[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:

To be fair, I thought the original was poorly written too, though in a different, high-jargon style. I’m not surprised that someone found it condescending. road.cc’ers will no doubt enjoy the final argument of the rebuttal:

helen hughes wrote:

Bristol’s hills, narrow roads, pot holes and weather patterns do not make cycling conducive…

Seems as though Helen Hughes might have missed something from that list of discouragements, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

Agreed – I didn’t think either opinion piece was worth reading.

[slc]

I enjoyed
To be fair, I thought the original was poorly written too, though in a different, high-jargon style. I’m not surprised that someone found it condescending.

road.cc’ers will no doubt enjoy the final argument of the rebuttal:

helen hughes wrote:

Bristol’s hills, narrow roads, pot holes and weather patterns do not make cycling conducive…

Seems as though Helen Hughes might have missed something from that list of discouragements, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.

[hawkinspeter]

hawkinspeter wrote:

Opinion piece on B24/7. I found it a bit placatory towards the people against LTNs, but then I’m just sick of motornormativity driving city and neighbourhood designs. Nobody cared about people not wanting cars polluting our air, blocking pavements, maiming and killing people when building new roads. It’s time for change.

https://www.bristol247.com/opinion/your-say/shouldnt-stop-east-bristol-liveable-neighbourhood-but-have-listen-detractors/

A retaliation in B24/7 against the previous opinion piece: https://www.bristol247.com/opinion/your-say/begrudging-acceptance-among-unhappy-residents-not-sufficient-justify-permanent-liveable-neighbourhood-scheme/

I didn’t read all of it as it just seemed to be slagging off the previous author and I couldn’t see it getting to any serious point. (I don’t have much patience for poor writing)

[slc]

Lavable neigbourhoods? Could

Lavable neigbourhoods? Could be handy on bins day

[hawkinspeter]

chrisonabike wrote:

chrisonabike wrote:

Something Something Brexit… ? (sorry) Anyway I think they should try calling them “loveable neighbourhoods”.

I like that, though I usually revert to calling them Liverpool Neighbourhoods to practise the accent

[chrisonabike]

Something Something Brexit…
Something Something Brexit… ? (sorry)

Anyway I think they should try calling them “loveable neighbourhoods”.

[brooksby]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I’m not arguing for a plebiscite – that’s no way to run a representative democracy. But considering the views of those affected by significant changes is.

A plebiscite? Is that like when you start a petition calling for a new general election because you don’t like the result of the last one?

[slc]

Dnnnnnn]

slc wrote: </strong><br />[quote=Dnnnnnn wrote:

..Dangerous driving is more how you drive, rather than where – albeit if lots of people choose unsuitable routes at the same time then …

Ok, let me have another go at articulating this. Sometimes it is the location and volume of traffic that is dangerous, rather than what we usually think of as individual driver behaviour. Crews Hole Rd and Beaufort Rd at times experience such volumes that crossing the road is dangerous, yet there are no crossings to mitigate that danger. We tend to think of this situation as something that should be managed by road design, since individual drivers are not likely to reduce speed sufficiently to share the road with pedestrians. But it *is* the decision of motorists to participate in these dangerous conditions so dangerous driving in experience, if not Dangerous Driving in law

[Dnnnnnn]

slc wrote:

slc wrote:

I think we are saying ‘rat running’ where we could equally well say ‘dangerous driving'

I take “rat running” to be taking shortcuts through streets which aren’t really suitable (at least when lots of people do the same thing). Dangerous driving is more how you drive, rather than where – albeit if lots of people choose unsuitable routes at the same time then it’ll likely encourage more dangerous driving (mounting kerbs, unsuitable speeds, etc.). There’s definitely some of that round here and it does need to be addressed.

[slc]

Fair enough, people driving
Fair enough, people driving through have a stake. A reasonable decision by BCC, if not my own preference, would have been to modify Beaufort Rd and others to be safe for that purpose. I am not sure how, but I suppose double yellow lines and pedestrian crossings would feature.

I think we are saying ‘rat running’ where we could equally well say ‘dangerous driving’. I don’t mind people driving along the streets where I live. I do object to them mounting the pavement or driving at excessive speed for the conditions, and doing these things daily.

[chrisonabike]

Won’t you think of the

Won’t you think of the residents rodents?

All people want is their street not to be clogged / made noisy and unpleasant by all those other drivers.  To be able to find a parking space.  (Not to have all those campervan types there…)

If only there were some way to make that happen?

And then someone comes along and removes your parking spot, or stops you driving both ways, or blocks one end of the street, or you find that when you get to the main road it’s busier than ever and you could be waiting 5 minutes to turn out …

Those meddling council busy-bodies are just playing with people’s lives.  They haven’t a clue about our local streets and they just didn’t listen to us *.  It was perfectly fine before (well – perhaps we could have used some new freeways).

It’s going to be painful, more so than it was in NL (where there were riots, various types of criminal damage etc. – for years).  Because we can’t even remember when everyone cycled sometimes, and we’ve run down our public transport and literally “built in” having to drive.  As Chris Boardman says though – what is the cost of continuing to do the same as before?

* And not infrequently the council has made an awful mess of it…

[hawkinspeter]

mdavidford wrote:

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I also dislike the term “rat-run” for people who are just trying to get to work, etc.

Aren’t rats just trying to go about their business too?

No, you’re thinking of the rat-race.

I think the term “rat-run” is very apt as rats will use gutters, drainpipes etc to avoid busy areas and that’s pretty much exactly what the commuters are doing (not that I think of my road as being a gutter or a drainpipe).

[mdavidford]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I also dislike the term “rat-run” for people who are just trying to get to work, etc.

Aren’t rats just trying to go about their business too?

[Dnnnnnn]

I’m not arguing for a
I’m not arguing for a plebiscite – that’s no way to run a representative democracy. But considering the views of those affected by significant changes is.

[hawkinspeter]

Dnnnnnn wrote:

I also live in the area and am not against changes, least of all along Beaufort Road. My objection is to suggestions that the views of people who travel through the area shouldn’t be considered, and that considering them is somehow “Votes for rat-runs”. While I’m here, I also dislike the term “rat-run” for people who are just trying to get to work, etc.

The problem is that the number of people travelling through an area can outnumber the residents, so treating it as a democracy is flawed, especially due to our motornormative culture. Yes, there needs to be consideration of traffic flows, but the residential requirement for safety, clean air and reduction in noise pollution needs a higher weighting.

“Rat-running” is an established phrase for people taking smaller side routes to avoid congestion on main roads – maybe it’s an unfortunate name as like you say, it’s just people being people. I don’t dislike the people so much (or at least not the considerate ones), but I do dislike their behaviour.

[Author]

Replies