Rapid Transit vs Cycling

Some people may -naievly- assume that major public transport projects will be good for cycling

No.

BRT planners view cycle routes as places they can take from cyclists "for the greater good", and so introduce BRT services -without incurring the controversy which comes from taking away road space from cars.

Magnatom has just discovered this, with a shared bike/bus route being turned into a bus only route.

Bus and bike don't coexist well even on shared bus lanes -there's a bus driver on a schedule trying to get to the next stop, a cyclist worrying about the bus up their arse, and, if the bus gets past, a bus blocking their progress at the next stop. Everyone slows each other down. And then there's the taxis, and in Bristol, the minicabs, who often treat cyclists worse than bus drivers .

One fix here, the CEoGB solution: segregate the cycle route.

The bus route planners solution: segregate the bus route by banning cyclists.

And where do you build a segregated bus route? You can't easily do it on rush-hour only bus lanes, where keeping cars out of them is a constant battle -its the perennial bus route vs parking conflict.

The other road option: dual carriageways and motorways. Urban motorways could be a suitable location: M8, M77. M32, M4 into London, and the like. Except try building there and the planners go headlong into battles with the press over "bus bring driving chaos" stories.

It is politically much more expedient to look at the cycle routes -the routes that have grown into the "unused spaces" in the city, ones that the planners can look at and say "that'll do"

And the cycling traffic? They get ignored and discounted in spreadsheets that look at the catchment area of the BRT stops, make an assumption that some vast percentage will switch to the BRT -and use that as the foundation for their equations. Nobody ever does that for cycle routes, because they discount the idea that more than a small niche set of users would use them.

And even then, when the spreadsheet says "this is not a good option", they pick it because of its lower political cost, and because of the momentum that a multi-million pound project can get: central government funding, the route designers will have nice offices in the council buildings, briefing sessions, backing from the bus companies. In their own way, they are their own version of the Road Lobby: the bus lobby.

The WoEP  are the threat here in CUBA, "Counties that Used to Be Avon". The "West of England Partnership" are team based in Bristol Council's road planning offices, trying to bring Bus Rapid Transit to the city by destroying the long distance cycle routes as well as any greenery in the more deprived parts of the inner city.

There was  plan in the early 1990s for a tram service to run from Bristol to Bath. If it had been built, it would have been popular, and could maybe even have extended round the ring road to the North Fringe. It wasn't, and instead over 20 years it became the most widely used cycle route in Britain. It is a mixed use route -which does create conflict, but that feature was a benefit in 2006? when the WoEP wankers came up with their BRT plan: BRT1, BRT2, BRT3.

The BRT proposals were for a set of BRT routes, linking the town and the city, and circling the inner city by way of the inner-circuit road, inner Bristol's Leeds-era ugliness.

One of them -BRT3?- was to be along the M32, which would be downgraded to a trunk route, and a new bus lane added -presumably in the centre. Even there though, it would run "along a stretch of the river frome" -which glosses over the fact that this stretch of the frome has a name, Riverside Park.

BRT4: Malago greenway. "greenway" in the title is the flag there -it was the parkland and path that runs along the Malago stream to Bedminster. This is now part of the Hengrove cycle way, though streetview shows that the bike route meanders through suburban chav-land where pavements are for parking your clapped out cars that you "can't do withoout", and no doubt forcing you to plead exceptional hardship when your speeding tickets catch up with you.

Another -BRT1 turned out to be planned to go through the Railway Path. That was the one that was sprung on the city with the plans nearly complete.

The economics spreadsheets slowed that the M32 based BRT route was the one that would be the most popular and have the best Return On Investment.

Why then did the bus planners pick on the railway path -why pick on the cyclists?

Technical: there was a straight line there with underpasses and things -all they had to do was throw off the cyclists, block pedestrian access and they've got a bus route. It was the easiest route to build.

Political: it was felt it would generate less opposition from the people in the city.

They targeted the bike route because they felt that the cyclists would be an easier target -willing to acquiesce to some shit proposal that would give them a narrow concrete route by a bus lane, less entry and exit points, and no pleasant greenery.

What saved the path? Why is it still a showcase? Because the cyclists across the city did come out -all over the wards, they got in touch with their councillors to complain. Equally importantly, the residents of the inner city came out too to defend their park -and their walking route to school, to the city, to the shops in Fishponds. Mass protest saved that route, and the only reason that worked was the volume of cycle traffic (broad support across the city), and a key feature of inner east bristol (political activists, many motivated locals)

The campaigners one: for  now. But no doubt someone has their designs in some road-planner CAD tool, which will on a sharepoint server there barring some disk corruption or  file format unreadability.

What has proceeded instead is BRT2, which

• Cuts over Prince St Bridge, quiet bridge crossing
• Cuts over the "old" railway bridge by Cumberland Basin.

 The Cumberland Flyover is one of those "do not cycle unless you are an aggressive lycra-roadie" -not a utility route. Streetview shows a cyclist in each direction, but if you look at them, you can feel the fear coming off them, brave cyclists in a street system that is not designed for them.

In comparison, the railway bridge is empty -making it the one most people use; the nice one. BRT route runs along the harbour, which is part of the Cycle City route, the festival way.

Why did the BRT team choose this route? Technical and Political expediency. Bridges they could use, no real opposition. And this time: no so much. The selling point of the BRT2 route is that it will be way for residents of North Somerset to park and ride in, after they drive in from their mock-rural dream, the one where Elfan App Rees snickers when asked if he'd cycle a bike path he'd just defended as "cyclists should be grateful". You can't sell the notion of cycle commuting eight miles to a council where they expect a shit slowing route 15 metres long, 100cm wide and on the squashable side of a crash barrier. Whereas BRT? Its got money, ambition and it doesn't take away road space.

That's why the cyclists get stuffed by public transport projects: the bike routes are juicy targets and we cyclists generally lack the political clout to defend it.

The Bristol Cycling City report

You can now download the final cycling city report.

Remember, S Gloucs got 1/3 of the cash, so you'd expect 1/3 of the progress, enough to justify Bwian Allison appearing on the introduction.

So let's look at P6 at the on-road and traffic free improvements

Contra-flow streets: A number of contra-flow streets introduced to allow cyclists to travel against the flow of motor vehicles on one way streets, provide an advantage by allowing cyclists ‘filtered permeability’ through an area – mostly in central Bristol.

Measures to increase the use of the Bristol-Bath Railway Path: Two new paths have been installed to provide access to two highly populated communities. Lighting has also been installed to provide illumination up to Bristol City Council's administrative boundary. 

The only bit of infrastructure they cite is the concorde way. That's the one where they put the bollards in because people were actually using it.  They also discuss the bus network

Work with the Greater Bristol Bus Network: Cycling was considered using Cycle Route Implementation and Stakeholder Plans (CRISPs) to identify as many opportunities as possible to benefit cyclists in parallel with buses.

No mention of the S Gloucs plans to ban bicycles from the bus lanes on the A4174, the plans for shite shared-pavement options along the new to-cribbs route being designed.
Same page: 20 mph areas,.

The two 20mph limit pilot areas in Bristol were implemented  

See. In Bristol.  Notice a trend there?

Now P10, area -six.

The Cycling City project implemented 0.72 km of on-road and 19.19 km of traffic-free cycle infrastructure

This all sounds wonderful were not the 19.19km of off road routes 19.19km of such awfulness that the money would have better off spent in Bristol. It probably includes the old Filton Road pavement, put in so that rat-running councillors would be able to use the Old Filton Road, which was until then traffic free.

It probably includes the pavement route put in while a new bus stop was added, with the bike lane set up to crash cyclists into anyone waiting for a bus. And Appendix 6 says "Western Link to UWE". You know the one., the one which only a month ago finally got the junction to the existing infrastructure levelled off so you could actually ride it in both directions on a bicycle without suspension and off-road tyres.




As for the on-road stretch, we fear it includes the other direction of Old Filton Road, as even the council road planners realised that trying to make a pavement 1 metre wide even before it got covered in vegetation two way was daft. Instead they put some green marks down in precisely the one place you don't want to be when heading east.

Page14: a discussion on how signage benefits cycle path users. Well, in S Gloucs on those rare bits of path that do have signage, the signage is just another hazard to fear at night.

From the perspective of Bristol, the results are good. The 20 mph zone, it slows cars down a bit (excluding Ashley Down, York Road, Stapleton road, and it pretends Coronation Road isn't there). The near ubiquitous cycle parking means that trips to local shops are better -and that you feel welcome, which is not the case in S Gloucs outside the big employers.

They also claim that in Ashley Ward, 26% of people cycle to work, in Southville, Redland and Bishopston the percentage is 20%. These are not people who cycle to work in the North Fringe. how can we make such an assertion? The automated traffic count data on concorde way has apparently risen by 102%. But they don't give the figures. If 20% of people in S. Gloucs cycled to work, don't you think they would have mentioned it? If 20% of schoolkids in the area cycled to school, don't you think they would have mentioned it? They didn't. They gave some impressive numbers for the inner city, and used "percentage increases in traffic" as the measure of success in the fringe, missing the point that a doubling of fuck all is still nearly-fuck all.

Anyway: read the report. A key thing to note is that all the big employers of the area had a lot of staff engagement, their employers are supportive and with their on-site bike parking, there are the facilities. What they don't get is anything resembling the infrastructure outside their offices that they deserve.

The daily-mail commenters are always complaining that they, the tax payers, waste money on the cyclists, but what about this. The tax paying staff for the main businesses in S Gloucs, the business that pay the most business rates, don't get the cycle facilities their tax has paid for.

Why not? Because the people in charge of planning cycle facilities in S Gloucs are either dead or missing.

Half-arsed, but better than TfL's work.

In a break from the whining, here's an Xmas gift, the route to St Werburgh's. This is good quality, though missing a few features that would prevent it being used as much as you'd think. Little things like lighting and signage.

This is a video of the descent from UWE to St Werburghs, following the official path with a few mountain bike options exercised. After all, the quality and intermittentness of the S Gloucs paths do effectively mandate mountain bikes with good travel on the front forks and -ideally- disk brakes. If you have the transport needed to negotiate bike paths whose entry and exits go over undropped kerbs, paths with 50cm dropoffs where the paths meet, etc, then you may as well make the most of it and have some fun.

Anyone who depends on TfL for their cycle safety will stare at this video and say "we wish we could have something this good", but the dutch will look at it and say "Could our children get to school on this?".




This video was taken in October, just as the sun was starting to set during the evening peak commute times. Once the clock changed, this went all dark and even on foot you'd worry about the underpass beneath the M32. You'd also stop using the fishponds roundabout underpasses and use the road crossings. Which, in their favour, are there at all: those over the M32 entry/exit points are recent. Until a year ago there was a sign saying "three pedestrians have died crossing here -use the underpass". Now there is an overground option that is survivable, even if you have to wait a minute or two.

Speaking of underpasses, the stairs are optional. You can go down the slope, though it's a bit skittery when the autumn leaves are there. A direct descent of the (shorter) steps avoids the corner and the traction on a 45 degree flight of steps is consistently bad in all weather.

Once you cross the roundabout you get into the 20 mph zone, with speed bumps to enforce deceleration. Heading out, the pavement is a shared use route, heading in you can grab the lane and head down it before scooting right. Then comes the final stretch to the St Werburgh's bridge, up over that and it's in to St Werburghs. UWE to the city, in under 14 minutes, with minimal risks, at least during daylight hours.

Most of this route is under the control of the Bristol Council cycle team. The good features: the 20mph zone, the give-way crossings, the new bike/pedestrian crossings at the roundabout, the frome valley path are all their work. Presumably the stretch through stoke park is theirs too.

In what is clearly the S Gloucs stretch at the beginning, you can see their official bike path features. Crossings and barriers. No signage saying "city centre 15 minutes".

And all the way along: no lighting. You would be fairly bold to do this on foot or bike on your own.

The biggest irritant is that stretch of road. It's a wide road with minimal parking pressure. Why didn't they put a segregated bike path along here, with some formal crossing at the roundabout? Do that with some lights and you do have a safe path that the kids could use.

The other issue is that the M32 bridge can't sustain heavy bicycle traffic. Two bicycles cannot pass on the corners, and visibility as you approach those bends, especially uphill, is pretty bad. If the volume of cycling traffic increases, this bridge could become a choke point. This would be an opportunity to put in access routes that are wider, and add some lighting at the same time.

City to UWE, via the motorised suburbs

This is funny. The cycling bristol video of the park where the sounds of the M32 have been edited out with some "rural joy" soundtrack added on. You'd almost expect to see bunny rabbits dancing, rather than hear the background hum of the motorway which the opening of the video actually goes underneath.



Notice how it stops "that's as far as we'll go today". Whyy stop? They aren't embarrassed about what comes next are they? We would be. The dutch would be shaking their heads in despair.

Let's look at the reality of a Bristol City. S Gloucs showcase cycle route.



The narrow bridge has a dropoff at the end. OK on an MTB if you like your leaps, useless on a narrow wheeled bike. Why didn't they put in a hint of tarmac? Certainly you can see why they stopped the official guide before this bit. And why we recommend an MTB with some decent front travel and disk brakes as a practical commuter. Except for the rain, obviously. There is no way you can have a bike which has decent mudguards and the MTB features needed to negotiate the cycle lanes and paths of S Gloucs.

The road is pretty rough here. 20 years ago it was a rat-run traffic jam, so it's some improvement, though it tends to flood in winter. Nobody seems to care about that. Mud tyre time.

Then you get on the Frome River path; the new feature. The surface will make it all year, and the width was a negotiated settlement to keep the area rural. No dissent there, but it would be better with some solar lights to make it somewhere to walk in winter evenings. That would let students on foot use it without feeling quite so nervous.

As you approach the end of the path what can you see? A van blocking the exit. Except when you get there, it's legally parked; the exit forces you out onto the main road immediately, rather than some gentle angle to get up to speed -because a safer exit would have taken away one whole parking space.

Once on the road, it's fast. No 20mph zone here. And there are parked cars. The taxi is very nice, waits until it's safe and goes past with lots of gap: they deserve credit for being a good driver.

Except: why the parked cars, half up on the pavement?

There is enough room here to have done a segregated path. Instead, to avoid conflict you get abandoned at this road until the roundabout. And what a roundabout. Nobody expects anything to go straight on, but today the driver on the left is attentive. It's worse heading the other way, as you aren't considered to be part of the motorway sequence, and traffic leaving the city in the evenings never give you a chance anyway.

Today, all is well until the bicycle filter is reached. This is designed to stop anyone with good skills to clear it. For the record, keep your pannier on the same side as your drivetrain, tilt the bike to the left and put the left pedal up to the top. You can just hear the pedal as it clears the barrier.

WTF were they thinking? It doesn't let recumbents. family bikes, trailers through. Yes, it stops motorbikes, but since they can get in on the other side and ride XC over the hills, that's just fucking pointless. Don't even think about trying to get through on a wheelchair either: you are not welcome.

Then the M32 underpass. Wouldn't be pleasant to walk through at night, and again likes its flooding. It has a bit of a bad reputation for mugging: dark and places for muggers to hide until you get to them. Lighting and encouragement of more traffic would mitigate this, but as nothing has been done, the problem remains.

Then the dull bit s hill climb. There are a lot of foot passengers on evenings in summer, but not winter. Why not? Again, the complete lack of lighting, perhaps?

Skipping most of the climb we go to the end.



We have arrived in suburbia, somewhere full of garages and two-car houses. This entire estate was built on the expectation that you would drive to work, to school, to the shops. Because there's fuck all in walking distance apart from UWE, the MoD and some of the business park offices near the UWE. Yes, this is the S Gloucs idea of "sustainable housing development".

There is no sign at the end of the path showing you how to get to the university, the MoD or elsewhere. In one respect, that's good: if one had gone in it would probably be in the middle of the path -like all the others. It doesn't help anyone trying to get to their work or study along here though -and it does nothing to encourage people who live in the two-car surburban estate to walk down the hill to the pub. A sign like "pubs and shops" would be all you need. After all, there isn't any other bar in walking distance except the UWE student union, and the people who live here wouldn't fit in.

Carrying on, we head towards UWE. The yellow lines are new; they are not put in to stop the locals from parking -it's to stop students driving in and parking there, so creating congestion for the locals. It's a start, we suppose, though we doubt it was put in by the residents for the sake of the city, more to ensure their own driveways don't get blocked.

The cyclist takes the bridleway into the uni; there is an alternate option through the sprawl. Either way -you need to know the secret route through a maze of featureless houses. The thought of painting bicycles on the path hasn't occurred.

The bridleway dates from when these were all fields -it's a piece of history. At the end of it, where we meet another cyclist properly equipped with an MTB, there's a stretch that everyone must take. It does get muddy in winter. And it ends with a motorbike gate that can clip handlebars too -you can hear that- and which is again impossible to get through with kids, trailers, wheelchairs etc.

We cross the road to get into UWE territory and continue along, stopping at a new road being built. A new road, breaking up the bike path. Does the path get a raised pavement and give way signs? No. It gets give way signs. This new road is for bus and bike only, but that doesn't mean that buses should have priority over bicycles, and we suspect cars will use it too.

Why didn't they give bicycles priority here? This time, no blame is directed towards the council. This is UWE land, and all UWE care about is having 25+ car parks, with extra parking from the proposed football stadium. If you want to see Institutionalised Motorism in S Gloucs, visit the University of the West of England.

There you have it then. The bit the cycling city didn't cover:

• dropoffs off narrow bridges
• flooded roads
• exits with vans in the way
• the wasted opportunity of a segregated cycle lane
• gates to keep bicycles out of the path
• an unlit underpass that floods
• an unlit hill climb
• a suburban estate with no directions to the university -or to the city
• a muddy path
• another stupid gate
• a bike path that is being cut up for more roads.

Why didn't they cover all of this. What was there that they weren't proud of?

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.

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.

Coldharbour Lane and a council that doesn't care

Comrades! We welcome a new Comrade to the People's Cycling Front: yangtse55!
While they have not yet taken direct action against the council, they have documented its maintenance of Coldharbour Lane


This has to come into the "indifference" category, unless they tried to clean it up and got it wrong, in which case: "incompetence".

We hear the collaborators with the existing regime will be having a little get together. Obviously, members of the  are not welcome, but that's OK: if we had been invited, we would have had to decline the opportunity. Presumably Cllr Allison will be driving to the event. If he were to cycle, he'd appreciate how shite what they've done is. That's probably one reason why he'll be driving. The other: he doesn't ride a bicycle, not as far as we know.

Let's repeat that: we have no evidence that the S Gloucs Councillor, Brian Allinson  ever rides a bicycle. You can see that in the press coverage of the Cribb's Causeway Route, the shiny press release by the council themselves:
This route will make it easier for cyclists to travel to Cribbs Causeway,

Not  "this route will make it easier for people to cycle to Cribbs Causeway" -because cyclists are not people.  Not "this route will make it easier for myself and others to cycle to Cribbs Causeway." Instead, implicitly, he's distanced himself from the cyclists: he is not one of us.

No Brian, you aren't. Which is something anyone who tries to cycle on any of the facilities you are so proud of will realise.

We could have done so much better. We still can. But not with you, Brian.

Or is Bwian?

Better by bike?

The city's better by bike site has a video from the Bollards of Death route to the B&Q bridge.

We see they chose a sunny off peak period. This is it at its best. Try doing it at 17:15 after the MoD knock off, in winter conditions. the MoD lighting is for their IR cameras, the rubgy grounds completely unlit with large potholes that fill up with water. Add some pedestrians trying to get home in darkness and a couple of teenagers on trials bikes.



A quick post mortem of the video

1:14 Swerve into "the forbidden side" to pass pedestrians. This shows a fundamental problem here that bollards don't fix. People walk side by side, the bike paths are two way, the path isn't wide enough to segregate either traffic option. All the bollards do is increase the likelihood of collision, as segregation isn't possible.

2:06. This is three way junction with restricted visibility -something the video doesn't warn you about. Anyone coming from the route that joins on the left has to be in the pedestrian side to avoid colliding with people coming from the direction shown in the video.

2:21. Note the large water filled potholes. Then consider what the path is like in darkness.

2:48. Note how conflict is reduced at this point because the road is wide enough. But on winter nights when the rubgy match lights aren't on, pedestrians are invisible -nobody likes it.

3:57 (now in Bristol) observe the large oncoming bus. With vehicles half parked on the pavement on both sides of the road, oncoming traffic will swerve into your lane, and as few people give way to bicycles, the advice to keep your speed down would be correct -though of course having the cars do the same would be better. That is, after all, why people park on the pavement -to protect their own vehicle's bodywork.

Those vans on the left are a fixture by the way. We are promised some signs -let's see if that makes any difference in behaviour. Making one side of the road no parking, and making pavement parking illegal, might, because then everyone would park on the same side of the road -and less swerving.

4:27 You need some acceleration to cross here, cars are in a hurry to get in or out of Lockleaze.

4:59 locals tend to drive to these shops (no bike parking), look out for double parked vehicles, cars stopping, pulling out and U-turning without warning.

The shopping stretch is interesting. It is hazardous, because so many people drive there. Why? No reason not to other than fuel costs. There's little congestion, no parking problems (just double park), and you know there'll be somewhere to park when you get home. Unlike the inner city, the local shops are further away but easy to drive to. Downtown, the combination of congestion, one-way streets, road closures and traffic lights means you are best off walking round the corner. Here driving still works. It may cost, but as that weekly cost is decoupled from the drive to the shops, it's not immediately obvious.

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!