discussed, it is the cyclist complaining about how they get hit by a car in a hurry. Nobody ever looks at it from the motorists perspective. We may have damaged a wingmirror, but do the cyclists ever compensate us? Most aren't even insured.
Take this scene from a video of our secretly instrumented cyclist, apparently as the car squeezes past them at the traffic island, the car's wing mirror bashes against their handlebars.
The vehicle WR08ADK is lucky to escape from the enraged cyclist, who will probably commit more acts of violence against their Toyota Aygo, and again, without cyclist insurance, it'll be the motorist who picks up the bill.
We would say the motorist's insurers, except for one small detail: WR08ADK doesn't appear in the insurance database. Askmid denies it, while the AA refuse to give it a breakdown quote, "the car is not in the database", they say.
By not being in the database that this car driver not only has to pay for their own vehicle damage, be they wingmirrors or that caused by pedestrians, they cannot even get breakdown cover from the AA. This is unacceptable.
(Incidentally, this isn't a case of misreading the reg #, the car was seen cutting in front of a bike on Cotham Hill last week. It's a car whose # isn't in the database, a "ghost car").
(update: replaced Toyota Auris with Toyota Aygo. Nimble round town, though the wingmirrors and body coloured bumpers put it at a disadvantage when parking or working narrow streets).
Once the mercedes that blocked vehicles getting off the roundabout had cleared it, vehicles wanting to get onto St Michael's Hill could pull out, and here see the correct tactic: stop cars getting onto the roundabout. It's the only way to reduce demand, and so ensure the junction clears.
Which vehicle do we see here? Yes, its YA55VDY, the cult van of Bristol Traffic
Notice how the vehicle following this car is also in the mini-roundabout, but it hangs back to actually allow pedestrians to cross at the traffic island. Of course, this will prevent vehicles turning right to pull out, which is a bit selfish, but it does allow the roundabout to clear by reducing vehicle ingress rates to match that of egress rates.
The key point here is that it shows that those fellow-motorist-activist groups who advocate removing traffic lights are either missing the point or hiding the truth. On a junction without lights -like this one- the only way to get through is to be aggressive: drive the big vehicles, the 4x4, or even better, the battered big-vehicle, such as the white van. Now we, as white-van drivers, are happy with this, but we think the harsh truth should be discussed in the open, not discovered once they remove lights from the city centre: whoever values their vehicle least wins.
First a car with a Montpelier-MOT wingmirror duct-taped into place. Someone just horned it as to get to this part of the junction (see on the dashed lines) it had to sprint up the oncoming traffic lane.
But by doing so it gets to pull out where the mercedes stuck in the middle of the mini roundabout has left a gap, follow the van through to the right and hope that there isn't anyone crossing the zebra crossing, which would block up the roundabout some more.
It does clear, the gap allows a car coming up Cotham Hill to pull out and turn right into St Michael's Hill.
Or it would, if the Mercedes hadn't stayed where it was.
Do you see what's wrong here? By staying back on the mini roundabout, by allowing cars out of Cotham Road, the school-run-driver is, sadly, making things worse. All the vehicles who are held up on Cotham Hill will see this and drive more considerately.
A wing mirror was spotted in Fairfield Road last week. It's probably gone now as anyone else whose van needs an MOT soon will have picked it up and duct-taped it together enough to get through the "has two wing mirrors" part of the test.
This is why it's always so traumatic when the DVLA hits Montpelier. A lot of people run untaxed vehicles not because the tax and insurance costs have to come after the RAC home recovery breakdown cover in terms of priority, but because the MOT has rules about the number of wing mirrors and the state of bodywork of vehicles, and it is impossible to meet those requirements and keep a car in Montpelier.
The War on Motorists will not be over until the government rolls out specific MOT requirements for different parts of Britain, of Bristol. In Stoke Bishop, for example, you'd fail the test for having an old car, anything less than Group G, and 2 wheel drive would only be permitted on two seater sports toys. In Montpelier, the wingmirror rule would be waived as unrealistic.Taxis would have a special "fail if the indicators and more than one brake light work" clause.
There's a fancy new bicycle magazine out, Boneshaker, full of lovely photographs, very well printed, by some people affiliated with the Bristol Bike Project.
Those things show something worrying: we are losing the battle of hearts and minds. It's all very well getting AA and RAC press releases into the Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph papers, it's all very well having Jeremy Clarkson on TV, but people are starting to suspect that Top Gear is made up, and it's all a bit 1980s in the not-very-cool-1980s way. Not so much Audi Quattro as Bryan Adams. What do we get as car books and magazines for example? Hayes manuals. Not very compelling.
No, we need a way to win. But it shouldn't need violence: that rarely solves problems, just makes viewpoints less flexible. Which is why we are sad to hear that someone in a van clipped one of the Boneshaker Magazine's photographers, Adam Eff, while cycling along the St Marks contraflow.
In his own words:
From: Adam
Date: Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 10:40 PM
Subject: Van caused me pain on St Marks contra-flow
I am in pain. Apologies if this message is overly long.
A few hours ago I was heading to Sweet Mart on St Marks road in Easton using the contra-flow down St Marks road when a large van came towards me at considerable speed (too fast in my opinion but maybe 20mph or under... either way too fast for this narrow stretch of road being crossed by pedestrians shopping etc). He didn't slow, continued to accelerate towards me to the point where I braked hard (actually only going slow as I was already slowing to stop outside Sweet Mart) and had no choice but to pull in hard to the edge of the road or go under him. I tried to hold my position out from the kerb (as taught during the level 3 lesson last year) but had to make to choice to try and stay alive at the last second. He must have assumed he was allowing me a foot or two to get around the edge of him, but his large wing mirror that adds an extra foot or two onto the width of his van clipped me, and this combined with the swerve caused me to end up upside down in a heap on the pavement. I have a very sore swollen and cut knee (gradually getting worse as the evening goes on). Also have bruises and scrapes to elbows and arms and inner thigh and back of left knee. The adrenalin has now truly worn off and I feel knackered, sick, shaky and slightly pissed off to put it mildly.
His first comment on getting out of his van was that I was "going the wrong way down a one way road". I pointed out that it is a contra-flow and not the wrong way for cyclists and then went to point out the bicycle markings and lines on the road at the point where it happened. This is where it all started to turn into a bit of a farce as of course the markings have all but worn away, and I have to say I could understand why he wasn't expecting anyone to come the other way. I can imagine anyone would find it hard to understand what the last few remaining blotches of surviving white paint mean. He also said if it was a cycle lane it should be painted a different colour. Interesting to think that is what people expect to see. He also expressed his opinion that the road is not wide enough for bicycles to be coming through the other way (maybe more true for large vans than for general car traffic).
Looking at Googlemaps street view it's clear to see that the white blotches on the floor were once an arrow and a bicycle symbol and that the arrow for the traffic traveling the opposite way seems to indicate that they should be traveling under the parked cars.
At this moment in time the bicycle symbol currently looks like this ...
or a wider view with what is left of the arrow....
We both exchanged details and debated it in a friendly enough manner for as long as we could before traffic behind him started beeping him to move. We didn't involve the Police.
A friend of mine also recently had someone in a van drive aggressively towards her on this stretch and then shout that she was "going the wrong way"
It appears that the signs slightly before this point for motorised traffic coming the other way do not get any message across to anyone and do not get noticed. They are there though...
I've noticed the markings here have been unclear for some time now.
I come across similar conflict regularly on Cobden Street coming up from Church Road as the markings are also worn enough to no longer really exist there either (also been unclear for considerable time too). Also on Victoria Avenue vehicles still do not seem to expect bicycles to be coming from the Contra-Flow direction, even though cars can and do travel in that direction too here as it's actually a two way road with a plug point with no entry for motorised traffic. Both are assumed to be one way by drivers. I've been shouted at in both places that I'm going the wrong way, had people speed up towards me, or just be caught out by surprise and brake suddenly at the last minute. People are obviously not expecting bicycles to be coming the other way and are not seeing the signs or markings ( if they are there). Often there is no way to go to get out of their way if I wanted to. in the case of St Marks road today my only option (if it hadn't happened so quickly and there had been time to think it through) would have been to get up onto the pavement. Not much chance of that in the space of one second on road tyres, although I guess that's actually what happened in the end, but not out of my choice or within my control.
Often the problem is with vans and commercial vehicles. This is becoming more obvious on Cobden Street as the larger commercial traffic is increasingly coming from Feeder road using Barton Hill as a cut through.
I still feel that there needs to be a better way to mark contra-flows with more definite and on-road markings to properly inform people to expect bicycles.
This is the third time that I've been hit by a large vehicle this year. It's now beyond a joke and I've had enough. My partner is also reaching the point where she no longer wants me on a bike on the roads as it is causing her a lot of worry.
What can be done? Who should I be talking to about this? If the markings are eroded or unclear who is responsible for that situation still being the case and currently partially for my pain, injuries and damages to my bike (ripped bar tape, buckled front wheel etc)? The driver felt that the road markings were impossible to recognise and I have to agree with him.
I have photos of his vehicle in position, of the worn away road markings and of the general scene. Also a few to show cars coming through and the position they use.
This has happened on the day that I tried to persuade my neighbour to not drive from Redfield to his work next to Temple Meades every day (a journey of less than one mile) and to cycle instead. His answer was that it's too dangerous and he'd have to cycle on the pavement, so won't do it. I'm trying to work out the irony of me reassuring him that it's not dangerous, before setting out and getting knocked off, yet again.
Thanks if you've taken the time to read all of this. Any replies, thoughts and possible solutions appreciated. I'm off now to soak my cuts and bruises before my knee seizes up completely.
Adam
Obviously, we do extend our sympathies, and not just in "look what you did to my wing mirror" kind of way. Adam may be working for "the other side", but -and this is a secret- we have used some of his videos. Also, it's good to see that at least one person never seems to be enjoying cycling in Bristol, as when he was caught suffering up Bridge Valley Road
One thing to consider here is why did the markings on St Marks Road get worn away? It can't be from bicycles, far more likely to be cars and vans. Which shows that there isn't really room to have a bike contraflow here. We don't actually propose banning bicycles from one single street (it's not our grand vision which covers a wider area of the city and a bigger ban), but why not open it up to two-traffic entirely. One way streets just create unrealistic expectations of speed in a city, whereas the two-way streets of Montpelier are self-traffic-calming, usually. The alternative: remove the parking outside the (excellent) supermarket, Bristol Sweet-Mart simply wouldn't work as everyone is used to short stay parking there.
A reader of our blog sends in this photo taken on 26th April 2008 showing a new parking technique in the quiet residential streets of Stoke Gifford
This is Ratcliffe Drive at 6am on a Sunday morning and it is the neatness of the new method of parking which is perhaps especially worthy of a mention. Apparently no-one heard or saw anything during the night (when, presumably, the "vertical parking" took place).
It does appear to have damaged one of the wing mirrors, which is often one of the motivators for parking on-pavement. However, once that mirrors is off -and who needs them anyway- it will work quite well. You can get a full vehicle into the same space normally taken by half a car. If used in the inner city -we are thinking Montpelier- it would let people double park on both the pavement and the road, so double the entire parking capacity of the area.
When looking at road conditions near the bus station, a commentator said "On a more serious point, when I overtake a cyclist I give them plenty of room but when I pass them in the opposite direction I don't see why I should - I trust other motorists are like minded - see 12 secs in!"
Whoever wrote this does not do any driving round Bristol. Otherwise, they would have realised that the oncoming car gave the cyclist exactly as much room as they would any oncoming car. Bristol's streets are narrow, and the easiest way to ensure that you don't bash your car against parked vehicles is simple: drive as close as you can to the oncoming vehicle. That usually works. The only time it does not is when there isn't room for two vehicles to pass. And then? Negotiation time. The Nash Equilibrium: whoever has the least to lose wins. Sometime's that's hidden in phrases like "Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement", but what it comes down to is if you value the extremities of your vehicle, there are some parts of the city you should not go.
Some people with 4X4s often fall for the belief that their vehicles are more robust, that they should automatically get through first. But that's a lie, made worse by the way the raised seating position makes it harder to see where the ends of their vehicles lie. No, the driver who gets the right of way is the one driving the 1970s volvo: indestructible and fully depreciated, or the battered ex-minicab: nothing left to lose.
Accordingly cyclists are in trouble. Their body parts are where wing mirrors go, so their cue that something has gone wrong is not a noise from their car, more sharp pains in their hands. Which is why we think they should be banned from Montpelier. It's too narrow, and the Nash Equilibrium ends up with them in Accident and Emergency, rather than the usual scene of us drivers shouting at each other, flipping back or picking up their mirrors, and driving off.
Look at the video of Picton Street. There isn't room for the bicycle to pass the oncoming car just where one of the residents has parked up on the pavement with the double yellow lines. Both parked car and oncoming car are vehicles their owners don't value much, and their wing mirrors are stronger than the cyclists hands. Fortunately, the driver is paying attention -Montpelier is to narrow for phone conversations- and the negotiation is completed quickly and safely.
But the bicyclist is at a disadvantage: they rely on the voluntary goodwill of the car drivers. Normal wingmirror negotiations are between near-equals, and now there are these bicycle people demanding more rights. It isn't going to work
This little Peugeot, KC51YBX, is showing that it has paid the price for not parking far enough up on the pavement of Fairlawn Road, Montpelier
Because it has paid the "wingmirror tax". Fortunately, being a French car, loss-of-wingmirror is something they assume happens a lot, so it will clip back on easily, or be replaced at at a low price.
It is German cars that tend to have a higher wingmirror tax. Their engineering team is given the goal of wingmirrors "fur autos ohnen geschwindigkeitgrenzen": for cars without speed limits. With a need to be stable at 220 km/h, they stay on when bolted on, and cost a lot when they come off. Take your merc or BWM round to the show room to get a new mirror and they will sit you down in a luxurious waiting room, serve you coffee, let you check your stock and bank balances with your macbook on their free WiFi, before breaking the news to you that the new wingmirror costs about the same as a new engine for a Fiesta, and that all your few remaining shares in non-nationalised banks will be required before you get your car keys back.
This may explain why we had an interesting encounter with a blue Mercedes estate driver while cycling back from work with a friend this week, on this very street. There I was, cycling far enough out to not hit parked cars or get squeezed by oncoming cars, when the oncoming car decided to come through anyway. I tried the "Stop the bike but not move in gambit", which normally causes the car to a halt, then we can negotiate the problem safely. But no, this car speeded up, got through safely, and then came to a halt, jumped out and started screaming at me about not getting over enough. That's the kind of incident where you are glad you know the back streets and the bike-only bits better, as there are lots of escape routes. Some drivers out there have anger management issues. Remember, if you are trying to drive round the back streets of Montpelier at speed, do it in cars with affordable wing-mirrors.
Posts
