Never park up the inside of an HGV

The militant cyclists are saying "It's not our fault that HGVs kill us -they shouldn't be there", and now they even have the Times on their side

We, and our sponsors, Tesco, say "HGVs are needed in our city to deliver an optimised supply chain, if anyone gets run over by one it is their own fault for being on the inside of the vehicle"

This is why a lot of cycle safety training in London is dedicated to make it clear to people on bikes that they are invisible from a cab of an HGV, so should never go up alongside them, or end up in an ASL in front of one.

We have another group of people who need to be better educated.

Take this road, St Werburgh's Road.

If you were in Montpelier, a car with its rear window replaced with cardboard and big scrapes down the side wouldn't get a second glance -but here we are in St Werburghs. What is up?

Apparently, the owner of this car dangerously parked their car on the inside of an HGV.

The HGV -entirely innocently, as the car was hiding in its blind spot- scraped down the side of the car, caught the rear bumper and pulled it off. It also clipped the rear hatch, pulling that up, bending it, and in the process shattering the window.

Why did this happen? Because the car driver, recklessly, parked their car on the inside of where an HGV would go past some ten hours later. For this reason, it is their own fault.

We say: people like this need to go on a "safe parking near HGVs" course, rather than complain about passing trucks from destroying their vehicles. At the very least, they could use that spare space to the right of the picture, the "pavement".

Ticketing: its for your own good

Here in St Andrews Road, Montpelier, we are shocked to see two cars getting tickets for being slightly on the pavement

slightly shocked, but not completely surprised. As there is almost enough space for someone to walk by on the inside

That will hinder passing traffic

And as can be seen here on upper Cheltenham Place, if you don't get fully on the pavement, you get to pay the wingmirror tax.

Note that vehicles in these photos include a fiat, a VW and at least one Vaxhall Astra -built in the UK to a German design.

Now that Cameron has finally stood up to the European oppressors with their plans for friendship and co-operation across countries, we hope that the owners of these vehicles will recognise the error of their ways and buy morris minors. Say goodbye to vehicles that start every morning! Say goodbye to driving over 60 mph on the motorway! these are un-British!

KY57PZF: it's going to make a great video

It's interesting to compare cultural differences between Montpelier and Clifton. Soon, Montpelier. Today: Clifton. As we've noted, the local anti-cycle policy does encourage driving rather than cycling, so someone on pedals is unexpected; people don't know what to do.

At the same time, for all their driving, the wide streets of Clifton, and the higher value of their cars, means that Monty-driving-techniques just don't apply here. If you've ever been held up in your van while some fancy car hits the "mirrors in" button and then crawls along, you'll know what we mean. There's a fear of scraping your mirrors against other vehicles. In Montpelier, the locals don't have wing mirrors, have pre-scraped cars, and know the technique: drive close enough to the right to be almost touching the parked cars, let the left hand side look after itself.

That lack of skill and excessive protection of their car puts the Old Cliftonians at a disadvantage. Look at this video here, on Beuafort Road, Clifton, one weekday morning.



There's a bin lorry collecting rubbish. Nothing unusual there, except in Clifton the rubbish is better. Empty bottles of fine Bordeaux wines, not crumpled up cans of Tennants Export -"brewed in Scotland for the English Bastards".

Where the bin men are, there are delays. Here the oncoming bicycle goes past them, only to see KY57PZF blocking the way in front, waiting for a chance to get through. Why haven't they done that gap already? It's wider than many of the Montpelier 2-way streets, and there's excellent visibility. We'd have gone for it. Of course this Peugeot 207 1.4S is in better condition in our van, but our dents and bashes were our way of learning the exact dimensions of the road.

Because the car hasn't got the nerve to commit through this -massive- gap, it ends up blocking the gap. The cyclist -who believes they have some right to be there- waves at the car to reverse a bit. The driver -rightfully- points at the (obvious) lorry and clearly implies they are going to sit there and wait. The tax-dodger has none of this and tries again. Here the driver of "KY57 PZF" provides some feedback in the form of the clearly mouthed "Fuck off". For some reason the cyclist doesn't take this hint and again, encourages the driver to back up.

Don't they see the disabled sticker on the car? This person is clearly suffering from some disability, which not only prevents them from walking, it probably hurts to reach down to the gear lever and put it into reverse. Yet the insensitive cyclist doesn't recognise this, they just sit there bullying this innocent motorist to go backwards or get on their side of the road to let him pass.

At the end of this incident, the troublemaker says to the driver "It's going to make a great video", which the driver doesn't hear. Reaching for the window clearly causes more pain, so the tax dodger opens it and says "It's going to make a great video look for your registration number on youtube" before disappearing.

We are surprised that the car driver doesn't complain to the evening post about such harassment.

Update: Road name corrected from Belmont Road to Beaufort Road. Credit to an attentive Richard.Howe8!

Fighting Back: why it doesn't work

People email us and say things. A lot of things, most of which we can't print, as they assume the team are some group of bicycle-people. Not so. it is just that we don't film from our own vehicles, so have to send out "expendable tax-dodgers" to get footage for us. Why don't we film ourselves? This video from London shows why.





As you can see videoing from the vehicle doesn't help

1. It stops you being able to make and take calls with the camera phone.
2. Holding a camera over a passenger while driving along makes it hard to maintain full speed, especially when you are hanging back to disagree with the cyclist.
3. The troublemakers all gang together when the police get involved

That's the worst part. Your own video can be used as evidence against you. As for the whole nature of this dispute -the tax dodger wing-mirror-taxing the smart car as it pulls out into his lane, well, if you have wing mirrors, you aren't a proper Bristol driver -a fact which the very presence of wing mirrors radiates to everyone nearby and puts you at a disadvantage in all right-of-way negotiations.



Anyone thinking of visiting the city -just stick some duct tape round the mirrors to create that local-driver look without having to actually do Richmond Road, Montpelier, at full speed.

Paying the Wingmirror and Bodywork taxes in one go.

Field Operative "TH" emails this photo of trouble on Bond Street South, outside the new Future Inns Hotel/Phoenix Court BCC Offices heading towards the Underpass in Temple Way at 5:00pm 10th May.

Delivery driver in the Mercedes Van ends up with a Peugot 207 cutting across him. The 207 lost his passenger mirror in the process.

Just to add to the situation, the Bus Driver thinks he can follow other cars by mounting the Central Reservation kerb to pass...

Not enough room - One sandwiched 207!

We express our sympathies to WN60ZXD, and welcome them to now owning a Montpelier-style vehicle. We must remind FirstBus drivers, especially that of WX05RVK that their vehicles are wider than cars, and when they go up on raised pavements and reservations, the vehicle tilts a bit too.

To stop this problem in future, we propose an awareness course for car drivers, teaching them that vans have a tendency to pull out without warning, and that buses not only have blind spots, they may not be fully aware of the width of their vehicle. Just as London has a "don't undertake lorries that come up behind you at ASLs" campaign for cyclists, we propose a "don't get stuck where a FirstBus bus tries to drive over a central reservation to get past your collision with a van". We believe that such an awareness program would be more cost-effective and beneficial than a "how wide your bus is" course to FirstBus drivers. 

Hard to steer with a phone in your hand.

A lot of cyclists complain about cars passing them too closely on narrow roads, how they get in our way (technical term "the primary position") to stop the vehicle behind doing this.

The problem with this approach is that it assumes that the road is wide enough for oncoming vehicles to get past, an assumption invalid for most of the best rat-runs in the city.

Here our secretly-filmed cyclist causes delays for a driver who is not only paying road tax and fuel tax, they are paying VAT on the telephone call, plus of course the telcos paid lots of money for the 3G networks that modern smart phones like the iPhone seen here needs.




Sadly, by driving one handed without proper driving gloves, the driver cannot navigate the gap between the parked cars without potentially clipping the wing mirror. If the bicycle had correctly deferred to the more important driver, this would not have been an issue. Instead she is forced to back off, here on effingham road, though this doesn't appear to interrupt the conversation, except she may have been swearing more than normal in the call.

People complaining about drivers making and taking calls on the road do not realise that we are forced to do it because of the congestion. If the council re-instated the lost inner city motorway plans of the 1970s, we wouldn't be stuck in traffic, we wouldn't need to phone or text. It is not our fault.

Roundabout work #3: WR08ADK pays the wing mirror tax

Here's the next in our St Michael's Hill Roundabout series, this time looking at how a single cyclist trying to use the route can cause mayhem and destruction.

Normally when the bicycle/wingmirror collision is discussed, it is the cyclist complaining about how they get hit by a car in a hurry. Nobody ever looks at it from the motorists perspective. We may have damaged a wingmirror, but do the cyclists ever compensate us? Most aren't even insured.

Take this scene from a video of our secretly instrumented cyclist, apparently as the car squeezes past them at the traffic island, the car's wing mirror bashes against their handlebars.

The vehicle WR08ADK is lucky to escape from the enraged cyclist, who will probably commit more acts of violence against their Toyota Aygo, and again, without cyclist insurance, it'll be the motorist who picks up the bill.



We would say the motorist's insurers, except for one small detail: WR08ADK doesn't appear in the insurance database. Askmid denies it, while the AA refuse to give it a breakdown quote, "the car is not in the database", they say.

By not being in the database that this car driver not only has to pay for their own vehicle damage, be they wingmirrors or that caused by pedestrians, they cannot even get breakdown cover from the AA. This is unacceptable.

(Incidentally, this isn't a case of misreading the reg #, the car was seen cutting in front of a bike on Cotham Hill last week. It's a car whose # isn't in the database, a "ghost car").

(update: replaced Toyota Auris with Toyota Aygo. Nimble round town, though the wingmirrors and body coloured bumpers put it at a disadvantage when parking or working narrow streets).

Roundabout work #2: 08:17

Once the mercedes that blocked vehicles getting off the roundabout had cleared it, vehicles wanting to get onto St Michael's Hill could pull out, and here see the correct tactic: stop cars getting onto the roundabout. It's the only way to reduce demand, and so ensure the junction clears.

Which vehicle do we see here? Yes, its YA55VDY, the cult van of Bristol Traffic

Notice how the vehicle following this car is also in the mini-roundabout, but it hangs back to actually allow pedestrians to cross at the traffic island. Of course, this will prevent vehicles turning right to pull out, which is a bit selfish, but it does allow the roundabout to clear by reducing vehicle ingress rates to match that of egress rates.

The key point here is that it shows that those fellow-motorist-activist groups who advocate removing traffic lights are either missing the point or hiding the truth. On a junction without lights -like this one- the only way to get through is to be aggressive: drive the big vehicles, the 4x4, or even better, the battered big-vehicle, such as the white van. Now we, as white-van drivers, are happy with this, but we think the harsh truth should be discussed in the open, not discovered once they remove lights from the city centre: whoever values their vehicle least wins.

Roundabout work #1: 08:15

08:15 to 08:16 on the top of St Michael's Hill.

First a car with a Montpelier-MOT wingmirror duct-taped into place. Someone just horned it as to get to this part of the junction (see on the dashed lines) it had to sprint up the oncoming traffic lane.

But by doing so it gets to pull out where the mercedes stuck in the middle of the mini roundabout has left a gap, follow the van through to the right and hope that there isn't anyone crossing the zebra crossing, which would block up the roundabout some more.

It does clear, the gap allows a car coming up Cotham Hill to pull out and turn right into St Michael's Hill.

Or it would, if the Mercedes hadn't stayed where it was.

Do you see what's wrong here? By staying back on the mini roundabout, by allowing cars out of Cotham Road, the school-run-driver is, sadly, making things worse. All the vehicles who are held up on Cotham Hill will see this and drive more considerately.