[hawkinspeter]

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/through-traffic-banned-parts-bristol-8295492

This should be introduced towards the end of this year as an experimental trial – I wish it could happen sooner as it covers where I live. We had questionnaires about it during lockdown, though I think that was just about making Beaufort Rd (by the cemetery) one way to motorised traffic.

Topic

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

Various financial incentives (bus tickets, second hand bike vouchers, bus gate exemptions) to be offered to residents. £100 bus tickets for everyone, the other items for people in low incomes. https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/residents-liveable-neighbourhood-trial-area-receive-350-free-bus-tickets/ I wonder if this was the result of negotiations with the (impressively organized and committed) local opposition. Or just the council hoping to erode the opposition enough to install.

I like the idea, but I very rarely get the bus – maybe two or three times a year. I’ll probably give my £100 bus tickets to a friend if they’re easy to transfer.

However, this does play into my long-held idea that public transport should be subsidised so that journeys are free (or very close to free) for the public – that’s one way to reduce congestion.

[slc]

Various financial incentives
Various financial incentives (bus tickets, second hand bike vouchers, bus gate exemptions) to be offered to residents. £100 bus tickets for everyone, the other items for people in low incomes.

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/news/residents-liveable-neighbourhood-trial-area-receive-350-free-bus-tickets/

I wonder if this was the result of negotiations with the (impressively organized and committed) local opposition. Or just the council hoping to erode the opposition enough to install.

[hawkinspeter]

chrisonabike wrote:

That’s a positive identification!  If drivers get that wrong they shouldn’t be charged, though.

I re-fuse to believe that not charging drivers is the current attitude

[chrisonabike]

That’s a positive

That’s a positive identification!  If drivers get that wrong they shouldn’t be charged, though.

[hawkinspeter]

chrisonabike wrote:

Hmm!  More things to worry about for poor drivers – “is that a nearby squirrel or an upside-down walrus at a distance?”

Of course – if they’re doubly mistaken and it was in fact an elephant seal that is their look out.  (I love the notion of pinniped parking-enforcement, but a) it would only apply near the sea / docks and b) I suspect it’s not good for the seals / walruses.  I can imagine the tabloid headlines if it became a thing).

It can be tricky to identify animals – remember, a sealion is just a seal without an electron.

[chrisonabike]

Hmm!  More things to worry

Hmm!  More things to worry about for poor drivers – “is that a nearby squirrel or an upside-down walrus at a distance?”

Of course – if they’re doubly mistaken and it was in fact an elephant seal that is their look out.  (I love the notion of pinniped parking-enforcement, but a) it would only apply near the sea / docks and b) I suspect it’s not good for the seals / walruses.  I can imagine the tabloid headlines if it became a thing – demanding hunters armed with guns and clubs be deployed immediately…).

[levestane]

Still, when these mammals

Still, when these mammals have long gone their names will live on…

[hawkinspeter]

chrisonabike wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Note to others – according to the Internet “walrussing” has more than one meaning (I knew sealioning but thought I’d just check…)

Oops – I meant sea-lioning. However, maybe you’ve now learnt something about using the internet to look up words?

[hawkinspeter]

chrisonabike wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

This sounds a bit like “creationist science argumentation” – all the burden to “prove” is put on the opponent. Anything can be challenged – their motives, their background, something you think you read once on the internet. If they can’t explain it you win! If challenged yourself you just say they’re ignoring “alternatives”. You don’t need to prove anything yourself – they’re the ones trying to change something!

Yeah, these counter-arguments verge on sea-lioning as on the face of it they seem like valid logical arguments (e.g. complaining of straw-manning) but are instead just trying to find any reason to not restrict traffic. I mean, they’re trying to question the link between high car use and childhood obesity, but without any counter-evidence or ideas. It reminds me of the type of arguments that climate deniers would use.

Also, the use of “correlation does not equal causation” which can be a valid argument, but we’re not just looking at a random correlation picked out of data – there are very good reasons to think that air pollution is increased by lots of traffic and there’s plenty of evidence that supports the causation hypothesis in this case.

[chrisonabike]

Note to others – according to
Note to others – according to the Internet “walrussing” has more than one meaning (I knew sealioning but thought I’d just check…)

[chrisonabike]

They’re almost honest – if
They’re almost honest – if they would only change it to “would put the jobs of car makers and petrol- sellers at risk *, and could lead to me spending more time sat in the traffic I already sit in (unless I just walked to the shops, which I won’t)”.

* Don’t worry – even if we “went Dutch” overnight those would still be safe. Even the Dutch still love their cars and drive a lot.

[chrisonabike]

This sounds a bit like
This sounds a bit like “creationist science argumentation” – all the burden to “prove” is put on the opponent. And the rule is they can never supply enough data or give enough detail. In fact *you* can challenge them about anything – their motives, their background, their friends, something you think you read once on the internet. If they can’t explain it you win!

If you are questioned or challenged in return you just say they’re ignoring “alternatives”. You don’t need to prove anything yourself – they’re the ones trying to change something!

[hawkinspeter]

‘Legitimate concerns of many

‘Legitimate concerns of many east Bristol residents are being dismissed’: https://www.bristol247.com/opinion/your-say/legitimate-concerns-many-east-bristol-residents-being-dismissed/

Hmmm – I have issues with those counter-arguments. They seem to be asking for specific data on implementing the scheme in east Bristol as similar schemes can’t be compared due to socio-economic differences, but without providing any counter-evidence or recognising that the EBLN is currently a trial which would gather specific evidence.

I don’t think it’s worth breaking down every point, but here’s an example one. “It also dismisses alternative ways to encourage active travel without imposing restrictive measures on motorists” – how exactly do you do that without it being just a performative change such as a bit of white paint standing in for cycle infrastructure?

[slc]

hawkinspeter wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don’t agree with Aelisha about choosing Barton Hill due to it not being predominantly white.

Good copy for newspapers, though. Impressionist painting of cyclists as unconscious racists is a Daily Mail fantasy, I imagine. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

Avonvale Rd is problematic with traffic – that’ll be why it was chosen.

I’m really not sure. It was always a road I used on the bike because it is a fair bit quieter than the alternatives. There is often poor driving in evidence, for sure, and I am keen to see that addressed. I would say that from Church Rd down to Marsh Lane, then Marsh Lane itself, is a boundary road, and a few more zebra crossings plus some parking restrictions at the choke points might be enough. That said, quite a lot of the poor driving we see now is poor behaviour around the traffic calming: managing drivers is herding cats.

When I look at the whole plan, I think the designers wanted to cover a substantial area and talked themselves into the extensive Barton Hill changes in pieces (if we filter X, the rat-runners will use Y, so filter that, and then Z…).

[hawkinspeter]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

Traffic management leading to congestion when the re-routed drivers prefer* to queue with their engines on, choking the school children and holding up the bus, is the worst thing in 60 years apparently. 

https://www.bristol247.com/news-and-features/features/liveable-neighbourhood-worst-thing-area-60-years/

I agree. Those drivers should all be fined until they pack it in.

*Adjustments? Frustrated drivers might be interested to know that when I pass through between 7 and 7.30 am, and between 6 and 7 pm, the roads are in my estimation no busier than they were before. No queue outside St Pats, just a few vehicles at the lights.

I don’t agree with Aelisha about choosing Barton Hill due to it not being predominantly white. The area around Beaufort Rd is mainly white, I think and we got chosen too. I would class our area as more middle class than Barton Hill.

Avonvale Rd is problematic with traffic – that’ll be why it was chosen.

[Author]

Replies