Is this Criminal Damage?

As widely reported last week, the Police in Bristol have arrested and charged someone for writing on the pavement with chalk. Up until now we had all assumed that those errant markings that we sometimes find on our streets were mostly harmless and occasionally amusing, to be ignored or not as we chose. I doubt that it had ever occurred to any of us that such markings might constitute Criminal Damage and be worthy of the attention of the Police and Courts, but it seems we were wrong.



Let's take this recent example at Old Market. At first sight it appears innocuous, a crude attempt to signify some token priority for cyclists. Sensible people just ignore it as they go about their business, as we see from the picture below. However not everyone is sensible. Some motorists might think it safe to follow the lane markings. Some cyclists might think these markings have some authority and offer them some protection. This would be a grave error. Anyone imagining that a cycle lane offers some kind of a safe haven is seriously at risk.

To lead cyclists to the inside of a tight bend on the inside of two traffic lanes that can barely be accommodated themselves, where the unaware cyclist is very likely to get squeezed on the corner, is, let's face it, downright irresponsible. It's not good enough to assume that everyone will have the good sense to realise the markings are mere token gestures which should be ignored. It will only take one novice cyclist who naively presumes that these markings offer some talismanic protection and we will have yet another cyclist on their way to hospital.

In the instance pictured below the bus driver had the presence of mind to ignore the lane markings and straddle the two lanes to give the cyclist adequate clearance. But is it realistic to expect bus drivers working long hours in difficult circumstances to remain so alert and conscientious? Is it really too much to expect that road markings should only be installed by competent people and actually deliver a safe and practical arrangement for sharing the road?



Thanks to the recent action of the Police in pushing back the boundaries of what is considered an appropriate area for Criminal Damage prosecutions, we at last have a remedy for this sort of nonsense. We know the people responsible, we know their names, we know where they work. The evidence is there on our streets, not in chalk which might easily be washed or worn away but in permanent and hard-wearing materials that can only be removed at considerable cost to the local taxpayer.

Green Bristol Blog says enough is enough. The culprits need to be taught a lesson. Our streets are not provided as blank canvasses for them to indulge in their childish markings. Only responsible and competent people with an understanding of the delicate 'territorial' relationship between different road users should be allowed to apply such street markings. Criminal Damage? - bring it on!

The Circus comes to Cycling City

There's no question that Cabot Circus is having a profound affect on Bristol. The sheer scale of it is impressive and its prominent location at end of the M32 will mean that it is the first major building complex that most visitors to the city will see. Above all it will change the image of Bristol, although whether for good or ill is, of course, debatable.



It defines Bristol as a centre for conspicuous consumption, inviting the wealthy denizens of the the west country to drive in on the M32, sweeping majestically over the impoverished masses of Bristol's east end, and into what must be one of the world's most inviting multi-storey car parks, to choose from no less than 2,600 parking bays. From there it is but a short stroll via a private bridge (still hermetically sealed against the edgy urban environment below) straight into the heart of the new cathedral of commerce.



Once inside our wealthy visitors will of course find themselves rubbing shoulders with the hoi polloi, to give that authentically urban experience, but they can rest assured that these "streets" remain in the private realm, closely monitored to exclude any undesirables. As they saunter towards Harvey Nicks they will briefly have to cross a real public street, with real traffic, before reaching another privately controlled enclave at Quakers Friars. Perhaps that brief exposure to reality will give them the confidence to proceed further into the city, perhaps not.

So much for the wealthy, but how will Cabot Circus impact on the rest of us, on Bristol's growing band of cyclists for example, who once enjoyed some useful links through this area before all was swept aside for the new consumer complex. Has the massive investment of £500 million, including a complete reworking of the local highway network, resulted in some outstanding new cycle paths, allowing us our share of "sweeping majestically" past the congested traffic?



Sadly not. Admittedly there is a solitary cycle lane in one direction down Bond Street to lead unsuspecting cyclists towards the new gyratory system called Newfoundland Circus, but just when you really need to have a well defined safe route through the chaos of conflicting traffic movements the cycle lane, in typically Bristol fashion, ends abruptly (above). Cyclists then find themselves 'merging' with the adjacent traffic lane (below) without any indication of who should have priority. In short a death trap.



Cyclists are left in limbo, some struggling on trying to weave their way through the multiple traffic lanes, others opting to take to the pavements where pedestrians will inevitably be made uncomfortable, to put it mildly, by the presence of cyclists without any provision being made for segregation. Shared use is fine in principle but in confined spaces with heavy and conflicting flows of both pedestrians and cyclists it really isn't suitable.



Even the planners seem to have been unable to make up their minds where cyclists should be taking their chances. Odd fragments of cycle lane and advanced stop lines suggest cyclists should be on the road, but very small, almost apologetic blue signs on the pavement lampposts confirm that cycling on them is not actually illegal and the pedestrian crossings are all shared use. The result is that cyclists (and other road users) remain unsure of their status whichever option they choose. The worst of both worlds.

Cynics like me will not be in the least surprised by any of the above, but Newfoundland Circus must be a bitter pill to swallow for those who still cling to the notion that Cycling City status is going to transform things in favour of cycling. The same bunch of anal inadequates behind the pathetic "cycle provision" around Newfoundland Circus are now formulating the measures designed to supposedly boost cycling to double the number of journeys. Welcome to Cabot Circus.

Parking in Bristol

It's obvious to everyone, motorist or not, that car parking is in crisis. From the motorist's point of view it's either too expensive or too hard to find, and from the walker's or cyclist's point of view parking takes up valuable road space that ought first to be allocated to those passing along the road. Increasingly the competition for parking spaces leads to illegal and dangerous parking that obstructs footways and cycle lanes.


Each year such examples of blatantly illegal and, I would say, arrogant parking as those illustrated here (and here) become more common and unremarkable. It wasn't so long ago that pavement parking was unknown, but when it started to appear in Bristol in the 1980s the police failed to stamp it out (when doing so would have been relatively easy) so that today it is so established that the police and local authorities would hardly dare do so.

But parking is one of the key issues that must be tackled if Bristol's aspiration to be a green city is to have any credibility. Clearly walkers are entitled to expect that footways and the main road crossing points are kept clear. Apart from the danger of obscured sight lines at road crossings and actual obstruction of the footway (especially for those with baby buggies or wheelchairs), the presence of vehicles on the footway undermines the status of walking, sending a negative signal when we should be striving to send positive signals.


Cyclists suffer particularly from on-street car parking, not just the illegal sort on cycle lanes but the generality of kerbside parking. Most streets in Bristol are perfectly wide enough to allow a reasonable coexistence of cyclists and motorists, with each being able to overtake or undertake the other, according to traffic conditions, quite safely and without intimidation. But add in kerbside parking on one or, more often, both sides of the road and cyclists and motorists are left to compete for the same limited space, with predictable consequences.

Roads exist to allow people and goods to be moved around safely and conveniently. That should be their overriding function, but in the UK we have allowed a situation to arise where motorists have come to assume that they can use roads for parking their vehicles, for the most part free-of-charge, even at the expense of the safety and convenience of others. That is not the case everywhere - in Japan for example you are simply not allowed to park in the street!

If we are to restore acceptable conditions for walking and cycling this parking crisis must be tackled. The first steps in doing so are clear enough - effective enforcement of the existing rules. But we must go further, challenging the assumption that the street can be used for free storage of motor vehicles. Parking space is a valuable commodity in urban areas, yet for the most part on-street parking is given away free-of-charge. This represents a massive subsidy to car owners at the expense of the whole community, including non-car owners - the opposite of a green tax, more of an anti-green subsidy.