Cyclists vs drivers in Bristol’s battle of petitions

Mr Agreeable wrote:

The Portway shared pavement has a fair few obstructions and pinch points on it, and people use it in both directions so you do have to keep your wits about you. It also does the thing so many cycle paths do, disappearing at the bit when it would be really helpful. I can see perfectly well why people would prefer the road.

There's a couple of pinch points but it's mostly so wide two-way traffic is a non-issue and it is continuous from the Cumberland Basin to nearly Avonmouth - apart from a tiny break at the Sea Mills junction (about 5 yards). I found the road simpler but bloody horrible (and the tarmac is, like I said, shit and slow), and it's not always great even passing cyclists in the car on the first couple of stretches when it's busy.

That said it's entirely personal preference obviously, each to their own.

Shades wrote:

When you spot someone cycling on a dual carriageway with a good cycle path that runs parallel, you just wonder what point they're trying to make;

I fully agree with that - if the cycle path is actually in a good condition. That's a big if though, sadly.

Up here in Fife and around Edinburgh, cycle paths are hopelessly neglected in general, with broken surfaces that never get repaired and littered with glass shards and other debris.

The one laudable exception is the Forth Road Bridge, where I've actually seen a maintenance vehicle scrubbing the debris off the segregated cycle path once.

Shades wrote:

motorists know exactly where the cycle paths are so have 'zero sympathy' for cyclists who stick doggedly to the road when cash has been spent on new cycling infrastructure.

Motorists that pass too closely or exhibit other dangerous behaviour have 'zero sympathy' for cyclists either way.

People simply know "there is a cycle path right there", but they don't have the slightest clue what condition it is in because most of them wouldn't ever use one to save their lives.

GREGJONES wrote:

Why is it so essential to park outside the shop?

My knee-jerk reaction to this would be "It's not! Wouldn't hurt the fat buggers to walk a few metres!" - but then, any lack of business from customers that cannot be bothered to do that (and let's face it, that'll be pretty much most of them) will hurt the shop owners.

So I can see why increasing parking space would be in their interest. I just wish there was a way of helping both, them to increase business and the cyclists to stay safe. We all know what usually happens if safety costs money.

Shades wrote:

Something to factor in here is the Concorde Way which is a cycle path/quiet road route that runs parallel and 0.75 miles west of Gloucester Rd. Must have cost a bit as it includes new cycle paths and a bridge. We can't have it all ways, although I accept that for some people a detour to a cycle route might not be a realistic option.
I used to be a Gloucester Rd regular a few years ago; a bit challenging but not the worst place to cycle. I only go that way occasionally, but the Concorde Way is pretty good and gaining popularity with other people I talk to. I have to admit (perhaps grudgingly) that some cycle routes, whilst not that direct, are quicker than the direct route where you're dodging traffic, being stopped at lights etc. Less stress as well. When you spot someone cycling on a dual carriageway with a good cycle path that runs parallel, you just wonder what point they're trying to make; and, guess what, motorists know exactly where the cycle paths are so have 'zero sympathy' for cyclists who stick doggedly to the road when cash has been spent on new cycling infrastructure.

I'm a Gloucester Rd regular now, and I've tried Concorde Way - it's a nice idea, but I've found it a *lot* slower than going up and down the G Road, largely as the road surfaces are poor and there are a stack of junctions on the quiet residential roads it uses (I'm also grumpy as it spat me out in a building site outside the back of UWE first time I used it ...)

I didn't realise Gloucester Rd was rated as being that dangerous, though I can understand why it might be - you just have to be switched on.

I think a permanent segregated cycle way isn't a bad idea up there (though make it wide enough to overtake on, as there are some dawdlers up that road). Loads of parking spaces won't work as there's already a bus lane taking up a significant amount of space, and there's plenty of parking in the residential streets each side. Might have helped if they hadn't flogged to car park by the swimming baths for flats mind ...

Sherlock Ohms wrote:

I'm a Gloucester Rd regular now, and I've tried Concorde Way - it's a nice idea, but I've found it a *lot* slower than going up and down the G Road, largely as the road surfaces are poor and there are a stack of junctions on the quiet residential roads it uses (I'm also grumpy as it spat me out in a building site outside the back of UWE first time I used it ...)
...

Agree that the cycle route designers should send a few 'testers' out to trial new routes, although I accept a bit of 'trial and error' when I'm checking them out. If it's a viable alternative that eliminates a risky part of a ride, then I often ask myself why it's taken me so long to look into it. Cyclestreets has been pretty good in getting me to consider alternatives.
Going back to Gloucester Rd, it's always easier to negotiate going into Bristol centre as its downhill/flat and you have speed on your side.

Shades wrote:

Agree that the cycle route designers should send a few 'testers' out to trial new routes

Those involved in designing cycle routes should be made to send their own children or young relatives out on them unattended.

If they have any hesitations then it can't be fit for purpose and they will have to go back to the drawing board.

It's a very simple solution really.

farrell wrote:

Those involved in designing cycle routes should be made to send their own children or young relatives out on them unattended.

If they have any hesitations then it can't be fit for purpose and they will have to go back to the drawing board.

It's a very simple solution really.

Totally. Although for that to happen we would need to have Lord Vetinari as prime minister. If only ... *sigh*

Shades wrote:

I used to be a Gloucester Rd regular a few years ago; a bit challenging but not the worst place to cycle. I only go that way occasionally, but the Concorde Way is pretty good and gaining popularity with other people I talk to. I have to admit (perhaps grudgingly) that some cycle routes, whilst not that direct, are quicker than the direct route where you're dodging traffic, being stopped at lights etc. Less stress as well.

Completely agree on the stop, start and stress. Having spent a lot of time going up and down Gloucester Road over the years in cars and buses, and on (motor)bikes, I have to say I won't touch it with someone elses as far as commuting by bike goes. Despite it being a reasonably straight line for me to / from work (just south of city centre to Aztec West) I go via the Portway, past Westbury and up and over Cribbs Causeway - it's obviously longer but still under 12 miles, most of it is quiet-ish, wide residential roads or cycle routes/shared pavement and you get to see the Avon Gorge every day. The small amount of interaction with traffic proper (down the A4018) is still less than the agro i'd go through just getting to Gloucester Road in the first place. Obviously not an option for everyone - but if it is i'd recommend giving it a go.

Shades wrote:

When you spot someone cycling on a dual carriageway with a good cycle path that runs parallel, you just wonder what point they're trying to make; and, guess what, motorists know exactly where the cycle paths are so have 'zero sympathy' for cyclists who stick doggedly to the road when cash has been spent on new cycling infrastructure.

Have to mostly agree with this too.

For the Bristolian element here, I can't even readily understand folk using the road itself for most of Northbound Portway (A4) in Bristol.... the tarmac on the good bits of the road is horrible, abrasive, lumpy and slow, the near-side is prone to flooding and is generally full of crap and you have idiots flying past you at 60-odd mph. The pavement is a designated shared path, is very wide and has a mostly excellent surface (and no real bad bits). Once you're near Shirehampton, fine, the rest of time it's generally more hassle for you and other motorists (IMO) - perhaps it's a Strava thing...

city councillor Dr David Willingham wrote:

As a cyclist, ...

Ah yes. The popular "I'm a cyclist myself" preamble, and of course immediately followed by the usual motorist's bovine excrement.

Gizmo_ wrote:

Tidal parking seems like quite a good idea to me. If all the cars are parked on the 'other' side of the road, they can't be obstructing the edge of the road on the 'flow' side - and what you need is a clear path, whether there's a bit of paint on the road or not.

Never heard of the idea before but I would have to agree allowing parking on the non-use side of the road seems reasonable