Bristol Cycling Campaign

Valentine's Bridge at Temple Quay, Bristol

RE: PLANNING APPLICATION 02/04277/F/X - retention of stainless steel cycle barriers to bridge.

I object to the barriers on the following grounds: -

• Safety: potentially compromised - possibly FATALLY if major incident
• Disabled access: compromised
• Unnecessarily infringing the rights of cyclists to use a planned designated (shared) cycle route.

I am writing as: -

• a Bristol resident who cycles over the bridge to/from the station and/or to visit premises at Temple Quay
• A Bristol resident who sometimes walks over the bridge to/from the station
• A member of the BCC - Bristol Cycling Campaign.

Valentines Bridge is an unusual design with much architectural merit. It is a pity that there is/are no proximate sign(s) stating: -

• Who designed it
• Who owns it
• Who maintains it.

Why was a planning application notice not visible on or near the barriers?

SAFETY

When my teenage son & I used Temple Meads Station recently we were horrified to find the safety barriers obstacle course at the ends of the Valentine's Bridge near the ferry landing. When he was younger we used to cycle to the Station with my son on a Hann child trailer (which had one wheel and articulates behind me). We know that some folk still use similar machines and the wide (two wheeled) enclosed Burley child trailer in Bristol. If anyone attempted to take an articulated child trailer through the obstacles there is a real danger that the trailer would become so unstable that a child could tip off. This can happen when wheeling round tight corners but never occurred when we were cycling.

At this time of year there are potential GREAT DANGERS of untreated icy surface causing: -

• Accidents on the metal surfaced bridge
• Sliding onto & down the ferry steps & into the water
• Accidents when vehicles attempt to turn near the ferry steps.

The barriers do nothing to alleviate these dangers - they compound the problem by preventing pedestrians or cyclists from proceeding in a constant direction thus increasing the risk of slides and skids. If the barriers are intended to be safety devises to reduce speed - they are potentially dangerous sledge hammers to crack nuts.

Furthermore, the bridge could be a useful escape route over the river if a major incident arose at

• Temple Quay
• Temple Meads Station
• The station Forecourt/Car Park
• The new hotel, which is being built nearby.
• Nearby roads - Temple Way Temple Bridge to Temple Gate Cattlemarket Road

The barriers would VERY SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the rate of pedestrian evacuation over the river. This could be catastrophic if other escape routes were simultaneously impassable during Temple Quay core time e.g. chemical spillage along nearby roads causing poisonous fumes or major failure/accident of buried services.

Uni-cycles are sometimes ridden in Bristol and would squeeze through the barriers but might be endangered by the sharp turns with low parapet so close to the water.

The media would have a field day if a Department of the Environment worker was injured by a safety barrier on the way to/from work.

FOR A MAJOR OFFICE COMPLEX BY A MAJOR STATION STRATEGIC SAFETY SHOULD BE A HIGH PRIORITY.

These barriers could be dangerous and should be removed NOW before anyone is injured or killed.

DISABLED ACCESS

The barriers are so badly arranged and closely spaced that they discriminate against :-

• twin baby buggies
• enclosed electric wheelchairs
• tandems
• tricycles
• penny farthing bicycles
• bicycles with child trailers
• bicycles with other trailers.

ALL of these are legitimate users, which are seen in Bristol (admittedly some not every day). These barriers have been recently built ON a route, which forms part of an access route to a major station. The South West Regional Development Agency claim credit for the Temple Quay development. One of their claims is Addressing social and economic imbalance will be achieved by helping to reduce the barriers to employment. The final parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1975 have not come into effect yet but should be planned for NOW. Clearly the safety barriers do not comply with these. If they comply with any regulations - there is clearly something wrong with the regulations.

These barriers discriminate against the disabled and should be removed NOW.

UNNECESSARILY INFRINGING THE RIGHTS OF CYCLISTS TO USE A DESIGNATED (SHARED) CYCLE ROUTE

Cyclists and pedestrians should be able to safely co-exist PROVIDED they are aware of and respect each other.

• As a pedestrian on the bridge I have never had any problems from cyclists.
• As a cyclist I have sometimes had minor impedance on the bridge

Like horses - pedestrians can be startled by anything including cyclists quietly approaching from behind. There are 2 solutions from most sensible cyclists: -

• Slow down and keep back until there is sufficient space to safely overtake
• Ring bell/horn or shout mind your backs or coming through on the left/right or ring, ring! whilst approaching (but not too near).

IFthere is a speeding / conflict problem between a minority of cyclists and a minority of pedestrians there should be signs warning cyclists and pedestrians to beware of each other. This sign could be something simple like Safe cyclists welcome.

The bridge was planned for shared use by pedestrians and cyclists yet the signage and recent barriers seek to deter cyclists. Even the Security staff claim to be unaware that on the bridge CYCLING IS PERMITTED.

Valentines Bridge is near the end of the Bristol - Bath cycle path and is used by passengers and railway staff on their way to/from Bristol Temple Meads Station (including early morning and late evening when other public transport is sparse or not running). It is also used by employees (including the Environment Agency) working in Temple Quay.

On the Bristol - Bath cycle path speed reducing chicanes were built at the foot of a steep incline from Staple Hill and further east at an unlit site. These were built days before a major sponsored bike ride involving over 500 cyclists - some from far afield. There was much furore about the potential dangers of these obstacles, which were eventually removed. The obstacles were considered so dangerous that (following my suggestion for damage limitation): -

• special safety announcements were made at the start of the event
• and marshals were positioned at the approach to these obstacles.

The incline at the approach from Staple Hill was eventually re-engineered to be longer but less steep.

WE HAD HOPED THAT LESSONS WOULD BE LEARNT - SAFETY BARRIERS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A DANGEROUS CHEAP SUBSTITUTE FOR MORE APPROPRIATE MEASURES ON CYCLE ROUTES.

CONCLUSION

To conclude - appropriate barriers can be useful near a cycle route to prevent unauthorised vehicles from entering. (Gates with RADAR keys for the disabled and emergency services are frequently simultaneously provided - again off the cycle route).

BARRIERS SHOULD NOT NORMALLY BE BUILT ON A CYCLE ROUTE.

Suggestions

1. The barriers should be removed from the shared pedestrian / cycle way AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
2. Perhaps as a face-saver the barriers could be better used as safety devises on the steps leading to the ferry landing (but not dangerously near the cycle route).
3. It would be helpful if the entire shared route (from Avon Street to Temple Meads Station) were better signed so that cyclists and pedestrians know where to expect each other are less likely to stray down the steps in foul weather. Just around the corner there is an example of better signage of a shared pedestrian/cycle route alongside Gardner Haskins: -
   • Different colour floor surface for cyclists and pedestrians
   • Shared use signs above shoulder height wherever cyclists/pedestrians join or leave the route
   • Small tiles with bicycles engraved on them (in different colour from floor surface)
4. Resurface the bridge with a more appropriate surface, which is less prone to condensation and sheet ice.

Yours sincerely

Terry Miller

Bridge can be enjoyed by walkers and cyclists

The bridges in Bristol provide some of the best vantage points for enjoying the surrounding views of the city. Strollers can wander at leisure from one side to the other to look at the boats, the water birds and many other things, plus it makes a tranquil break from the noise of nearby traffic.

Even if you are just crossing to get to work, the Temple Quay bridge is great fun to walk over with its modern curves and materials. However, Jo Rubery and other cyclists want to take over part of the bridge as a dedicated cycle lane rather than dismount and walk over with the other pedestrians. This is an extremely bad idea as a lane would effectively be a no-go area for walkers. It would turn one side of the bridge into an area in which it is not safe to walk, as cyclists will feel free to speed along without restriction.

I suggest that the whole of the bridge should be freely available to everyone. I do think that slow-moving cyclists and pedestrians could cross the bridge quite happily together if the cyclists gave walkers some warning of their approach. Bristol's own cycling organisation Sustrans recommends that cyclists use bells just for this reason. However, they universally ignore this, and in so doing, treat pedestrians with as little respect as cars.

People on foot have rights too, and maybe it's time to say to cyclists "get off your bike" at the bridge and other places, especially pavements.

Paul Dimarco, Hazlewood Road, Sneyd Park

Dear Sir

RE: BRIDGE CAN BE ENJOYED BY WALKERS AND CYCLISTS - 4/1/03

Your correspondent, Paul Dimarco (4/1/03) makes some very valid points about Valentines Bridge, and its use by both pedestrians and cyclists, but he is perhaps not in full possession of the facts.

The reason why cyclists are so upset at the attitude of the company which manages the bridge for its owners, the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) is that they would appear to be congenitally opposed to cycling, and this has been demonstrated on a number of occasions.

The bridge was always planned as a shared-use, pedestrian and cyclist bridge, and all the documents and plans refer to it as such, but before it was opened "Cyclists Dismount" signs were installed, against specific advice from the planning authority. The bridge is on a strategic cycle route, avoiding one of the busiest, most dangerous roads in Bristol, Temple Way, where, as has been demonstrated recently, many drivers exceed the speed limit.

Incredibly, the consultants employed to design the bridge (WS Atkins) seemed to ignore the fact that it was shared-use and designed it with parapets too low, and with a surface which it is now claimed is unsuitable for cycling. Having failed to produce a bridge which was suitable for its intended purpose, one might have thought that the management company would look elsewhere for consultants when there were further problems with it, not employing the ones who had already failed, but they did not.

WS Atkins have now produced a solution to an apparently non-existent problem, which makes the bridge more dangerous, more inconvenient and less useful. The only thing the barriers do is to force cyclists and pedestrians together into a small gap, so that congestion, frustration and danger are caused, a situation analogous to the installation of chicanes on the Bristol/Bath cycle track, for which the local authority (Kingswood Council) were taken to the Local Government Ombudsman. All planning guidance, all advice from cycling and pedestrian organisations and all independent advice opposes such barriers.

No planning application was made before the barriers were installed, even though Bristol Council advised that it would be required. A retrospective application has now been made, which contains several factual errors, including claims that the bridge and its approaches are pedestrian only.

The consultants appear to have hit upon a scheme which is a licence to print money: design the thing wrong in the first place, get hired to sort out your own mistakes, make more mistakes, get hired to sort those out and so on ad infinitum. If I was a shareholder in the management company, I would be asking some very serious questions of my managers.

As I have already pointed out, the bridge belongs to SWRDA, which should be following the Regional Development Plan and other Government guidance, including integrated transport, all of which make the strongest possible case for providing for cyclists, especially in new developments, which this is. Perhaps someone from SWRDA would like to tell us why they are employing a management company which refuses to follow SWRDA's own policies and guidance, and perhaps someone from W S Atkins could tell us why they ignore planning guidance.

I can only agree with Mr Dimarco, as do all responsible cyclists, that pavement cycling is stupid and dangerous, but this bridge is a cycle route, is wide enough for shared-use and all the evidence shows that cyclists and pedestrians can happily coexist given enough space.

The story of the design of, subsequent modifications to and management of this bridge is a complete farce, and rather than blaming cyclists for wanting to cycle on a cycle route, Mr Dimarco would be better employed asking why the farce happened in the first place, and why it continues.

Your sincerely

Richard Burton - CTC Right2Ride representative

Dear Mr Burwell and other Members of Bristol Cycling Campaign

20 mph Zones

Thank you for your letter regarding the lack of 20 mph zones in Bristol. I apologise for the delay in responding.

To date three types of 20 mph Zones are in existence in the UK, these are:-

• Designated 20 mph Zones in which traffic calming has been introduced which is capable of keeping 85%ile speeds below 20 mph. These are supported by the Police as they do not need enforcement and they are not then a drain on resources. You should note that Hull has received widespread condemnation of its continued use of road humps from the emergency services.
• Areas of Mandatory 20 mph Speed Limits. These require Police enforcement and to prove effective this must be regular and continual. In most cases they receive very little enforcement and they are less effective than designated zones. The Police are required to support the introduction of new speed limits as the enforcing authority and they have stated that all new enforceable zones must be traffic-calmed, making their introduction expensive. This, in some ways, negates the need for the speed limit as the traffic- calming should be achieving similar results.
• Areas of Advisory 20 mph Speed Limits. There have been mixed reports on the success of these. In most cases we are informed that their introduction does very little to reduce speed however, Gloucester reported that following introduction at many school sites there was a significant reduction injury accidents in the areas around affected schools.

You will be aware of the stated Council intentions, contained within its Local Transport Plan (LTP), to reduce speeds throughout the city and thereby reduce the severity and numbers of collisions and casualties. The annual traffic management work programme and its involvement in other Teams and Divisions work programmes focuses resources on reducing collisions, improving the safety and environment for pedestrians and cyclists, particularly on routes to school. This year it is hoped 24 sites will be planned covering 37 schools.

The LTP also refers to a road hierarchy study for the city. This identifies neighbourhoods as environmental cells where the larger use of 20 mph limits, despite the problems outlined above, and Home Zones, reducing speeds to 10 mph or less, will be considered. I am pleased to be able to inform you that this work is progressing.

I hope this assures you of this Council's intentions to continue pursuing lower speeds across the city and I thank you for your interest in this topic.

Yours faithfully

[signed]

Councillor Helen Holland
Deputy Leader with responsibility for Environment, Transport and Leisure

cc: Mike Stanley - Team Manager (Traffic Management)

20 September, 2002

Your Ref: PAH/km/T001 (6th Sept 02)

JOHN FOX
PO BOX 1775
Broad Lane Offices
Engine Common
Yate
BS37 7FY

Mr Fox

FORMAL CONSULTATION – PROPOSED SPEED LIMIT ALTERATIONS, A38 GLOUCESTER ROAD, FERNHILL, HORTHAM LANE AND WASHINGPOOL HILL ROAD

Thank you for the information on the above scheme. Can I begin by outlining the position of the Group regarding speed limits.

Government figures show speeding is endemic among car drivers, with more than half breaking the law on motorways and on 30mph urban roads. The aims of the Bristol Cycling Campaign include: reducing speed limits in urban areas, to 20mph and backing this up with enforcement and by shifting the public opinion on speeding as was achieved on the drink-drive issue.

I quote a well known statistic from Killing Speed and Saving Lives, Department of Transport (1997):

A pedestrian hit by a car at 40mph has a 15% chance of survival, at 30mph this increases to 55% but at 20mph it leaps to 95%.

The benefits to pedestrians and cyclists of lower vehicle speeds are not just perceived – they are real and have measurable impact on the livelihood of people.

Congestion

The preliminary results from the latest South Gloucestershire News questionnaire show that local people are particularly worried about traffic congestion. Reducing speeds can relieve congestion as well as improve the environment (reduced emissions by increased fuel economy).

Contrary to popular belief, congestion on urban roads is governed mainly by the capacity of junctions and not exacerbated by lower speed limits. Lower speeds increase the capacity of junctions.

In Växjö, Sweden, time-savings at junctions from lower speeds were actually found to reduce overall journey times and where 30kph zones have been introduced in Germany, drivers spend 15% less time in stationary vehicles.

Specific Comments on A38 Proposals

At present, the speed limits on particular roads joining the A38 are in my opinion mis-aligned in comparison to the A38 (e.g. Hortham Lane which is a narrower carriageway past residential areas). Where such disparity is clear to see, I would always recommend that the speed limit be brought into line with what is more suitable and safer. I often receive remarks from fellow cyclists and drivers alike regarding 'unsuitable' speed limits especially given that a minority of drivers consider the speed limit to be a 'target'.

I would recommend that the proposals shown on T001/195 are fully carried through to implementation.

I look forward to hearing your response to this recommendation and the issues I have raised.

Yours sincerely,



Howard Yeomans
Bristol Cycling Campaign representative for South Gloucestershire area

Response from the Bristol Cycling Campaign

Index

1. Introduction
2. Attitudes of the Police
3. Attitudes of the Car Industry and Media
4. Effects of Lower Speed Limits
5. The Purpose of Speeding
6. What We Would Like to See
7. Conclusion

i. Introduction

In recent years we have -

• held a protest march calling for slower speeds and more enforcement. This was attended by an MP, representatives from RoadPeace, the Pedestrians Association and the local Civic Society; (1998)
• handed in a petition of 1250 signatures to the Police Authority calling for more action on speeding;
• attended numerous PCCG (Police and Community Consultation Group) meetings to express our concerns;
• written many letters to the Police.

ii. Attitudes of the Police

We feel that the absence of any speed controls in residential areas is a complete scandal. Over a third of road deaths and more than half of road injuries occur in 30 mph areas and it is here that speed most affects the quality of life. The police plead lack of resources. This might be an excuse if there were some speed policing, but there is absolutely none. We are sure that even a minimal use of hand-held cameras in residential areas would have a cautionary effect on drivers and would assist those drivers who feel intimidated if they keep to the limit. However, at the moment there is virtually zero enforcement and drivers can be quite sure they'll get away with speeding.

In July 2001, the Bristol Evening Post hired a speed camera and used it for an hour in each of 24 different locations around the city. They found a total of over 3,000 vehicles speeding in that period. Many of the sites chosen were 30 mph areas. The top speed recorded in a residential area was 64 mph. They also recorded speeds of over 50 mph and, of course, many people going well over 30 mph. We wrote to the police asking if they intended to act on this information. We have had no reply and there is no evidence that they have.

Given that in 2001 the government spent £1.8 million on a campaign to show the dangers of going even a little over the 30 mph limit, it seems that the police are very out of step with government wishes. Also, the police are failing in their duty to protect vulnerable members of the community from danger caused by people behaving illegally i.e. speeding.

iii. Attitudes of the Car Industry and Media

The car industry spends a massive amount on advertising. Unfortunately none of this serves to promote road safety and much of it does the reverse -- many adverts promote speeding either overtly or covertly with blurred photo backgrounds,etc. to suggest speeding.

Some examples of advertising this year -- a car appearing to come out of the poster with the slogan "More Va Va Voom"; another advert had the slogan "Bye, bye, GTi". This is a reference to the GTi - a particularly fast type of car. The implication is that you can go faster than a GTi with this type of car. Adverts such as these are often placed on roads with high accident rates and speeding problems. They contribute to a "race track culture" on the roads.

Bristol Cycling Campaign has frequently had complaints upheld against adverts which promote speeding. But the Advertising Standards Agency is very ineffective -- their usual response is to give the advertiser "copy advice" months after the offending adverts have disappeared. They are replaced by similar adverts and the whole process starts again.

Speeding is often portrayed in advertising and the media as being bold, assertive and macho while slower drivers are ridiculed as wimps. Television programmes such as Top Gear have often been criticised for promoting this attitude.

iv. Effects of Lower Speed Limits

On 16 September 1996 the Department of Transport issued a press release headed "20 mph zones in residential areas a resounding success". It then went on to report the findings of a Transport Research Laboratory study into 20 mph zones. This showed that accidents had fallen by an average of 60% when 20 mph limits had been introduced. The most dramatic fall had been among child pedestrians whose accident rate fell by 70%. This would seem to suggest that child casualties would decrease by over two-thirds in residential areas if 20 mph limits were implemented nationwide.

We thought that such strong evidence would produce a rush to put 20 mph limits in all residential areas, but this has not been the case. In Bristol there were two 20 mph zones in 1996 0- there are still only two. There are plans to introduce voluntary 20 mph areas around schools, but these will only operate for a couple of hours a day and only during term time. It seems that it is more important to prevent inconvenience to drivers than to cut child casualties. When compared to safety attitudes in other areas, e.g. the scare about beef on the bone, this approach seems remarkably cavalier.

v. The Purpose of Speeding

In an urban context speeding is hard to justify. There is very little gain in the amount of time a journey takes. Assuming there are no obstacles, a three mile journey (slightly longer than the average urban journey) would take four and a half minutes at 40 mph, six minutes at 30 mph and nine minutes at 20 mph. Of course, in real life there are always obstacles, so even these small gains are evened out. In practise, all urban speeding really does is get the driver to the next hold up a few seconds earlier.

The reality is that people do not speed to get anywhere faster. For one sort of car driver the reasons for speeding are to show off and intimidate other road users. This is given tacit encouragement by the motor industry which designs and advertises cars as aggressive speed machines. Other drivers go too fast simply because it is quite difficult to drive modern cars at slower speeds.

vi. What We Would Like to See

From the Government

The government should do all it can to promote technological solutions to speeding. Apparently the technology is now available to have speed limiters controlled be GPS devices fitted into cars. This should be proceeded with. Thought should be given to limiting the top speeds and acceleration of vehicles. Speed control should be reinstated as a core policing activity. The government should tell the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to take more decisive action against adverts promoting speeding. If the ASA can't or won't do this, then it should be done by law.

From the Police

There must be a serious effort to police urban speeding. As we have already stated, any police presence would be better than the total lack of policing at present. Fixed cameras will be only of limited use in urban areas. The Evening Post survey showed that speeding is prevalent in all areas of Bristol ( and presumably other cities) . There needs to be random checks in many locations using hand held cameras. The practise of only putting in speed policing measures in locations with previous accident history should be discontinued in favour of policing based on the perceived danger. In other words, recognising that the danger of death and injury is not the only ill effect of speeding - freedom of movement and the fear of aggressive driving are serious issues too.

From the Car Industry

The car industry should be brought on board in the campaign against speeding. They should be encouraged to manufacture cars that are easy to drive at lower speeds (perhaps with aural warnings when the limit is reached) and to stop pandering to the "boy racer" end of the market. Perhaps we might even consider why anyone in this country needs a car capable of travelling at over twice the national speed limit - apart from breaking the law of course. The car industry should also spend some of its massive advertising budget on promoting road safety, rather than the reverse.

viii. Conclusion

We hope that this enquiry produces some results. We have heard lots about speed enforcement over the years, but those of us in urban areas ( and that includes most cyclists and pedestrians) have yet to see any benefit.

Speeding kills and injures more people than any other form of law breaking and yet it is given a scandalously low priority. It is time to put the safety of the vulnerable road users before the convenience of law breaking drivers. We hope the enquiry helps achieve this.