Question for any councillor blocking cycle infrastructure as "cyclists break the law"

The recent Cambridge blocking  as cyclists break the law" shows the attitude of councillors to urban change. Yes, they pretend it is a postponement, but they are presumably planning to delay it until the grant expires and then go "a pity. We didn't actually block it though"

For anyone whose councillors ask this -or any press covering such an event- here are the questions we recommend asking

1. Which transport modalities does this "no new infrastructure without breaking any laws" policy apply? 
2. Which specific laws are covered by it?
3. What percentage of a transport user group have to be breaking these law before the policy comes into effect? Equally importantly, if the percentage of a transport user group can be shown to fall below this threshold, will your policy be revoked automatically?
4. What is the sampling method used to determine the percentages of non-compliant users. Is it a full census of all transport users, a survey of a valid subset of users selected at random across the region, at specific times and days -repeatedly?
5. If there are transport modes that are not covered by the policy -why not?
6. If we can provide evidence that a tangible percentage of the users of other transport modes break the same or related traffic laws -will you consider expanding your "no infrastructure without compliance" policy to those transport modes?
7. What if we can provide evidence that the existing users of that transport mode are -within your region- killing and seriously injuring themselves and more vulnerable other users of the regions's infrastructure -such as pedestrians?"
8. If it is clear that you are favouring some transport modes with preferential treatment -providing the majority of cash for new infrastructure, allocating most of the finite road-pavement capacity in the region, why is this the case? Why have you chosen to explicitly focus on one subgroup of transport modes -the one shown to endanger others the least?
9. If you are merely "delaying" a decision, is the plan to delay it past the deadline for a grant and then pretend that this was unintentional, bemoaning the fact it happened.
10. If the central government funding falls through due to your delaying actions -will you be happy to present this fact to your electorate as and defend this outcome? 
11. Assuming the existence of this policy becomes a topic for national coverage as well as regional, are you prepared to publish all the data and reasoning behind its adoption -and defend it?

Finally, and this is a followup:

Why are you such a fuckwit that you hate bicycles, assume that all cyclists are criminals -and that are not your actual voters? Do you really think it is wise to step on the toes of a group of road users who are fucking used to being treated like shit, yet still fucking hate it when some wanker politician comes out, paints them all as a group of lawbreakers, then refuses to make any attempt to actually make it safer for the cyclists to get round the city -and so perhaps even expand the number of users

Why are you such a fucking hypocrite given that most pedestrians and cyclists are killed not by their own actions, but by those of drivers? On roads where laws on urban and rural speeding are broken so regularly that vehicles who drive in compliance with the limits are usually resented by the queue of cars behind them? Why do you not block all funding of any improvements to aid driving -even if it is just a "traffic flow improvement" at a junction, while national lobby groups actually advocate breaking laws -speed limits in particular. 

Did you really fucking think that your statements weren't going to be on youtube within an hour, that you were going to come over as the kind of swivel-eye that lurks in the bottom of local press articles or in the team writing the bit of the UKIP election manifesto that even Farage is now disowning as being bonkers? 

Do you think your "delay, not deny" strategy until the grants or financial year runs out is not going to be noticed. Are you hoping to kill the project and then pretend to be sad about the outcome "this was done before our concerns were fully addressed", trying to point the finger at central government instead of you petty and hypocritical actions?

What are you going to do when local campaigners actually put their names in the hat for election in your ward, highlighting your fucking hatred of anyone who rides a bike, using a party name that explicitly calls you out for endangering cyclists by blocking infrastructure improvements funded by central government? Are you ready to have to stand up at every husting and defend your policy -again and again, as people from the audience put their hands up and ask questions that embarrass you to the extent that you start regretting ever having uttered those fateful words?

Subcritical Mass

In Maidstone a developer is proposing that the traffic congestion side effects of a proposed development by narrowing a pavement and taking away a shared use bike path, "take away the pedestrian cycle paths across the northern gyratory bridge to create an extra lane for traffic"



This shows the sheer cynicism of property developers, who really don't gieve a fuck about the health of the livability of the towns they want to "develop" -be it the health of the high street or the health of pedestrians.

All they want is fat lazy people to drive to the supermarkets, stock up on whatever crap they want to eat, drive home and then watch TV until the next time to stock up. If its one of the people they want to sell a flat to they probably care that the customer doesn't die of CHD before the mortgage is paid off -though as that's really a matter for the concern of the mortgage lender, they probably don't give a fuck about that either.

Bridges are the choke points of cities. If there's a river, you either go over it or under it -or you don't cycle to your destination. They are even worse than dual carriageways, where there's often a wait-for-ten-minutes-pig-pen crossing. Bridges are all or nothing.

In London, the bridges are key places where cyclists are threatened -think Blackfriar's Bridge. Similarly in Bristol the BRT2 proposal wants  to take away one of the safer River Avon crossings for bendy-buses. It's precisely because those bridges are so valuable for all forms of transport that people working on car traffic flows, or bus rapid transport fanatics in city planner offices (yes, West of England Partnership -that does mean you) look at the current bridges and say "we can increase the capacity of this bridge by taking away the walking and cycling options"

In London, there were enough cyclists across the city that even when a fraction turned up, it was enough for high visibility mass protests. In Bristol, plans by the WoEP BRT-lovers got the protests out on the Bristol-Bath route, but for BRT2 things have been more subdued. The smaller routes have less mass use -but its those routes that join up the city and create the integrated routes you need for a cycle infrastructure.

Lose the bridges and you lose the integrated routes forever. Lose the integrated routes and your city will never be safe to cycle.

If London cyclists need to keep coming out to remind TfL of their responsibilities, if even Bristol has its work cut out -imagine what it is like in towns with less cyclists. There simply won't be enough people to oppose the plans, and the plans will go through. What protesters do come out will appear to be a few oddballs who don't deserve any space on roads they don't pay for.

S gloucs is generally a lost cause -if it has strengths it is

1. There's cycling support from Bristol, both commuters into the city, and to the North Fringe.
2. The main cycle route -the railway path- is joined up to Bristol and Bath, so can't be taken away on its own. All SGloucs can do is paint random give way signs, put up the odd chicane (and remove them, except at the school crossing), and do nothing in terms of street lighting or signing access to the path from the roads nearby.
3. the cycle path by the ringroad (the unlit one, with the dodgy crossings and leaves on it) is raised enough away from the road that it isn't easily converted into another lane of the A4174. If that wasn't the case -it'd probably be gone by now, converted into a pretend sustainable lane with a 2+ sign that cyclists could also use -along with HGVs.

Bath? The A4 London Road shows the council's view: an ASL is all the cyclists need, and residents parking matters more than off street cycling. It took protests for the council to even think of cyclists, and even there you get half-hearted proposals from road planners that resent being told what they should be doing.

Smaller towns get it even worse. Maidstone shows what could happen -to see it in action today look at somewhere like Southampton, where their council's street 'visions' never show a bicycle, or Weston super mare, where they take pride in their mediocrity, adding bike paths on new roads purely to say the works address "all transport needs", when in fact the cycle route is so short and shit nobody would touch it. 

And here lies problem. Cycling numbers are falling outside London, Bristol and a few other densely populated cities -and even there the takeup is patchy.  This has got the smaller towns into a vicious circle

1. the number of people driving creates pressure for action on reducing congestion
2. the sole solution to congestion that anyone can conceive is more traffic lanes
3. the sole space for these lanes in places where there is no room to expand is the side of the roads -the footpaths and what mediocre shared use paths there are
4. as these were already shit paths and not part of an integrated route, they weren't used enough to make cycling a normal activity
5. the aren't enough people to stand up for the paths, so they get taken away
6. more people end up driving

Is there hope? Maybe in the medium-size cities, maybe with local regions within the smaller towns.  WSM is a lost cause for now. Bath could be improved -it is a town with many students, it's not great to cycle round, but it's not so awful you fear for your life everywhere. It's connected up with bristol via the RP, it's got the Twin Tunnels. What it lacks is a good option by the A4/London Road that doesn't involve crawling along the overcrowded towpaths -not a commute option, especially in winter- or burning thighs on the hill climbs above the A4. Then there's the gyratories by the train station, and that mess in the centre. 

Cyclists of Bath: follow Bristol and London -as if you can't, places like Southampton and Maidstone are fucked!

Arise the People!

Imagine a place suffering from congestion problems due to too many people trying to drive vehicles many times the size of themselves.

Imagine a place that is an air quality action area, due to the pollution generated by all those motor vehicles.



Imagine a place with parking problems due to the sheer number of cars trying to park -even for short journeys like a trip to local shops.

Imagine a place with health problems due to the inactivity of the population, where obesity is a growing crisis, where physical exercise has been negleted so long that the residents cannot even walk short distances from where they park, where such problems are not treated with exercise, but rewarded with disabled parking stickers that actualy make it easier to park outside your destination, and free parking is needed for those people who aren't quite there: "There are an awful lot of people who are not disabled enough to qualify for a parking badge and therefore a disabled space, but nevertheless they are not terribly mobile.

Imagine a place where "more civilised" places nearby look on in sadness and despair: how can this place not realise that they have painted themseves into a corner -that their dependency on driving has now created the problems: congestion, pollution, parking -problems which can begin to be fixed if they could get even a small fraction of the people who currently drive. When asked "why don't you follow their examples", the response is invariably some form of "we are different"

Imagine a place where existing cycling facilities are of awful quality and nowhere where people would actually want to go -yet the response to anyone suggesting "add more cycling facilities" is "but the cyclists aren't using the ones they've already got".

Where to take any space away from cars is considered a line that cannot be crossed: "not giving up two free spaces period", because "it's not fair for others"



Imagine a place where those people with the health and obesity problems, the ones who drive everywhere, are unable to recognise that they have options to get around, that rather than view cyclists as "them", they should consider it themselves.

Imagine a place that when the people and their leaders asked why they are not following the lead of the "more civilised places", the response is "we are not like them"

Imagine a place when pressured to put in more cycling facilities, the leaders respond with some empty words that while implying to be supportive of the idea, make it clear that they will not fund anything, that nothing will be done.

Imagine a place where the leaders say that while they support cycling, they have to take into account the needs of "all road users", by which they mean the people who drive, take up the most space, and endanger the lives of everyone trying to cycle -to the extend that they effectively supress cycling.

Imagine a place that is happy to spend money on improving driving, creating "solutions" to traffic problems that merely delay congestion for a few years, but by reinforcing the idea that driving is the way to get round, amplifying pollution and parking problem and making it worse to walk and cycle.

Imagine a place where it is considered dangerous to let the children out to play or walk to school because of the way everyone drives -the school run then creating more congestion and more dangerous for anyone trying to be different.

Imagine a place where the metric of suppressed cycling is the presence of the no-cycling signs on the few places where people can safely cycle.
What is that place?

1. Scotland
2. England and wales
3. S Gloucs
4. Marlborough
5. All of the above

The answer is, of course: all of the above.

For Scotland and England, the "more civilised" places are of course the rest of Europe -not just Amsterdam and Copenhage, but Dublin and Paris.

For S gloucs, the more civilised place is Bristol.

For Malrlborough, the more civilised place is maybe somewhere like Oxford.

It is the same problem across the board. The population has painted themselves into a corner -their choice of transport is not only poisoning the cities it is slowly killing the people who use it, and rapidly killing the people who try to lead a better life.

Marlborough and S Gloucs are simply a fraction of the country-wide ; delve down into individual streets and you will find that how people drive and park in their own roads makes it dangerous for children to play outside their own houses, when they want to visit friends two streets over their parents drive them for fear of their lives.

These are our villages, our towns, our cities and our countries, and they are the process of slowly committing suicide, while any attempt to say "it doesn't have to be this way", is treated with derision, patronising comments and utter inaction.

It's politicians saying fatuous bollocks and doing fuck all -all the way down

This raises an interesting question: how to change things? It's easy to say: focus on the bits that are changing, the inner cities. But why should the places that are theoretically the most dangerous : the busy city with the most people, the delivery vans, the taxis and the buses -the places where cycling is taking off? While the "leafy" suburbs, the dormitory towns, the market towns, the rural villages are getting worse? Because they are. And it is the people who live in them, who drive everywhere, who expect parking to be free and available wherever they go who are the ones we need to change.

We need to change their behaviour. How they get round a city. If they want to cycle, they need to be helped to get around safely -for them to be able to do the school run with their children alive, for them to send their kids out to play without worrying every time they hear a car speed by, where when they send a kid to see a friend round the corner they phone ahead to say "they are coming", and have the far end call in "they've arrived" when it happens.

How to do this? PoP has shown that the Scottish government isn't going to care about thousands of people turning up on bicycles, instead they issue fatuous words of inaction, targets delegated to others, wilful ingorance of safety statistics showing that Scotland is getting more dangerous to walk or cycle round.

The UK spending revew has shown that the English government isn't going to care about thousands of people signing petitions, national paper campaigns, parliamentary groups or warnings from the NHS. Instead they issue fatuous words of inaction, targets delegated to others, wilful ingorance of safety statistics showing that London is getting more dangerous to walk or cycle round.

This goes all the way down from the UK government, to regional govts, to county councils, towns stuck in the dark ages, to streets who complain about how cyclists threaten them, and how penalising them for driving in bus lanes is "persecution".

We need to keep that pressure up the councils -to let them know that their patronising bollocks is just that, that the data is at odds with their claims, that we wont accept the shit that they expect us to be grateful for.

But it isn't going to be enough unless they think they will be penalised at the polls for their inaction.

Press helps here: if the councillors realise there is popular support for change, they may change. The problem here is that those little local papers love local conflict, and cars v bikes makes for popular vitrol. Same for those regional TV news channels that like their phone ins. They'd rather see controversy over change -which is where the Times, the Evening Standard and the Glasgow Herald have to be praised for moving beyond this.

We also need to get out and protest about dismissive legal penalties, where judges forgive drivers for killing people, "a mistake anyone could make", when they impose penalties that are a joke. Whenever a judgement comes in, we need to get out to the court in our bicycles, be ready with quotes and again, that press.

If change isn't going to happen from the top, it has to come from below.

Organisations like Transition Marlbough can focus on the local issues, but its clear that they are still viewed as "troublemakers", not parts of the general population. Idealists; sweet but naive. What else?

Lower down: Street by street. School by school. Workplace by workplace.

Cycle to work looking normal -and offer support to anyone who also wants to do it, emphasise the time savings in the car, the money saved from the drive and the gym.

Cycle to school with the kids -offer support for other parents, and try and do it in convoy -as if a group of parents can marshall the kids, everyone will be happier. Try and get the school to do something about the parents who drive and make that final 300 metres, the school zone, the most hazardous.

Because that is all we have left -and because a more of the population spend even a little time on a bicycle, benefits will accrue

• They will stop viewing those who cycle as outsiders who can be treated as expendable
• Their friends and neighbours will stop viewing those who cycle as outsiders who can be treated like shit
• The more people who cycle on the school run, it will make the school run safer for everyone who walks or cycles
• If congestion and parking problems can be visibly reduced, it validates the fact that people on biycles take up less space, cause no pollution, can provide tangible benefits to the city.

We do need to get those councillors on board and the policitians. They need to get on a bicycle so they can stop talking about "the danger to motorists from cyclists backing out of cycle hoops at the side of the road. so they can stop with the "safe if you keep your wits about you" quotes, so that they can appreciate the benefits themselves.

Every cycling group needs to get in touch with their local councillor and offer to take them on a bike tour round the city. They need to contact their transport planners and offer to take them round an problem area by bike -to make the issues more tangible.

Because if we don't get out there, to do the groundwork and get their neighbours to the shops by bike, to do the school run by bike, then the fatuous politicans will continue to issue press release containing fatuous bollocks.

Arise! The politicans will have to adapt or die!

Marlboroughgate: who knew what, when? Nothing -now.

We are still to hear back from Cllr "let the cyclists walk" Dobson, but one of his colleagues has posted a comment on our previous article on the Marlborough Bike Rack Debacle, here repeated in full.

Before reading it, please go and sign the wiltshire council petition asking for the cycle parking to go ahead. The more people making their feelings known, the higher the chance there is of a decent outcome.

16 June 2013 15:33

Ok the following views are a pure and personal thoughts of my own and in no way reflect the view of Marlborough Town Council(MTC).

Hi everyone this is Justin Cook responding to your invite to air my view on the cycle racks in Marlborough.

The first any of the new council members heard about the proposed cycle racks were in the first full town council meeting of the new sitting. In this presentation made my Transition Marlborough(TM)it was asked if we could vote through the cycle racks installation in that very same meeting.

Handover of power can always be awkward. More subtly, cancelling anything of the previous government's/council's plans -especially something opposed by either a large group of people or a noisy press- is a low cost means of gaining popularity. You can be seen to reward your loyal supporters, while saving money. Because it is simply cancelling work, it doesn't need anything in terms of planning, so delivers political benefits fast.

It was also agreed by all parties that the particular style of cycle rack could be installed either before or after the re-surfacing work had been carried out on Marlborough High St. This is an important point as there would be no harm in any way to the item if I as a new councillor took some additional time to carry out more research on the item and indeed ask the other parish members in the community their views on the demand for the cycle racks.

Other parish members are clearly not a viable source of information here, not with Cllr Dobson saying the cyclists should walk, and Councillor Margaret Rose, complaining of "the danger to motorists from cyclists backing out of cycle hoops at the side of the road". These are clearly people whose opinions on the matter: cyclists are the other; something to fear. This is the classic cyclists-as-outgroup theory.

I also personally asked my FB site for their views as local Marlborough people in helping me come to an informed and correct decision.

It is also worth noting that Marlborough already has two set's of cycle racks at either end of the High St. I have been keenly checking these racks three times a day (my office is in High St) and have found there to be very little use if any made of them. This in itself does not sway me as i think if we had some well placed cycle racks people would use them and indeed you only have to see the volume of cyclist's we have coming through the High St at weekends to see how this would be used.

Exactly. There are many cyclists in wiltshire at weekends -a revenue stream for places like the tea rooms, if only they were made to feel welcome in the region. That's even without considering the opportunities for people who live in the area to cycle in.

The next important point is the location of said cycle racks.
The initial feeling from TM was that outside the Polly Tea Rooms would be a good idea but there was also advice given from some full time cyclists that having the cycle racks in a high footfall area increased the risks of theft and vandalism.

given a choice between "visible cycle racks where lots of people walk past" and "obscure parking where nobody can see your bicycle get stolen", someone went for the "out of sight" option? Unusual.

There was also the suggestion from WCC that we give up two free parking bays on the the sides of the High St. This i am afraid does not work for the majority as the side bays are the only free parking people have to pop into post office, pick up cleaning etc etc.

Here we come to the crux of the issue. The bike bays were to be on the two sides of the high street -the short-stay parking area. This is clearly unacceptable for "the majority",

This is vital for ongoing economic ease of business in the town and will be protected by me personally in any role that works.

Again, the economic case which seems somewhat weak. It would be good to have some hard data on how much revenue per parking bay the local shops earn. Having bays at a high occupancy rate doesn't guarantee income for the area.

The fact that the shops weren't opposed to the proposals shows that they seem to recognise the value in expanding the capacity of the street to accept more customers -yet the council seems unable to.

Again, it comes back to this outgroup concept. There is the majority -implicitly those those who drive- and the minority -the cyclists - and they are disjoint sets. The idea that someone who has a car may actually opt to cycle in to the high street doesn't occur. Instead it's "the cyclists", categorising people by the transport options they make on specific journeys.

I felt strongly that WCC should give up two paid parking spaces in the middle for the racks to make it fair for everyone. It is worth noting that a particular councillor from MTC is indeed engaging with WCC to this end on behalf of TM and the cyclists.

This isn't necessarily a bad idea. It is better than the "let them walk, they are fit" message. Some requirements here would, obviously, be:

• Secure parking for bicycles, not the "wheel benders" that provide no security guarantees at all
• Enough space to actually support parent + child journeys. That means the ability to safely park a bike + trailer. If the layout does not support that, there's a message there, "families are meant to drive".
• Safe crossing from the bike racks to the shops. 

And of course, a serious attempt by the council to deliver this in a timely manner. This summer is lost already.

My personal experience with business and money is that good research and preperation is key to making good ongoing business decisions that make sense over the long term. What makes my blood boil is quick emotional decision making not based on good research and decision making. Then the inevitable happen's and we need to re visit the item and spend more money upgrading or moving such item. This is a big waste of everyone's money and a waste of time.

That's valid, as long as it isn't just an excuse to make some short-term populist decisions at the expense of the long-term quality of life of the area.

One particular thing to flag up here is that if money is going to be spent improving signage to the existing low quality bike racks -that will destroy the whole "don't waste money on decisions that need to be revisited" argument.

So again i am not against the cycle racks but wanted more time to think it through and come to a good decision for all.

I just want to make sure that the cycle racks go in the best possible place for cyclist's and car users equally as it's not just the cyclist's that have a say in this.

Did the cyclists get a say in where the car parking went? When? What about the pedestrians? So please, drop this "balanced" story, it isn't defensible.

Also i must say that the emotional rhetoric that has been thrown round this is really blurring the lines of good debate and i for one will NOT be rushed into any money expenditure decision by anyone period. I have no problem spending budgets set out for the town but will not be rushed into making decisions based on a emotional volume.

We look forward to the delivery of some well placed, high quality cycle parking, and will visit the region when it arises.

For anyone from Marlborough reading this, thinking "What why should we care what an underground cycling group near Bristol say", we know which of our colleagues in the military-industrial sprawl of the North Fringe live near Marlborough, Calne and Swindon. They don't just expect parking near their post office, they expect a traffic free route from their rural homesteads to work, and end up stuck on the A4174 instead. The lifestyle and transport choices those people have made have a direct impact on the quality of life on residents and colleagues who actually live close their workplaces. These are people demanding millions of pounds spent on new motorway junctions, a widened ring road and new bypasses -which is why arranging for some modal shift for their transport choices matters so much for S  Gloucs.

We don't expect them to cycle to work from Wiltshire to the N Fringe -though if they work in Bath or Swindon, that may be possible. What we would like is them to take the train instead, though as we've seen, First GW don't like bicycles parked at their stations; Swindon is no better. The combination of folding+train -that works.

To close, then:

1. If you live in town, contact your parish councillor and make your opinions on the matter known.
2. If you cycle through the area from time to time -and currently feel unwelcome, sign the petition
3. We shall keep an eye on Marlborough. As part of the commuter catchment area, they come within our remit.

As for the councillors of Marlborough Town: you need to recognise that your actions are visible on a national scale. So far some of your statements "danger to motorists" and "cyclists are fit enough to walk from other side of the high street" have made you sources of ridicule. Please don't dig yourself deeper into a hole. Try to come up with a plan that doesn't just help the existing cyclsits, but encourages people who live in the town to try getting to the high street and back by bicycle and foot, rather than driving there and expecting to find an empty parking space.

Cllr Stewart Dobson, Marlborough "drivers need parking near the shops as they are unfit; cyclists can walk"

Marlborough, over in Wiltshire, is on the easternmost fringe of the S Gloucs commute ring; people do drive all the way from there to the offices on the A4174. They are the ones who have to get to work by 8am, who stay until after 7, who whine about congestion on the M4 near bath.

They are also, perhaps, the people too unfit to walk a short distance to the shops.

This has to be the conclusion to an ill-fated proposal to add bike racks outside some shops in Marlborough -at the expense of a parking space.

The plan was voted down, due to the fact it would take away two free parking spots.

The most ridiculous rationalisation for this has to come from Cllr Stuart Dobson, Marlborough East.

"It is so important, especially in these present financial times, that we do all we can for residents,"

subtext: nobody who voted for me rides a bicycle. People who do cycle are non residents -yet bring no revenue to the shops.

"There are an awful lot of people who are not disabled enough to qualify for a parking badge and therefore a disabled space, but nevertheless they are not terrible mobile.

subtext: we need to feel sorry for the people -the residents- who have to park right in front of the shops, because it is for their health. Even if they don't have disabled badges, they can't walk.

"Cyclists by and large are very active people," he added.  "So I can’t see a problem with them walking from one end of the High Street to the other whereas we would be penalising people who are far from active."

subtext: it is acceptable to penalise those people who cycle. They are not residents/voters after all.

This is possibly the most retrograde piece of thinking there is. Unless he has been misquoted, think about what it means

1. We should reward the people who drive into the town by providing parking directly outside their destination.
2. We should penalise those people who cycle in to town by making them park elsewhere and then walk to their destination -so increasing their journey time and inconvenience.

Yes, it is couched in terms of "my residents aren't healthy enough to walk far" and "those cyclists, they are all fit and healthy and can walk a few minutes to get to the shops", but that makes clear the fundamental problem that the NHS has to tackle

By encouraging people to drive everywhere, we have created a nation of obese, unfit and unhealthy people.

Rather than care about the health of his residents, Cllr Dobson is implying that health problems are not lifestyle-related, that they are some random acts of chance. Those people who drive, they only do so because they are unfit. If they were fit and healthy, they'd be cycling instead. Except of course in this time of austerity we need to provide the parking spaces because those fit and healthy people don't bring any money into the city.

This is completely missing the point about Britain's growing obesity crisis: it is driven by a lifestyle that involves no physical activity at all.


Rather than reward these people by providing a parking space directly outside the chemist, they should be ever so subtly trying to get them to do a hint of activity, even it if it is walking five to ten metres from the car to the chemists. That's all. There's lots of car parking nearby -it's only cycle parking that is absent.

According to the government, 61% of adults are obese, 30% of children. This is why the government wants to encourage everyone "to eat and drink more healthily" and "be more active". The policy in Marlborough is going completely against the NHS recommendations, where even adults aged 65+ are encouraged to take part in moderate physical activity for at least two hours a week.

The other thing worth picking apart is the entire economic argument. Two parking bays, 30 minutes free parking. If every visitor used their full 30 minutes, you'd only have 16 visitors per bay in an 8 hour working day. Let's be generous and assume that there's a minimum dwell of ten minutes, but after the ten minutes the visitor can leave at any time in the remaining twenty minutes -with a uniform distribution. That would give an average parking time of 20 minutes. You could say then that there'd be a whole 24 visitors/bay/day, but that assumes that there is no period when the bays are ever empty, which is unrealistic. let's assume 0-10 minutes with again, a uniform arrival time, leaving another average of 5 minutes (a poission distribution of random events would be more appropriate, but it's not that different). The outcome is ~19 visitors/bay/day, or ~40 a day. You could argue about the numbers, but the big one: how long people stay, could be optimistic -as we are assuming that nobody stays above 30 minutes, the nominal legal limit. If someone with a disabled badge were to park there -as they can- they could say for two hours, cutting the daily capacity of that by down by about four vehicles -four customers for the high street.

Now imagine each bay has four sheffield stands. A parking capacity of eight. Being pessimistic and assuming a continuous occupancy of only 50%, you would still get 4x the customers per bay from parked bicycles than you would from parked cars. Even if each cyclist bought half as much as someone driving in -a completely spurious figure- the shops revenue from converting a car bay to a cycle parking bay could double.

the whole economic argument is bogus.

There we have it then. Someone who says "in these present financial times" we should actually reduce the potential customer parking capacity of the high street, and that we should penalise those people who have adopted a lifestyle that make them healthier than those who haven't.

This is worse than being stuck in the 1970s. It is coming up with the most irrational form of thinking you can -which essentially comes down to "we don't want people on bicycles shopping in our town".

The origin of the Great Wall of Filton

At their AGM, Joe Steinsky took the attendees from the showcase Bristol City infrastructure, to the "what not to do" infrastructure of S Gloucs -infrastructure that was, remember, funded out of the Cycling City program.

David Arditti has put up his review.

First, regarding the MoD paths, those were the ones where bollards without illuminated markings went up to narrow the cycle route down to less than 1m for two lanes -making it the nationally famous Bollards of Death path. It may be abysmal now, but consider this: the S Gloucs cycle team spent money making it worse, then more money reversing their mistakes.


Which brings us, naturally to the Great Wall of Filton, which as David Arditti observes is "foolishly obstructed by a wooden post".


Its far, far worse than that. The shared space went in a couple of years ago to make this stretch of road walking and cycling friendly. Instead it shows why shared space is a shit idea that actively punishes anyone cycling. By allowing cars to park on the edges of the space, and giving people the "option" of walking and playing in the centre, it created conflict with anyone cycling, and Great Wall of Filton is the result.

What they could have done is a proper, segregated path through the shared space. No, giving the (new) residents the right to park their cars in front of their houses is more important.

Going back a few years, here is the planning decision.

"to achieve a significant shift in travel behaviour away from the private car towards a greater use of walking, cycling and public transport;"


Well, did it fucking succeed?

Reasons for the closure

• The problems identified by the residents included the use of Eighth Avenue by through traffic to avoid congestion on Filton Avenue and vehicles travelling at inappropriate speed.
• 15 injuries on the road in the previous 3 years.
• "Traffic calming does not effectively deter either rat- running or anti-social driving"

These are all good goals. Closing the road to through traffic has helped. It's just the shared space development completely screwed things up:

The closure ties in with Bristol City Council proposals for the Horfield Estate Regeneration. This section of Wordsworth Road forms part of the proposed Home Zone and a large volume of fast moving through traffic would undermine the Home Zone.

See that? the closure came in with the shared space zone, not after it. There was an opportunity to do things better when the houses that were there before were ripped down - a segregated route that would encourage cycling, and, while it couldn't stop motorbiking, could isolate the damage. Instead the area got a shared space with some barriered road closure, and then, last year, the Great Wall of Filton.

At the original event, who was opposed?

One resident who felt that the turning point would be blocked (probably true), it would devalue their property (bollocks) and that other forms of traffic calming would be better. Some lazy git who likes driving, by the sound of things.

Who else? The S Gloucs Taxi association

The Workers Union Taxi Branch 2/106, whose address is in South Gloucestershire, are as follows:-

1. Closure would be detrimental to their trade,
2. A lesser measure should be imposed
   
3. Making one or two roads traffic free will not help cyclists
   

Point #2 isn't an argument; it's a suggestion. Point number one: "we want our rat runs". That's what it means. This road used to be a high speed alternative, especially southbound, to Filton Ave. Northbound, the right turn at end meant you relied on goodwill from drivers stuck in the Northbound jam -and goodwill is pretty fucking sparse on a weekday morning.


Point #3 is fucking hilarious. When has the S. Gloucs taxi association ever given a fuck about bicycles before or after this? Never. Did they suddenly get take over by a cycling group and decided to care? Pretty unlikely. Instead they use the "we care about bicycles" argument to say "this road should stay a rat-run for taxis."


They make a point :making one or two roads traffic free will not help cyclists, but to say that means that roads should not be closed is specious-fucking-politician-style-argument-dredging.


Unless someone in Bristol or S Gloucs is prepared to declare a dedicated road closure down a fully joined up route -and it would be wonderful, if unlikely in the city, and never going to happen if fat-arse-allinson has power- closing roads one by one is all that's left. This road has joined up with the concorde way. it could almost be a good cycling route. Yet the taxi drivers were against the initial closure on the grounds that it wasn't a good solution for cycling in the city.

At least here the council had the backbone to tell the taxi drivers to go fuck themselves:

• Eighth Avenue/Wordsworth Road are not suitable roads to be used as a through route by taxis and it will be possible for all properties on these roads to be accessed by taxis.
• Lesser measures such as traffic calming would have little impact on the volume of through traffic.
• The closure will have a beneficial effect on a 2 mile long ‘rat run’ that is currently promoted as a signposted cycle route between Bristol and the North Fringe.

Meaning :you shouldn't be rat-running here, traffic calming would miss the whole point of the proposal, and it is on a sign posted cycling route.

What has happened in the last eight years, then? The housing is done, the shared space built, and the residents -suburban car drivers that they are- don't see the point in a cycle route. All they see are motorbiking teenagers coming through their shared space, and are happy to have the route blocked.

Here's what happened, as an email forwarded to us says:

The changes were made through the Bristol Neighbourhood Partnership budget for Horfield & Lockleaze and were jointly funded by South Gloucestershire, (as it is right on the border of the two authorities). The issue was addressing a road safety concern with motorcycle speed through the stopping up, which was affecting pedestrians, cyclists and local residents using the facility. Bristol has received phone calls and correspondence from Ward Councillors, the Police, local residents and users on this particular issue. The speeding issues had been reported throughout the day as well as the night and were not easy to address through enforcement due to numerous motorbikes using this as a short cut.

As there was very little funding to address this, CCTV or completely re-engineering the stopping up was not an option, due to significantly less funding within local government currently. We believe the amendments probably do act as a very minor inconvenience for cyclists, in much the same way as a York-style staggered barrier may act. We also agree for the minority of people using a tag along or tricycle this is not perhaps a route we would advise using. Yet for the majority of cyclists it is still possible to use the route in a far safer way, without potential or actual conflict occurring at high speed with motorbikes. For tricycles or tag alongs we would suggest using The Concorde Way, (if they are heading to the MoD or other employers in the area), or the other alternative would be Filton Avenue. Although we do not envisage the amendments stopping motorcycle misuse, it will slow the current speeds and be a road safety improvement for most users and residents. Unfortunately a solution to this age old conundrum, which allows access for all, but stops issues with motorbikes has yet to be invented, although we do try trial new solutions to regularly check this.

In terms of alternative design solutions we did investigate at a number of other options including one to three bollard/s either side of the islands allowing cyclists to weave around them, but due to bollards potentially being struck by turning traffic, (particularly large lorries or refuse vehicles) and little or no budget the current arrangement was the best placement in terms of future maintenance.

As regards the footway, the staggered barriers have been implemented within our current BCC Environmental Access Standards and are as such DDA compliant, as far as we are aware. Finally, in terms of making the bollards visible at night, they do already have a retro-reflective band around the top.

There you have it. The Great Wall of Filton was the easiest and cheapest way to keep motorbikes out the shared space. And if you have an odd-shaped bicycle, Filton Avenue is your option. Which is fucking ridiculous.

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 Great Wall of Filton

Rob Bushill of Really Useful Bikes feels that we, the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire, have been giving the S Gloucs cycle team a hard time. That swearing is abusive and the wrong way to get things fixed.

His section on cycling with kids is something we cannot disagree with, as he shows lots of lovely ways to carry kids on the bars, cargo bicycles -we are sure that he dreams of a region where families can safely cycle round. We agree on the goals -merely the detail. He and the other collaborators with the regime believe that constructive engagement is the answer. We believe that talking to the people is an utter waste of time -and furthermore, they don't even talk to you, the splitters, about what they are about to do to make cycling round the region even harder.

We value and respect Rob, and his goal of providing useful bikes for the area, so will not swear in this post, or make any direct accusations about the competence of the cycle team.


Instead we ask Rob to question his own beliefs -and to consider whether he should come out in support of the cause -or give up and start selling mountain bikes with 80-100mm of travel on the front forks, as these are the best way to get past The Great Wall of Filton.

Yes, the "the Great Wall of Filton", a barrier put in to stop anyone on a bicycle cycling down a road that was closed "to make it a better place to cycle" -at the bottom of Eighth Avenue and the top of Wordsworth Avenue

It's not a cycle path, it's a wall of bollards and barriers, with a van on the pavement to make even the pavement inaccessible.

It's not wide enough to get a bicycle with panniers through

It's not wide enough to get any straight-bar bicycle through without the risk of clipping a wheel on the kerb (where the black marks show it happens), or the bar on the bollard.

It is not a cycle path. It is not pining for the fjords. It is a dead cycle path.

As Rob does not want us to say anything negative about the cycle team, we leave it to him to discover for us whether this was put in without their knowledge, whether their objections to something utterly useless were overridden -or whether they thought this was a good idea.

If he raises this issue at the next cycle forum -he should also ask why The Great Wall of Filton was not discussed beforehand.

Here are our questions for Rob about the Great Wall of Filton

1. Do you any of your family cycles get through here?
2. As this route will link up with the nearby Concorde way, do you believe that this route could form part of a safe joined-up family cycling network?
3. Do you have any evidence that the plan for the Great Wall of Filton was raised with the cycle forum? 
4. Do you think that the Great Wall of Filton is something the cycle team should be proud of?
5. Do you think they were involved in the design?
6. If the cycle team where not involved in the design, does that not indicate that the council is out of control, and that the cycle team have no apparent awareness of what is going on in their shire?
7. Whose budget do you believe it came out of?

If he finds the answers unsatisfactory, we extend the black glove of the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire to Rob -and invite him to recognise that the cycle forum is not the solution to any cycling problems that the area has. Together, we can be.

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?

Old Filton Road: this is what they give us

Old Filton Road is the road where cycling city money was wasted putting in a cycle lane "hint" on one side of the road, and a shit cycle/walk path on the other, purely so that the road could be re-opened as a rat-run, something the councillors were proud to take credit for. This is how South Gloucester council spent their part of the cycling city money, improvements which they say were "designed to improve the environment for cyclists and pedestrians". Exactly how turning a dead end road into a through route while giving a shit bit of pavement to the side for the walkers and cyclists to bicker over escapes us.

Before:

1. A closed road with room for people to cycle in either direction on safely.
2. No pavement, but no need to worry about rat-running cars.
3. Room for pedestrians and lots of lunchtime runners.

After

1. A road that cars can sprint along to avoid the traffic jam that is the A4174. Yes, it's left turn only at the end, but that gets you to UWE and the science park.
2. A pavement that hasn't had any gardening budget spent on it since it was installed.
3. Traffic calming in the form of some signs and one of those 30mph signs that lights up to remind people who were unintentionally -as opposed to knowingly- breaking the speed limit.

Say what you like about Bristol City Council, it didn't add something this awful and then stand up and be proud of it. Admittedly, S Gloucs council didn't either, not to the cyclists -they sold the entire scheme as "a road re-opens", with a sob story of how "drivers who had used the route were forced on to the already congested ring road instead.", missing the point that it was people choosing to drive were the problem, not the victims.

Some people are unhappy that not everyone cycles along this newly designated path. If the UKIP -the official party of the Association of British Drivers- got their way, it would be mandatory to cycle along the path.

That's the path that is getting slowly overgrown after two years of utter neglect; the trees overhanging the path while the vegetation curves back in. Of course anyone in their right mind would cycle on the road, such as the person vanishing into the distance.

Which raises the question: what was the fucking point in spending all this money on "cycle safety" in the first place. If you are going to build something so awful that nobody will use it, then neglect it utterly, it isn't worth bothering about.

Note that to reduce the risk of head on collisions on a cycle path so shite nobody uses it, there is a big sign on the west end of the path saying "No cycles". That just about sums it up for the entire S Gloucs council cycling plans: No cycles.

Given that the bollards are missing, this photo is probably going to become the official site logo.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

To us, the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire, our enemy is the roadbuilders who stick up the new roads, widen the old ones, and add walking and cycling features as an afterthought -one that neglects our needs and is constrained by the inability of the roadbuilders to imagine the needs, care about them, or execute on their own plans.

We call them The Romans. For what have the Romans ever done for us, apart from the roads?


This is the A4174 ring road path, by the UWE entrance. 20 years ago you weren't allowed to cycle here, and as a consequence there was none of this traffic calming stuff up. It was easier to cycle down, and way safer than the ring road.

Since then, the ring road has got busier and wider. This week they opened a new priority lane for buses, one that avoids taking any space from cars.

That worked, didn't it?

Looking the other way, you can see that some of the pedestrians are wearing camouflage and not hi-viz.

This shows a conflict of goals. The motorists and the councils would like all pedestrians to wear hi-viz, obvously. But many of the MoD staff are wearing work clothes designed to keep you alive in war zones, and bright reflective clothing fails then. It went out of fashion when officers stopped wearing red jackets.

The combination of traffic calming and pedestrians whose lives depend on not wearing hi-viz makes for a higher risk environment.

Descending to the roundabout, you can see that it is too narrow to have separation from pedestrians, so we are grateful for the current lack of bollards. Admittedly, the various road signs don't help, and a wider path would actually eliminate the conflict entirely. This would good as the people cycling up the hill are all in uniforms.

Note the different roundabout crossings

1. MOD entrance: light controlled, safe.

2. MOD back entrance and shops -no lights, cars may coming off the main roundabout at speed. There is a traffic island designed for at most one bicycle to wait, limiting the cycle traffic flow to one bicycle every 30s maximum. Everyone cycling across has to look at the traffic, then keep looking in front to see its clear to get off the crossing.

3. Shopping centre entrance. There is a green strip here, and the driver coming off the roundabout did give way. This is unexpected and welcome, as a green line on the ground has no legal force. If you get run over, the car had the right of way.

What did the SGC get wrong here?

The key issue is a focus on motor traffic rather than pedestrian and bicycles, and not making it safe to cross the roundabouts. Pelican lights that would block both the entrance and exit of crossing #2 would make it safe to cross and eliminate the traffic island bottleneck in the middle. That or a zebra crossing would be good. But perhaps they fear the tailbacks created by stopping for pedestrians and cyclists.

3. Again, no formal cycles-have-right-of-way setup at the junction. This time someone was being generous, but you can't rely on it.

The biggest hazard is the main MoD roundabout

• The main road has 50 mph speed limit, people are still in motorway-mode -and not expecting pedestrians or cyclists.
• No pedestrian/cycle crossing lights or scheduled period in the main light sequence.
• The traffic island has room for one bicycle at a time and is already saturated.
• Pedestrians and bicycles are sprinting over, attention split between traffic coming off the roundabout and what they will run or cycle into.

The metric we ask is "would you trust an 11 year old child to use this bicycle path safely". Not with these crossings and paths we don't. 

BBC on Cycling City

The BBC is doing a post mortem of the Cycling City program on the radio, and in print

On the one hand, the BBC are saying "It's failed because it didn't reach its goals", then we have the Bristol Council Conservative Party leader saying "It's failed because all the features they added have taken away road space from people who choose to drive. Choose to Drive, remember that. It is optional within the inner city, despite what some people think:

The leader of the opposition Conservative group on Bristol City Council, Geoff Gollop, said the new cycle routes were to the detriment of motorists.


He said: "The Cycling City initiative brought in match-funding which has delivered new cycling routes but these have largely been achieved at the expense of the majority of road users - by reducing road space or capacity.


"Whilst we recognise the merits of promoting cycling as a leisure activity for the individual - delivering personal health benefits and helping to improve the environment for all - this form of travel is unlikely in the near future to be a major means of commuting.


"We do not believe the £22m project can be said to have been successful even in its own terms."

From this, "the Clarkson perspective", anyone cycling is (a) a loser and (b) in their way. While the conservative party are a mostly irrelevant minority in Bristol -where the power has mostly been held by Labour, now LibDems (though elections in May might change things, the nightmare scenario is the cons party hold the balance of power.).

For all the criticism the BBC points at the council, the Bristol council leadership and the traffic team has embraced cycling. You don't see that in S Gloucs. They will be with Geoff Gollop: they want the money, but don't want it to take any space from roads, because commuting is what cars are for.

There's discussion about "what next", and proposals for more funding. We in the People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire don't believe that any funding should go to the S Gloucs team unless there are fundamental changes not just in their engineering team, but in the council themselves. They will never embrace Dutch Infrastructure when they view cycling as an odd hobby for outcasts.

If you think Bristol City cycling is a failure, then you haven't tried to go round S Gloucs. And here is the joke: They have the space. This isn't the inner city, with its windy hills, residents parking on the pavements because there's no room for anything else. No, this is the quiet suburbs where you park your cars on the pavements because you can, where mediocre cycle paths are designed to keep them out of sight and out of mind. Yet these lanes aren't designed to cope with a doubling in the numbers of people using them, as they couldn't even begin to cope.


The People's Cycling Front of South Gloucestershire will change this. All who stand in our way shall be defeated. They shall fear our very name!

Counter Revolutionaries!

The complaint that we have made slanderous claims about the forthcoming new cycle path that almost-but-not-quite joins up with the UWE-Lockeaze path have led to a new web site being created: The South Gloucestershire Cycling Front . That's good, though not quite in keeping with the Monty Python Theme. Please, go watch the Life of Brian again and add popular or people's to the title somewhere.

It appears that this site was put up by the person David/Frank who was upset about our coverage of the new cycle path. In the identity "Frank Spencer" - a tribute to the 1970s comedian who was not involved with the Monty Python group (again, pity: Brian would have been a funnier fake name. Or Bwian :), we are denounced by these people who do not want our vision "Bike Paths the Dutch don't laugh at" realised

 

Here are some answers to their questions

Is the South Gloucestershire Cycling Front run by a failed engineer?

-No, we are a group of users who are fed up with the mediocre routes we have. They are there, they could work, but not the way they are going. You get something without lights, bollards and pillars are being added and every that path abandons you at roundabouts. And there are so many roundabouts here.

Why does this idiot think he can do better than everyone else.

We have been abroad, we know what can be done, we recognise failures. Anywhere you have to get off and walk is a failure. Anywhere you can't have kids ride around on their own is a failure. Anywhere that poeple don't feel is safe to walk or cycle at night is a failure. Any path that can have vans belonging to S Gloucs council parked in all day with nobody capable of dealing with the complaint about the path being blocked is a failure. Therefore we find the accusation that we are failed engineers from someone who appears to be partly involved in the process very amusing.


Why will South Gloucestershire Council not employ this idiot.

We do not seek employment, the team are all in paid employment in or residents of the area. We merely demand that the council delivers on their half of the cycling city promise. A city safe and pleasant to cycle around in. Bristol is improving. Filton, Patchway, Frenchay, well, try it and see what you think.

They have let us down. This is a shame as they have the space to do wide cycle paths, they have the congestion at peak hours to justify it, and they have the city of Bristol nearby for people to commute to and from, as well as the suburbs of Bradley Stoke and Emerson's Green.

Why are they failing us? Three options spring to mind, "the three I's"

• Ignorance
• Incompetence
• Indifference

Ignorance: they don't ride bicycles themselves, they don't understand our needs. They think that large dropoffs are viable, street lights are a luxury.

Incompetence: they mean well, but something goes wrong. For example, someone could not have done a proper site survey above, included the area out the site, and nobody thought while the lovely tarmac was being laid perfectly smooth that the underlying goal was being missed. Or they think that signs will help, missing the detail that one in the middle of a path on the apex of a turn would be near-lethal. We suspect "Frank" is upset about our hints about this and is taking it personally.

Indifference: they don't really care. They assume the people on bicycles are either law-breaking criminals who don't pay road tax or stop at lights, or student underpeople from outside. Not proper revenue-earning citizens of S Gloucs. They expect us to be grateful for whatever they throw in our direction. Whereas in fact many of us work at the big technology and finance companies along here and are fed up of the treatment we receive.

Indifference is probably is the underlying root cause -except it does not (just) lie in the people doing the paths. The blame lies with the councillors. Sometimes the people on the ground are just following the orders from above, and either they aren't in a position to say "this doesn't make sense" or if they do say it, they get overruled.

We shall cover the councillor problem when we focus on Old Filton Road. We know who to blame there as they appear in the local papers, proud of what they have achieved.

It has been quite amusing reading all the comments. Now we understand why Freewheeler of Waltham Forest fame disables comments on that site -it'd be full of hate mail from every single member of the Waltham Forest council whose nominal job description involved cycle paths, transport, cycle parking, street cleaning or improving the shopping areas.

PS, Frank. The photo at the top of this page is the first one in our sequence, dated 17:06 on Feb 16. The barrier is shown as it was discovered. That was the same day that some people dug a trench in the path by the UWE entrance and then filled it in with loose gravel but didn't add tarmac. Like we say: the paths are getting worse.