How the S Gloucs transport planning has let down everyone

Here are some photos from September, A4174 between UWE and the M32 -M32 is behind the camera, the direction all the cars are going

or would be going if any of the cars were moving.

Nothing is moving because somewhere on the M4 there is a traffic jam, which goes back to the M32, which then goes back to the A4174.

In both directions: people are sitting in their cars, getting frustrated, no doubt complaining that not enough is being done to prevent jams.

Yet if you look, what is happening here is that too much has been done over 30-40 years to create traffic jams.

The North Fringe offices: apart from the students, you are all expected to drive.

The housing estates of Emerson's Green, Bradley Stoke, etc? You are expected to drive out of there to whereever you are going, and back again.

By creating a featureless sprawl of ring roads, roundabouts, dual carriageways gluing together dormitary housing estates and bracknell-class offices, the area is probably the most car dependent part of the city.

Which is where things failed: no serious attempt has been -or is being made- to change this. The cycle plans get the leftovers, when the traffic planners remember to even think of them. Instead the work goes into the big things, the bypasses, the "managed motorway", the roundabout improvments.

And what do people get for that? They get raised expectations, and, when congestion occurs anywhere within the road network, traffic jams that hold up more people.

On spreadsheets, the planners can look at the number of people held up, use a cost model that says "a minute for a car driver costs X pence", multiply it by the number of people waiting, and use the growth in traffic jams -the mistakes of the previous projects- to justify the next one.

What is never done is look at the entire expenditure over 30+ years and say "was it worth it?"

Because in S Gloucs, all it's done is create traffic jams to dormitory towns, and a commuter class who come in to work in the North Fringe from as far away as Wales, Gloucester and Swindon.

And the cyclists? The very infrastructure put in to help driving has made cycling there awful. You get the cycle paths of varying quality alongside the ring road -but any approach to and from it and you have to share the roads with the motoring commuters, the chavwits of Yate sprinting to get to the A4174, the BMW-ratrunners trying to go through Winterbourne on their way to their mock-rural semi.

We get the leftovers, while the nominal victors in the traffic planning, the drivers, get nothing but traffic jams.

After British cycling's Arab Spring: the storms

The first half of 2012 has to go down as British Cycling's Arab Spring. Consider:

• The Times making cycling safety a key issue for the paper.
• Mass protests round London about junction safety.
• The CEoGB changing the agenda from "right to die on dual carriageways" to "right to get to school alive"
• All the London Mayoral Candidates having to make a promise towards Dutch Cycling.
• A change in the thinking of the LCC towards safe infrastructure, and even the CTC considering it.
• TfL promising to review its most dangerous junctions.
• Mass protests to Addison Lee about their "just use the bus lane" policy and a U-turn on that.
• The Sky cycling team finishing the Tour de France in yellow
• The UK olympic team finishing with lots of gold.

That was the spring. Now: autumn. And its storms.

We have already seen the press pushing back, NYC-style "bikelash" articles usually referring to Wiggins or that MP and then somehow blaming every cyclist for existing, while the councils and TfL continuing to do nothing dutch-style for their regions.

Now it is getting worse. The councils are moving beyond indifference to cycling to adding features that make things worse -prioritising more motor traffic at the expense of the inconsistent, incomplete and usually shit cycling facilities we get today.

What little leftovers we had on the side of junctions is being taken away to add extra traffic lanes.

Twickenham is the most well known example right now: a council working with TfL to convert a bus lane into an all-traffic lane, omitting all consideration of cycling -and when pushed back saying "it's too early for detailed planning". Except we all know, that that phrase will suddenly change to being "it's too late" -which is already where it is in the minds of the road planners. This also shows a key flaw in all on-road bluewash paint-jobs: it only takes another layer of paint for it to go away. At least proper infrastructure takes effort to destroy -someone really has to want to do this.

Here, South Gloucestershire council has started exactly that at the BAE/Airbus Roundabout on the A4174, where the A38 Northbound crosses the ring road. On the E. and N. sides -dual carriageways. On the W. and S. sides: single lane traffic jams -better to cycle through as the stationary traffic makes it easier to negotiate.

The Road Planners wanted to widen the road by taking away the parkland, the we want your shubbery debacle.

They went back to the drawing board, listening to Filton Council's suggestion of "use the pavement".

Now they have returned, with a plan to exactly that -remove the shared pavement cycle path to make a driving lane. 

The proposals are online in a three week long consultation.

If you look at the plans, you can see a wide bit of pavement being cut away.

If you look at google streetview, you see something different. You see a cycle path on the pavement, helping people cycle over the overbridge to the shopping centre on the other side, or to the crossing lights. As only the bold use the road here, this (shite) pavement infrastructure is the closest the area has to utility cycling. It's not great, but between junctions it is survivable.

Once the council take this away, you will get dumped onto the ring road, now forced to cycle over a junction which has an extra lane of traffic trying to feed left. Or you will just give up cycling altogether.

This is beyond indifference. This is beyond ignorance. This is a wilful removal of off-road cycling infrastructure to add extra traffic lanes.

If they can do it here, they can do it anywhere in the area -and the whole ring road cycle path is at risk.

Here comes the storm.

Filton Shubbery battle -have the pavement instead

Remember how the traffic creators (calling them "Traffic planners" would imply planning skills and ignore demand creation) wanted to turn part of a park into an extra roundabout lane?

Well, the Filton Town Council response is "have the pavement instead"

FILTON councillors have rejected a request from South Gloucestershire Council to hand over a piece of parkland to make way for a road widening scheme.

South Gloucestershire's Mark Shearman, principal engineer for transport services, wrote to the town council. He asked for councillors to decide whether the town council could "contribute" a small corner of Elm Park to the scheme, originally asking for 317 metres squared.

In his letter he said that the extra land would provide an opportunity to address congestion on the approach to the roundabout, upgrade the traffic signals to a more efficient system and improve facilities for cyclists.

He explained that the scheme would be funded with section 106 money from the new Southmead Hospital development.

That is this would be the NHS funding the removal of parkland to make it easier for fat people to drive to the hospital for their Diabetes checkups. Does nobody in the council or traffic creation department think about the hypocrisy there? In Bristol, S106 money goes to encouraging cycling. In S Gloucs: extra lanes at junctions.

As for the claim this would help cyclists, that's clearly bollocks. How would encouraging more cars to drive down Filton Road and make it harder to get across the BAe Roundabout help cycling.

...

Resident Brian Smith, 75, who lives in Third Avenue, attended the last council meeting.
"I don't think the scheme is necessary," he said.
"The width of the footpath could be reduced to make way for a third lane of traffic before we start giving away our green land.

The locals like their greenery, but don't give a fuck about the pavement either. Well, nobody wants to use that pavement, though it is the only way to get to the shopping centre set up for people to drive in to, and it is part of the official ring road cycle route. Not caring about it reflects the views of the residents, rather than the council. At least they want the park to stay green.

...

A South Gloucestershire Council spokesman said: "The council is currently working with Filton Town Council on plans to improve the ring road junction with the A38 at Filton roundabout. 

"These improvements are a response to the Southmead hospital redevelopment and address the expected increase in traffic flows in the area as patients, employees and visitors travel to the hospital.

"The proposals involve widening the carriageway to provide an extra lane on the westbound approach to the roundabout and will use a narrow strip of land from the adjacent Elm Park, which is owned by Filton Town Council. 

"In order to minimise the amount of land needed for the improvements, options considered include placing the shared use footway/cycleway path running alongside the road within the Elm Park boundary. 

"An area of redundant highway land near Shellard Road is also being investigated for use as a replacement for the Elm Park land."

Let's think this through. There's no free parking being added at Southmead, the area nearby is going to have its parking rules enforced. While it makes sense for out-of-shift staff to drive in and out, if the council had actual support for cycling or public transport in the area then they'd be doing something to aid that, rather than push bicycles away and do nothing for buses.

Regarding Shellard Road -its on the east side of the fields. They may find something there, but given the council's habit of turning traffic free routes into rat-runs, don't expect it to stay parkland. Five years from now, they will want to widen the route further back from the roundabout, and at that point the small print in any land swap will surface to show the council can have it back for free.

For anyone who says the council can be engaged with, politely, this shows the traffic creation department's world view. Their hierarchy of Provision is

1. HGVs (only S Gloucs has a bus/bike/HGV lane)
2. Cars
3. Parking for Cars
4. Extra rat-runs to take the pressure off the A4174
5. Extra routes to the M4
6. Extending the A4174 around the South of Bristol to create the demand for even more lanes
7. Grandiose Bus Rapid Transit schemes down the Bristol-Bath Railway Path.
8. Trains
9. Pedestrians
10. Bicycles
11. Greenery

Why put pedestrians above bicycles? Because every shared use path -the only bike paths in the area- have lots of signs up telling bicycles to slow down for pedestrians. But there is no single "shared road", open to both bicycles and cars, where there are signs up telling the cars to slow down for bicycles. If anyone on a bicycle gets hit by a car, it's their own fault for being there.

The Ring Road Path Series: Introducing the M32 Death Trap Crossing

We’ve looked briefly at the Ring Road Path already It’s one of South Gloucestershire Council’s “Flagship” cycle routes and was tagged ‘Route 7’ under the Cycling City Project. Unsurprisingly given its name, it runs alongside the A4174 Avon Ring Road from Hicks Gate, near Keynsham in the south (which is actually in Bath and North East Somerset) through to the Bristol City Council boundary in the vicinity of Southmead Hospital (near Kenmore Drive). It's called flagship because "fucking lethal in places" doesn't look so good in brochures. I

According to the Council the stated aim of Cycling City Route 7 scheme was:

to provide a continuous off-carriageway cycle route catering for both less experienced and more confident, regular cyclists, thereby improving access to important local businesses such as Hewlett Packard, MOD Abbeywood, University of the West of England and other public amenities and facilities between Emersons Green and Southmead Hospital.

Well, you can certainly end up in Southmead A&E, whether you work there or not. Notice how they don't say "leisure route". You don't see families on it on a weekend, not just because the ring-road is unappealling, but families won't get round it safely.



In places the path is OK. Yes, it could be wider, no, it’s not well lit or very well signed, it’s not swept very often, it gets covered with broken glass, it doesn’t get gritted in the winter, and yes it’s a shared use path so it’s used by school kids, joggers and dog walkers who occasionally seem to forget that it’s also used by cyclists but, it’s better than nothing and like we’ve already said you need to cherish the left-overs

The Ring Road path does have a few serious flaws and it's time to look at these in a bit more detail, starting with one of the major flaws. In fact it’s so serious that if nothing is done about it it could quite possibly become a fatal flaw. Probably the only reason it hasn't is that s gloucs have done so little to encourage cycling that it doesn't get used much.

Remember Sustrans? The Bristol based charity that has its roots in the first project to turn a disused railway line into one of the most highly used and certainly most highly prized and loved off-road paths: The Bristol Bath Railway Path, otherwise now known as National Cycle Network Route 4 or NCN4 for short. It’s a great route and it is crossed by and links to the Ring Road Path. Those first route builders were not some council planning department, they were cyclists who knew what was needed: a safe route with safe crossings.

Sustrans developed the National Cycle Network and produced a fantastic ‘Best Practice’ Guide’ for Council’s who are building or creating cycle paths. Most Councils have a copy and use it. We wonder if anyone in South Glos has? We doubt it. If they do it'll be used as bog paper in their loo, the one with a photo of the M4/M5 interchange on the door to keep you happy until the paper is needed.

The Sustrans Guide
contains lots of useful practical advice, all of it sensible, it’s clearly been put together by people who ride bicycles, have a fucking clue and provides an authoritative. step-by-step guide for any vaguely competent highways engineer or planner. Read it and you think how could South Gloucestershire Council fuck up so badly. And yet fuck up they do. Without the need for any guide to ‘Best Practice’ they are quite happy to lead the way in developing new and innovative ways to deliver Worst Practice. You could write the "Soglocs manual for cities shit for cycling" and sell it to other councils.

Turning to chapter 5 of the guide -which the traffic planners may not have got as far as in their arse-wiping yet, is a section on how important it is for cyclists on a segregated path (even a shit narrow one) to get over roads alive

Continuity is essential to the popularity of any cycle route, therefore the proper resolution of junction features is critical for its success.. not only must junction details provide a safe solution, but they should also exhibit due regard for all types of road user. In particular, the quality of detail and the level of priority given to cyclists and pedestrians must reinforce the perception that they are welcome in the area

Which brings us back to the Ring Road Path, Cycling City Route 7. You see, there are several junction features on the Ring Road Path that do not exhibit due regard for all types of road user. Especially not cyclists and pedestrians. Not only do they not make you feel welcome they make you feel at best unwelcome, at worse whether you are going to survive the next twenty sections. Worst of all several of them actually create a significant hazard for cyclists and pedestrians who are led there believing they are following a safe and properly designed cycle route. One is quite literally a "death trap".

The Ring Road Path meets the M32 motorway. M32 Junction 1 at Hambrook.



The junction has been extensively modified (the Council would have you believe “improved”) since it was built in 1966 and it has now become a multi lane nightmare, with some separators and bridge leftovers to amplify the problem. And now they are widening it some more, they say "to help public transport", when they mean to get a bus lane in without taking any space from the fat lazy bastards who create the traffic jams and should be on the fucking bus, while showing cyclists how we don't give a fuck about them. For some reason that doesn't appear on the diagram or in the consultations. It should have.


More soon.

Incompetence or Institutionalised Motorism?

There's a sign up on one of the ring road roundabouts, asking for comments on the new cycle route seven proposals.

Some people may think "good, the council cares, they aren't as incompetent as the People's Cycling Front of S. Gloucestershire claim"

Except where is the sign: it's on the ring road, visible only to passing motor traffic.

The foot/cycle path is to the left of the road here, and you cannot see this consultation sign from the cycle path.

Think about that: the people who would care most about having the cycle paths in the area improved aren't actually being asked what their opinions are, because the signs asking for consultation are only visible from the dual carriageway road approaching the main dual carriageway ring-road -a route that only brave, fast, roadies would be doing.

That's either sheer incompetence, sheer indifference or Institutionalised Motorism?

We wonder if the cycling team even have a clue where the signs went up, they just handed it off to the bit of the council that deals with consultations, who stuck up the signs "in the usual place". Nobody thought about putting them up where people cycle, and nobody has bothered to go and look up where the signs are to see if they are in the right place for anyone cycling to see them.

S Gloucs Council: The No Cycling City.

Institutionalised Motorism near UWE

We have another "I" today, to go with the council's thinking: Indifference, Incomptence and Ignorance; it is Institutionalised Motorism

This means: to think about cars first, everything else as an afterthought.

You can see it here, in this two way walking and cycling path on Coldharbour Lane, heading north from the UWE entrance to either Old Filton Road or to the crossings to get to Bristol Parkway station, or, if you turn left, to the MoD roundabout. It is wide, no risk of conflict between pedestrians and bicycles. But what's that in the distance

Yes, it's a bus stop. The foot/bike way is cut in half width, just where people will be queueing for, getting on and getting off a bus.

There's no shelter either. While that may stop people cycling into the shelter -which would otherwise block the entire pavement- it means that people waiting for buses will get wet as well as potentially hit by people cycling along. Anyone waiting here on a dark and went winter evening will end up resenting anyone cycling past.

But why does the road narrow here? It's because the alternative would be to allow the bus to hold up motor traffic.

Given a choice of two options

1. providing something safe and pleasant for public transport users, pedestrians and cyclists
2. something that kept motor vehicle traffic flow at its highest,

the council went for the traffic flow option, rather than having a wide pavement, a wide bike lane and a covered shelter with seating.

This is why there's continuous conflict between people walking and cycling in S Gloucs and the city to the south: the cyclists, pedestrians and public transport users are left scrabbling for the leftovers while the majority of the road "investment" in the region goes into road widening.

That is Institutionalised Motorism all the way to the top of the council. There's no real pretence of supporting cycling in this city, other than the Boris Johnson "poor people can if they must" kind of viewpoint.

The worst part is this: the council planners are probably proud of such bollocks. They will drive home in their SUVs to their Bradley Stoke semi-detached suburbs with one car per adult and say "I did something really good for people who walk and cycle in the area. I helped provide a bus lay-by to encourage public transport use, and we painted a bicycle path on a widened pavement". Because to say "I fobbed off everyone who doesn't drive with some shit infrastructure" would be an admission of incompetence.

We wonder how long it will be before they want bollards or "cyclists look out for pedestrians" signs?

Institutionalised Indifference

On the approach to the M32, the A4174 ring road cycle path has an option to turn left and head to UWE via Old Filton Road. That's "the pleasant option".

There's a sign saying "cyclists, please give way to pedestrians"

It's as if the key fear of the council is that someone walking may get hit by a bicycle.

It isn't. The key danger for anyone walking or cycling is getting hit by a car. Yet down by the MoD roundabout, anyone on foot or pedal is left to fend for themselves on many of the crossings. No "motorists, please give way to cyclists and pedestrians" signs.

Some have a bit of green: meaningless. If you get run over using one of those, it'll be dismissed as "they chose to die"

Within the MoD premises, even the green lines go away, and you expected to run or cycle over two-lane wide roads to get to the narrow little traffic islands in the middle.

When the Bristol Rovers grounds opens, there will be two lanes of cars sprinting up this hill to get to the match; somehow we suspect cycle parking and safe cycling nearby will be "forgotten about", or pushed to one side the way each supermarket always has six bicycle stands looking forlorn in a far corner of the car park.

The presence of cycle-city funded roadsigns show that this a recommended route.  Not recommended by UWE, who are most pleased that the new football stadium will add an extra 1200+ parking spaces during the daytime. Who the fuck for? Students? Not the vice chancellor, he has his own space for his shiny jaguar. Staff? We have no idea, we just know that this seems to be what they wanted. Not better buildings. Not the building of a public transport hub with secure bike parking (compared with today's "where do you want your bike to get stolen from" facilities). No, 1200 parking spaces. A university that cares.

This isn't what you'd get the Netherlands. The only reason the crossing is survivable today is that stadium isn't open and the people who cycle over the crossing it are today's cyclists: adult men, going to work or university. It's not a "kids cycling to school with their parents" path -and at this rate it will never be.

If the number of people cycling increases, so will the risk of collisions. You can say what you want about drivers "expecting more cyclists" when there are more of them; S Gloucs council gives drivers the right of way at these roundabout junctions, and you can be 100% sure they will take it

Putting in zebra/cycle crossings now will keep expectations of people driving down, rather than having to wait for some deaths. Maybe, just maybe it could be made a requirement of the UWE/Rovers deal, but somehow we suspect that it's not something Cllr Bwian Allinson will be pushing for.

Cherishing the leftovers

One of the weird things about the S Gloucs cycle paths is that they keep on trying to put in traffic calming and road signs into  them, instead of making the paths wider, and without understanding how people cycle.

Here's a bit of the ring road cycle path, near the Bridge Inn pub. You can see some fading signs which tried to split the cycle path in two with formal give way markings between them.

Fortunately, at some point in the last decade, they've been left to fade -perhaps somebody realised how useless they were. But they are there, if you look

If you look at the width the markings give you, there's just over two handlebar widths in the cyclists' part of the cycling|walking lane. It's better than the newer path on Old Filton Road, but you'd still need to not be pulling a cycle trailer, not doing a family ride with wobbly kids or encountering such oncoming traffic if you really had to share that half of the tarmac with oncoming bicycles.

The reality is, most people on a bicycle take up the whole of one of the lanes. If this was official, and there was a parallel walking route "a pavement" alongside, this would actually work and could be held up as good route.

The only reason there is no conflict here is that it is in the middle of fucking nowhere and nobody walks, even people on a bicycle aren't made to feel welcome, what with the lack of lighting. 

But no, there's no money to create a path wide enough for two lanes of cycles and pedestrians, to add lighting -everyone on foot or bike is left scrabbling for the leftovers.

What leftovers? This. The A4174 Emerson Green to the A4 link

Before this was built, the Bristol-Bath railway path -which the existing path connects up with -without a single gate or road crossing- ran up here to Pucklechurch along a lovely quiet path. But then the road planners said "Oh look, we could link up the North Fringe with Bath" and built a four lane near-motorway that only the very brave would cycle. At least we did get somewhere to walk and cycle, but

• Why is it so narrow compared to the space dedicated to motor vehicles?
• Why isn't it lit at night? The road is, until midnight. Are we somehow undeserving of street lights? You could argue that people on bicycles should have lights, but what about the pedestrians? 
• Who is in the council thinks that painting give way and lane markings in cycle lanes too narrow for two bicycles makes sense? 

The whole path works, but it could be so much better. When you get to the Railway Path, you see people walking and cycling, it's lit at night, it's busy. Here? You see some people, between the vegetation growing in that nobody maintains, walking or cycling. No families out for a walk or cycle. Nobody caring about a boringly utilitarian path that has the background noise of any four-lane highway to deal with.

Welcome to South Gloucestershire: the council that doesn't really care for people on foot or bicycle

Glorious news, Comrades!

Comrades! Fellow cyclists against the incompetent regime that is S Gloucs council! We have some good news for a change!

Firstly, the bollards on the bollards-of-death path have been removed! Only two are left standing -apparently at MoD insistence- to keep motor vehicles off the path. Sadly, the fundamental problem: the path isn't wide enough for two lanes of bicycles and pedestrians remains. We suspect our comrades in the Netherlands will still be unimpressed. Widening the path would be the obvious solution, but instead the council insists on wasting money on road widening elsewhere instead.

Secondly, the sign-of-stupidity in the middle of the A4174 path has been moved.

We, the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire take all credit for this, and denounce the collaborators in the Popular Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire for their attempts to politely point out the weaknesses in the designs. While they may claim credit, those polite complaints have been going on since August 2010, yet it is only a few weeks after we publicly denounced the cycle team at S Gloucs council of being incompetent that they acted.

We have won our first battles! However now the real war begins! All we have done is fixed two recent changes that made the existing bicycle paths worse. Yet the council still spends millions of pounds on road and roundabout widening, puts in car sharing lanes then removes them as they were under-used, and fritters away money on new routes to Cribb's Causeway that don't stop John Lewis naming and shaming that out of town shopping centre as having significantly lower revenue than their in-town stores. And who was the councillor pleased to have that new road opened? That's right, Cllr Bwian Allinson, the so-called cycling-city liaison councillor.

We cannot achieve our goal: cycle lanes the Dutch won't laugh at, while S Gloucs councillor doesn't give a fuck about bicycles except when they get a chance to get their face in the local papers pretending to care. Overthrowing the council is our only solution.

This is what we all must do!

Demand #1, repeated: Cycle Paths the Dutch won't laugh at

The A4174 ring road path. You can get from here to the Bristol-Bath railway path and hence into the city centre of either city without a single road or even vehicle turning over you. Lovely.

So, the Cycling Team thought "let's put a sign in at this three way junction to help people find the way". All well and good. But the plan, as Blackadder would say, had one small flaw. The team are incompetent idiots.



But why oh why did these idiots think that the middle of the path was the right place to put it. You do not get street signs in the middle of roads for an obvious reason: people would run into them and sue the council. So what was going on in anyone's head when they came up with this plan?

Presumably they expect everyone to cycle in one lane or other. but there's a flaw here.


Its on a corner. And bicycles, when they corner, tilt. So now you have a sign right on the apex of the corner where you are going to smack straight into it. if you get injured, you can be sure that in the coverage of the miserable bog roll that pretends to be the local press but is really a mouthpiece of the daily mail, the usual idiot commenters will say "did they have a helmet", missing the fact you don't need a helmet on what could be a traffic free route from S Gloucs to the two closest cities if it was not for the cycle path planners putting up fucking signposts in the middle of blind corners.

Also: notice how there's no hi viz or reflective markings at the height that bike lights will catch
 

What can we do about this?

We'd like the entire traffic planning team fired, as we've stated before, the cycle forums replaced by something where the new cycle team will actually come out on rides with the local cyclists. We'd also like whichever councillor claims to be the voice of cycling in the council to spend some time trying to get round their area by bicycle.  Which raises another point: why don't any councillors have to act as special representatives of motorists? Because everyone drives up and down the A4174 ring road, the road underneath this bridge -there's no need for a special representative, all the councillors will complain about the High Occupancy lane being under used, of the ratruns being closed off. So every councillor in the council is really a special representative of the motorists.

AReturning to the ring-road, nobody stuck in its morning or evening traffic jam is going to see this sign. They won't think "oh look a cycle path, I'd be better off there". So it's not going to encourage anyone at all to cycle. For that you'd need to stop spending millions of pounds widening the road and instead put some signs up saying "If you were on a bicycle, you'd be there by now". Cheaper, more useful.

If you wanted to show people already on the path how to get to Filton, Emerson's green or the railway path, why not just paint it on the pavement? Really? It's not hard, not expensive. If you use the right paint, not even slippery. Instead we get this piece of shite civil engineering going up in winter -you know, when it's dark during commuting hours- for what. Not the commuters, it must be the leisure cyclists. But nobody cycles alongside the ring for fun. Because it's got signs in the middle of and you could get hurt.

This is why we are not some spoof organisation, despite rumours. Someone needs to make it clear to the council that they are making a mess of things.

Cycle paths that don't end in the middle of nowhere

One thing the Netherlands has is bike paths that go all the way to the city centre, and which start in the suburbs, so you can get all the way in to town and back again safely. In Bristol, the Railway Path fulfils this for one part of the city, even though it abandons you in the centre, and getting to it can be hazardous.

In South Gloucestershire, the A38 and the A4174 are the key non-motorway routes, and the A4174 does have a segregated path.

Is it so much to ask for this path to get to anywhere useful, rather than just have it stop when it gets complicated?

This "End" sign is so woefully bleak. It says "you are on your own from here". The idea of having anywhere to cycle other than alongside the A4174 ring-road doesn't seem to have occurred to these cycle path designers.

What can we do here? It's not obvious. Painting cycle paths on the quiet suburban roads would be a start, even better: putting in cycle paths when such suburban sprawl goes in. Though as we've seen, they are making such a mess of that in their latest project we don't believe the existing cycling team or Redrow should be permitted to do so.