Surviving the Bristol bike lane

At the moment I’m commuting to Bristol once a week to do some work at the university on behalf of the Royal Literary Fund. I’m very fond of Bristol as a city, but there times when I wonder if their green policies have been entirely thought through.

When they first introduced rental e-scooters I pointed out that they were sometimes left in hazardous locations - this seems less the case now, though I did come across one recently nearly blocking a pedestrian crossing. But the most dangerous aspect is some of the central bike lanes.

I’m all in favour of getting people out of cars and buses, but I wish there was more focus on walking. This is significantly better for you over a particular time duration than using a bike or e-scooter - but that’s not my point. Inevitably fitting bike lanes into an old city centre can be tricky. And some of them here are downright dangerous. The only time I’ve been nearly killed by a bicycle was someone coming down the steep slope of Park Street in Bristol and transitioning from the bike lane to the pavement at about 30 miles per hour.

Of all the facilities for bike riders, though, the one portrayed above strikes me as particularly dangerous. The bike lane runs through a large stretch of pavement - but it is only distinguished by colour and a change of paving stone. There are no effective tactile warnings that you are entering a bike lane on foot for those with limited sight - and the riders show no care for stray pedestrians who may not even know that the darker bit is a bike line (there are a few faded markings on the ground, but that’s all - no big clear signs). At one point you have to cross the bike lane to continue on the pavement. This is marked (again, only on the ground) to show bikes should give way to pedestrians - but I’ve never seen that happen.

People do get seriously injured and even killed when bikes collide with pedestrians. This needs a re-think.

Image by the author

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free h

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog