Laura Local: our favourite new tier-3 provincial journalist

We feel really sorry for the Bristol Evening Post. Most of the real journalists have moved on, leaving only a few people who are actually valued for their knowledge of the area and their willingness to type what senior management want them to write (Ian Onion), and, to replace the others, some unpaid interns trying to learn how to write HTML content to put local journalism as an item on their resume.

In the latter category, then, can we welcome Laura Local, who is now our favourite third-tier reporter for the Redland People subsidiary web site of the Evening Post. We think "redland people" is a bit overambitious, as it implies all the residents check it every morning saying "what's happened in our part of the city?", but that doesn't happen. Nothing much happens there except when some drunk students put some traffic cones on some cars, or the helicopter over stokes croft keeps people awake. Even then, reading about in the Redland People site isn't the way most people discuss some items. In fact, given their readership count, we believe the site would be called "Redland Eight People"; the eight being friends and family of the authors.

Laura, we are pleased to see, is trying hard to get the audience into double digits by printing an anti-cyclist rant. We do that ourselves, which is why our daily audience is in the high double digits, and we can see why a commercial site that tries to make money through advertising revenue would aspire to be as successful. Hence this lovely article, Redland cyclists among the worst in the Bristol? Here's the opening paragraph

I was turning right out of North Road by the Arches when a cyclist, who wasn't wearing a helmet I hasten to add, whizzed by in the middle of the road heading the direction I wanted to go - towards Gloucester Road. I pulled out behind him, as I would have done had he been a car and he stopped in front of me all of a sudden and started mouthing off before jumping the red light.

Maybe I was a little too close to him when I pulled out but I felt any criticism was rich coming from a guy who was bombing down the centre of the road without a helmet and straight through a red light!

We aren't going to defend the tax-dodger, but we will provide some constructive feedback to the author

1. It's not actually a legal requirement to wear a helmet. The only time you should criticise them for not wearing a helmet is when someone gets run over by an HGV driver on the phone, then you can say in the daily mail comments section "were they wearing a helmet" and so absolve the whole of society for their death. We do.
2. It's not illegal to cycle down the middle of a lane. Yes, it annoys us as it stops us driving above 25 mph, but for the troublemakers, it gives them more options avoiding being hit by redland residents who are too lazy to drive to the gloucester road shops, and who open their doors without looking or pull out without indicating.
3. If you were the first vehicle to pull out, and you were parked in the ASL under the arch itself, the cyclist may have crossed the traffic light while it was still green, then if you pulled out aggressively he may have had some reason to express concern.
4. Don't ever admit in print something like "Maybe I was a little too close to him when I pulled out." It removes your ability to take the moral high ground. We never discuss our own driving actions for this reason, or make videos from our van -the police might want them.
5. Gloucester Road isn't Redland. It's Bishopston, on one side, St Andrews on the other. When when it becomes Cheltenham Road it's called "the arches" until you end up on the disputed Cotham/Montpelier/Stokes Croft region where the new Tesco is. Not Redland. If you have to drive outside your own reporting area just to get content to rant about, well, that may show some weaknesses in the "Redland cyclists amongst the worst in Bristol" story. We recommend spending some time in Cotham Hill, which, while again not quite Redland, is full of pedestrians, cyclists, school-run parents and us vans, so creating a lovely mix for new articles, such as "Redland Van drivers amongst the worst in Bristol?", "Redland students amongst the worst pedestrians in Bristol", and of course "Redland school-run parents amongst the worst in Bristol". Together this will keep your article quota fulfilled for a month with only one morning's worth of research. Or you could walk along Chandos Road and have a geographically correct region for the "Redland parkers amongst the worst in Bristol" article.
6. Do try and back up your articles with photos other than faded bike path signs that may convince everyone, motorist and cyclists alike, that Bristol's cycling facilities are dire.
7. If you do want to get a video of someone cycling through the red lights on that stretch of Gloucester Road, stand there with a camera on a weekday evening and wait for one lights cycle: it's not hard.

Anyway, Laura -welcome to the tier-3 anti cycling rant pages of Bristol. Those of us already in the business welcome new competitors, as it keeps us on our toes. Just try a bit harder and we might even feel slightly threatened.

Cycling Practises Condemned

Magnus R points us at a lovely set of of cyclist denunciations from a long time ago, the time -1934- when the Daily Mail was busy supporting Mosely's Black Shirts, and everyone was scared of communists.


These government drawings don't come out and spell out the harsh truth: people on bicycles could be communists, and it was the duty of every driver who believed that a strong authority in government was the solution to our problems was to cut up the "traffic dodgers" and discourage them from even trying it again.

Lovely!

The bikelash has arrived!

Over in New York, there's a fantastic power struggle going on, as important politicians fight troublemaking cyclists, to try and get a segregated bike path removed. There's a good summary online, by the economist John Cassidy. Sadly he, gets criticised not just by the usual activists, but by other economists. That worries us. If the people we trust to run the banks and get the global economy out of the mess the banks and the economists got it into can't even agree on how bad bicycles are for a city, well, it's not a good start. How can they come with a plan for the global economy that works if they can't even agree that bicycles and pedestrians don't belong in modern cities.

Here in Bristol, Cllr Gollop is one person who has taken a public stance, denouncing the Cycling City program for spending money, not increasing the number of cyclists they promised, and for taking away road space from us, the important people.:

"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.

This is why Cllr -soon to be Mayor- Gollop is in the lead for the 2010 Bristol Traffic "councillor of the year" award. He's our kind of councillor.

Some of the cycling troublemakers have been asking "where are all the bits of road that Cllr Glossop said had been taken away for bicycles". That's tough -we had to nip out and get one of those cycle bristol maps and do some research.

1. Bike lanes? Same as ever: short stay parking.
2. Keep clear zones at school? Same as ever, though some yellow lines are going in -lines we can't blame on the bicycles.
3. The Kingsdown RPZ? The locals voted it for it so they'd have the opportunity to park after going for a drive. Selfish actions by inner city troublemakers, but not cycling-city work.
4. Bike Parking? Yes, this has taken space away, something to cover later.
5. 20 mph zones? A topic for another day.

What about the dedicated routes? In the city, the Farm Pub Path (tm) and the Eastville Park to UWE route all go through parks. We'd like roads there, so you could say it's a wasted opportunity, but it's not really taking up space. For economists, that's "opportunity cost", what you could have done with the money instead. Still, every segregated bike path is a bus route in waiting, as we and West of England Partnership say. As for the Hartcliffe way route -we've found that provides extra parking.

It seems to us, the things that have got worse over the cycling city timescale then are

• The removal of paveparking opportunities
• The 20 mph zone
• The increased cost of driving
• The showcase bus routes.

None of the cycling facilities have directly taken away any roadspace from cars.

What then was Cllr Glossop trying to say -what did he really mean? He meant this

To us, the important people of the city, the Cycling City program is a failure because the number of people on bicycles and hence in our way has increased.

It doesn't matter that no direct road space has been taken away in the inner city apart from eight paid parking spaces --the mere presence of bicycles slows us down. The fact that these people pay nothing while the cost of driving continually increases makes us even more angry.

This is of course the Daily Mail commenter line, but everyone is afraid to come out and say it. Not us, not John Cassidy -and not a lot of Evening Post commenters, but they don't make the proper economic argument. We shall.

Every bicycle holds up traffic, so while the private costs of a bicycle are low, the external cost is high. A bicycle occupying a whole lane takes up as much space as a car -and because it's going at half the speed, it slows down the cars behind it more than a single car would. The congestion cost of a bicycle is therefore higher than that of a motor car!

That's the real issue with the Cycling City. Not the infrastructure, not just the parking -taking away our pavements. It's the increase in bicycles on what the cycle planners call the key cycle routes to the city, but for which we have a different name: the main roads.

We've been saying this since 2008. Us, on our own, sometimes with help a couple of times a week from the niche papers the Evening Post and the Daily Mail. The BBC, they're on our side with Top Gear, but that's relegated to BBC2 now, and in their news broadcasts they don't often have people that speak our language. Even the AA, the RAC and the Association of British Drivers don't come out and spell out the real costs that cycling imposes on our city. As far as politics goes, we have Glossop and the Ministers Hammond and Pickles on our side -but the only party that wants to ban bicycles from important roads was the UK Independence Party. Nobody else speaks our language.

This is changing. Welcome to the bikelash.

[For anyone wishing to congratulate the councillor, his contact details are online. Why not email him and congratulate him for being on our side!]

The BBC: we know they are on our side

Lot's of fuss yesterday about whether the Cycle City program achieved its goals, with an oddly pro-bicycle program on the radio, while in print our opinions get covered, at least by the conservative party:

"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 ourselves aren't convinced that it should be encouraged as a leisure activity if it slows down important people -and the same goes for walking. There could be designated "leisure areas" -call them parks- to which people could drive and try walking and cycling before driving home.

Like we say, we were a bit disappointed by the radio program, as it viewed the fact that the number of cyclists on the road to meet the ambitious goals of the city as "a failure". The fact that there are more now than ever before is what constitutes the failure in our eyes. It has legitimised cycling in some parts of the community.

We are surprised therefore that the BBC radio took such a pro cycling stance in the radio program, because they are uusally on our side. Top-Gear, Horizon documenting car crashes safety improvements without discussing the fact that some of the most expensive cars on sale have the worst pedestrian safety scores.

They are on our side for the following reason: they are important, so they drive to work. That means not stopping for anyone even walking a bicycle over a zebra crossing, here on Whiteladies Road, just by the BBC offices.

Note however, the driver of F59XHW doesn't drive down the bus lane before the left turn, it always indicate before turning. We would drive down the lane and then turn without indicating, and we think Jeremy Clarkson would too. Signalling communicates intent to the opposition.

Breaking news: Eric Pickles declares war on Montpelier

From the (sadly) militant pressure group of people to poor to afford cars comes this news: the government plans to give councils the power to restrict paveparking to occasions other than when mothers with kids are blocked.

We don't need to say anything other than repeat the quote this commenter on the Sun's article, who knows it is safer to park on the pavement than inconvenience fellow drivers.

i'd rather force a mother into the road, where she can stop, look, listen and navigate carefully than park my car obstructively in the road.

nonsense, total nonsense, will they make extra spaces in places where they have to enforce such rulings? like hell they will, they'll just coin it in whenever someone gets sick of the inconvenience of parking half a mile down the road

See that? The government makes us pay to drive, and they make us pay when we park too.

Meanwhile, here in Bristol, the Evening Post is horrified to discover that Bristol comes in the top ten cities in Britain for parking charges. We are not shocked as we know something else: Bristol comes in the top ten cities for Britain, and has a far higher percentage of motor vehicle commuters than central London. There may be some correlation there.

Taking the moral high ground

The BBC has finally covered this alarming trend of cyclists to video their commutes then complain about them. Unlike most BBC new articles, where Adam Rayner gets paid to laugh at the cyclists, this article seems come out in favour of the cyclists, rather than say they deserved to get beaten up for being in the way and not paying road tax.

Fortunately, the commenters noticed this, and corrected the bias. Hopefully they will be writing in to the BBC to complain about a lack of balance too. We'll quote a select few

177. anjuna

We have cycle lanes all over Rutland, which are regularly ignored by cyclists. Instead the choose to ride 2 abreast on the road, causing hold ups and hazards. I think cameras in cars to capture bad cyclists would be a good thing. How about "identifiers" on cycles, so the police can prosecute bad cyclists?

Problem: it's not currently illegal for bicycles to cycle in our roads and hold up traffic behind. We understand why it makes you want to kill them, but then you not only lose the moral high ground, you have to stop the email you are composing on your phone.

208. Flaunder

When are cyclists going to have to pay to use the road? why shouldn't they have a registration plate on the back, or a speed metre when they are going at super speeds down a pedestrian footpath! Some cyclists don't even wear a high vis vest or have lights! Why shouldn't they be fined on the spot! Most cyclists have no regard for cars on the road! maybe we should film them!

Problem: we just checked the highway code and nowhere does it say "cyclists MUST wear hi-viz clothing". This makes it hard for police or PCSOs to fine them on the spot for non compliance. Now, you could push for it to be a law, but really that doesn't address the true problem, which is they shouldn't be there in the first place.


226. Barton71

Obviously the van driver in this story was out of order and his reaction was way over the top, but as a van driver myself, I understand the frustration cyclists can cause. There is nothing worse than having to slow down to 10mph every few hundred yards, because a group of cyclists have all bunched up or because there is no room to pass a single cyclist who is struggling to get up a hill.

This identifies one of the real issues. It's not just that these unpaid criminals are on our roads -they are in our way on the roads. They slow us down, then whine when we sound our horn, or criticise them in the local or national press.

One thing we do have to fault some of these community reporters for is making unsubstantiated claims. We like defensible data, yet people were saying "all cyclists run red lights", which isn't true. You only see the ones running the red lights, so end up self selecting. It's disappointing to see such use of inadequate datasets, and with defensible photographic data being key aim for our site, it's time to look at the issue in more detail.

First, Whiteladies Gate/Whiteladies Road pedestrian crossings. Our unsuspecting cyclist reporter dismounts with their small child and walks over a zebra crossing and then the whiteladies pedestrian crossings.

Note how the white van waiting to turn gives way to the pedestrians.
At the pelican crossing, the family waits for their turn to get across. The lights change frequently here, giving them 15s to sprint across.

Except what happens today? Someone on a bicycle just rides up through the crossing. Yes, he does have hi-viz and a helmet on, so commenter Flander will be happy -no need to fine him- but he does cycle straight through the red light that is being used by pedestrians including parents with children.

There we have it then, 100% of cars, following the law, 100% of cyclists: criminals.

Now, the cycling campaigners will say "But what about cars that...", but that is only a subset of cars. We know this, again from our defensible datasets -such as  on Marlborough Hill last week:

See? Four cars drive up the hill, before one car, BP52XAR, drives down past the no-entry signs and the big paintwork saying no-entry.

Five cars, only one completely ignoring the signs. That means the number of cars choosing to break the law this weekday morning is 20%, compared to 100% of cycles in our previous survey.

There you have it then. All cyclists are criminals who should be fined on the spot, while only some drivers are a bit naughty. And when drivers do something to get round this anti-car city, they get videoed and their actions appear on web sites like Fight bad driving -with their registration numbers. Whereas when the cyclists appear, all that can happen is people who know them will say "hey, you made Bristol Traffic!" and they can snicker amongst themselves.

Because of this clear evidence, we, the drivers, can retain the moral high ground.

Incidentally, this whole thing has made BikeSnobNYC. Funny.

Welcome to Bristol, Kayla Maratty!

We are pleased to welcome Bristol 24-7's correspondent, Kayla Maratty, who provides a well argued explanation of why cyclists deserve to be run over in her article "My homicidal tendencies towards cyclists".

Kayla manages to completely summarise how it is bicycles on Whiteladies Road and Blackboy hill that bring the city to a halt, as we have discussed previously. She says

"Part of me would take great pleasure in mowing them down when they choose to cycle in the middle of the road or are determined to peddle all the wayup Black Boy Hill. But obviously I would never do that; I can get by just on the thought of it to restrain my road rage."

We find driving really close behind them intimidating enough. Sadly, it is actually legal for them to cycle down the middle of a single lane road, which Whiteladies is. And when they are going over the Downs, they do need to pull to the right of the left turn only lane, so sounding your horn doesn't help.

Still, we are glad to see your fight against university tuition fees continue. Obviously this isn't an issue for you, as not only will the fee rise kick in after you have finished your course, if you can afford to drive and  park anywhere near the university, then you are clearly part of that set of students known as "well-funded", and we expect your parents to pay for all your living expenses. We look forward to your complaints about how the rollout of the RPZ is forcing you park and walk further. If you do not write such an article, we shall assume that the fact that Woodland Road and St Michael's Park now offer more short stay paid parking than ever before actually benefits you, as it makes it easier for you drive down to the university for a lecture and latte before heading home again, albeit held up by all the cyclists.

Can we take this opportunity to remind our readers that Bristol Traffic is not some satire or spoof. If it were, you'd have to conclude that the whole of the UK printed and online press is also some kind of spoof. The Daily Mail has been going on for over a hundred years now, so its time to own up to being a wind-up, if it really is.


Update 24-Jan: the original article has been pulled, the editor apologises and denounces the bullying by cyclists.

Censorship

There's an article up on the independent about the war on motorists.

Our fellow travellers, the Association of British Drivers added a comment:

Whilst we are pleased that the penny is beginning to drop with regard to taxation, it is sad that the author refers to driving as a "bad habit", when it is in fact merely a means of going about one's business.

We agree! Accordingly, we replied stating this fact:

We in the bristol traffic project agree. Some people view us driving our van around a narrow city, while texting one hand and sounding the horn at pedestrians and cyclists in our way as "antisocial", our activities, as the ABD says, "a bad habit". Yet as they say, this is the only way to get on with your business. When you are held up by pedestrians on a zebra crossing, of course you have to sound your horn. When you are held up behind a cyclist, of course you have to text ahead to your destination to warn them you'll be late. Yet still this anti-motorist country, with its zebra crossings, its traffic lights and its double yellow lines persecutes us.

And what's happened? Our comment has been "flagged for review" and it is no longer on the site. It has been censored by an online press that cannot accept the truth!

update: we posted asking why praising the ABD for being the voice of van driver is being suppressed and the ABD replied

the Independent is just trying to ensure comments are reasonable and well balanced. Whilst comments like those you made may have been acceptable during the last decade, the country has moved on to more reasoned debate.

That's good. We thought somebody had felt we were taking the piss. That happens all the time.

Student Coverage

Someone sent us some photos of horses -and you know our feelings about them- blocking Park Street while some pedestrians argue with them. We aren't going to put them up as the process of anonymising the pictures is too tricky to do reliably, however it is depressing to see people on foot and horse slowing our van journeys round the city. Apparently over in London they even got in the way of some important people, which we feel is unfair reporting by the BBC. For us, the white van drivers of the city, every journey is critical to keeping this vast city alive, whereas some jolly to the theatre by some royal family members is just that: entertainment. Furthermore, we aren't sure that the royal family pay road tax, and you know our thoughts there: no road tax, no road rights.
 

It's interesting to hear the audience, especially the "off with their heads" chants. Presumably those are history students who do understand the traditional rituals of regicide in Europe, as practiced in Britain and more recently across the waters in France and elsewhere.

We don't do bias -we report the real issues of the city. Here we see a row of students waiting by a bus stop, all with their orange supermarket shopping bags. We don't care that they are government funded, because looking at the long term return on investment/tax revenue opportunties, they have more chance of paying their way than, say, old people with free bus passes and prescriptions. However, the students walk, they take buses, they get in our way.

We are grateful for the new governments plans to reduce the free cash future students will have, so reducing the likelihood of them shopping in supermarkets, or getting buses home afterwards.

If there is one thing we have complaints about, however, it is the policing, especially the horses and the helicopter. That helicopter is noisy! We understand now why over in Co. Armargh they used to shoot at them. It was to get some sleep. 

Fraternal Greetings to our Aberdeen Franchise

The BBC has some excellent coverage of the anti-car experience in Scotland, where some people are being forced to use the (minimal) underground system round Glasgow, rather than drive. This saddens us.

We are pleased, therefore to announce our own contribution to helping Scotland's transport issues, by opening up the Aberdeen Franchise of our community service. We consider this the Big Society in action.

Apparently in Aberdeen, oil is so central to the local economy as car imports are to Avonmouth, so anyone not driving is rightfully viewed as some kind of social subversive threatening the entire existence of the city. In Bristol, this truth is not reported outside of the Evening Post, and its readership figures are so bleak we fear for the paper's continued existence.

Aberdeen Cars promises to explore the PaveParking opportunities of the city, as well as how to effectively drive and park in the area. Apparently also pagan era midwinter solstice rituals do take place on nearby standing stones, so in exchange for some of their "black haggis" we shall be sending up some "local food for local people" food from a well known stokes croft takeaway that provides special meat products for those they know well.

Aberdeen! Welcome to the Team!

New link: road justice

We've added a link to a new site today, Road Justice.

This is a Canadian site which puts up photographs of the terrible thing cyclists to Vancouver, such as cycle around without helmets. They also have that hard taxpayer/cyclist split that we use, though they don't yet call them Tax Dodgers!

Road Justice! Welcome to the debate about the future of transport in the cities of the world!We have one concern though: are they some kind of spoof? I mean, to criticise a cyclist just for standing on the pavement, or not having a helmet? Yes, we hate them too, but there aren't actually laws against owning a bicycle -yet.

They also ask for money, which makes us wonder if they are trying to trick us out of the money we have left after income and petrol tax takes away most of our earnings for bike lanes and buses. We have had enough money stolen without them asking for more.

Anyway, the link is up there, we are keeping an eye on them to see if they stay consistent and aren't some kind of trick site put together by tax-dodging cyclists to discredit us, Bristol's premier traffic news outlet. The fancy web site design and the demands for money are warning signs. If we think they are spoof, we'll delete the cross-link before long.Credit for the Copenhagenize blog for bringing this site of fellow-travellers to our attention.