onewheeldave

As usual, the long term damage from lack of cancer treatment, rising mental illness, rising long term unemployment etc, etc, etc don't get a mention. Figure those in please. We'll see won't we. My prediction is that however much infections rise, deaths from covid will stay low. In contrast to deaths from lack of cancer treatment, long term unemployment, mental illness etc, etc; the numbers for which will be horrific.

Yet deaths from coronavirus are currently less than 28/day in the whole of the UK. Deaths from cancer are usually 450/day in the UK [though may be higher currently due to the increase caused by lack of availabiltiy to treatment as a direct result of the lockdown and coronavirus 'measures']. It's a grave mistake that the authorities and media are continuing to whip up and maintain fear amongst the gullible element of the public, by focusing on infection rates rather than the very low number of actual deaths caused by the virus. Tragic that the decimation of the economy and destruction of tens of thousands of small businesses, with countless deaths from untreated treatable conditions, and, the upcoming effects of unemployment and mental illness, continues, to tackle a 'pandemic' that is killing less than 28 people a day in a country of 67,886,011 people!

You are breaking the law. If someone is disabled and exempt from wearing a mask and you prevent them from using your store then you are very much in the wrong and will be breaking anti-discrimination laws.

It doesn't, if anything it makes it somewhat likely that at least some of them would also refuse to launch the missiles, given that equivalent officers elsewhere have refused to launch them.

http://www.moragtreanor.co.uk/?p=350 " The BBC and the TV Licensing Authority recognised that there was a gender disparity in prosecutions for failing to pay the television licence. A review into this gender disparity, undertaken by the BBC itself, found that there is ‘no evidence to suggest that enforcement activity is unfairly and intentionally targeted at women’ and that ‘there is no evidence of any discriminatory enforcement practices on the part of TV licensing’.[11] One of the reasons the BBC gave for the gender disparity was that a female was more likely to ‘engage positively’ with a TV Licensing Enquiry Officer. Let’s explore this a bit further: If TV Licensing Enquiry Officers target women because they are more likely to engage, often through fear of prosecution and fear that such prosecution might result in losing their children, then this is It is a clear source of bias and discrimination and the intention is irrelevant. It suggests that TV Licensing Enquiry Officers (perhaps unintentionally) pursue female-headed households as they are a soft target for television licence enforcement. Unintended bias is still bias. Women are at greater risk of non-payment because they are more likely to be on low incomes, whether in or out of work. This interaction with poverty compounds their likelihood of being targeted by TV Licensing Enquiry Officers. Given that TV Licensing Enquiry Officers are incentivised then there is the potential for unconscious bias in their desire to achieve their targets and receive a bonus. This is not acceptable. The current model of funding our public sector broadcasting, which results in so many prosecutions of the poor, and of women in particular, is no longer fit for purpose and needs to change. And never has the time been so right for change." ------------------------------ "The television licence is a particular problem as you can be prosecuted, fined and even go to prison for non-payment. In England and Wales, prosecutions for non-payment of the TV licence currently account for around one in 10 of all criminal cases in the magistrates’ courts." "It is also a highly gendered debt with women being particularly disadvantaged. Females accounted for 72% of all prosecutions for television licence evasion in England and Wales in 2017.[2] Furthermore, and even more worryingly, television licence evasion remains the most common offence for which females are prosecuted, at 30% of all prosecutions for women in 2017 in England and Wales.[3] The fact that almost a third of all female prosecutions are for non-payment of the television licence is criminalising poverty and women in poverty in particular. "

I can make no sense of what you're asking above. But previously you seemed to be arguing that military trained personel would always launch nuclear missiles when orders or protocols demand? The existence of 2 solid instances of military trained personel not launching the missles when orders/protocol demanded, disproves that generalisation.

Given that a main argument against the path is claims that it is causing congestion, induced demand is very relevant. Induced demand says that long term, removing lanes leads to less congestion. If you disagree with the science of induced demand, you need to refute it- pointing out that there are opposing viewpoints does not refute it, neither does trying to ban it from discussion by shunting it to it's own thread. You want to refute it? You'll have to actually discuss it, not ignore it.

How is anyone supposed to answer that? Presumably, like me, most cyclists with sense and a feeling of self preservation would have routinely avoided the area as it was not safe to cycle on? That being the case, I and they would have no idea how many cyclists previously used it. I also gave several reasons many pages back as to why the number currently using is going to be diminshed by things like cyclists not knowing it exists and the fact that it's not that obvious that it is a cycle lane until you're actually on it. Given that the question can't be answered, why not invest some effort into addressing something that can- what's your argument against induced demand, because according to that science, taking a lane from motorists and giving it to cyclists, is just plain good science.

I have enjoyed them. Previously I'd avoid that road like the plague due to the anxiety caused by large numbers of cars/vans/lorries bombing by within inches, putting my life at risk. It's a very novel and nice feeling to cycle it feeling completely safe as the motor vehicles are prevented from getting close by actual barriers. My many journeys along it have been to take me from my home to shops and back, as well as riding for fitness and health. As a side benefit my cycling there has helped diminish the climate catastrophe and the strain on the NHS. Sad to think that if, or when, the scheme is removed, I'll have to go back to avoiding the area and will likely cycle less, removing some of the above mentioned benefits.

Induced demand is fairly well and long established science. The fact that it is questioned by some in no way diminishes its validity, just as denying the science of climate change doesn't diminish that science. One thing is very clear, over 81 pages of online discussion where I've mentioned induced demand several times, none of the anti-shalesmoor bike path motorists have engaged in any discussion of it. It is the established science, and it does indicate that the best way to reduce the over-use of motor vehicles is to refrain from adding more lanes and instead, to reduce the existing number. The council would presumably be expected to consult with the actual science in making decisions? In conjunction with the fact that the government is encouraging them to address the climate catastrophe caused in large part by overproduction and overuse of motor vehicles, combined with the opportunity over lockdown of many more people taking advantage of the temporary existence of roads safe for cyclists [due to lack of cars]; it seems to make sense for them to try this out. Maybe it is time for some of the anti-shalesmoor bike path motorists to cease the strawmaning and ad hominem attacks, and start to state their arguments against induced demand? Maybe the reason for the lack of engagement is that they don't have any?

I've used that cycle path a lot- most of the time the traffic hasn't been that bad, certainly not a chaotic mess. They may have been paying attention to the actual science, which points to reducing capacity as the only way to reduce congestion and pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

No ones saying you do. But some motorists certainly do, intentionally or otherwise. Imagine being on a bike and a lorry passes by so close that it almost touches you, knowing that if it does touch you, you'll likely end up under it's wheels. That is extremely intimidating, whether the lorry driver is doing it intentionally or not. Standing up for cyclists rights to use the roads safely is not militancy.

Then what are you thoughts on the fact that a main block to people integrating cycling into their lives is fear of being killed/injured on the roads by motor vehicles? Currently you aren't 'fully supporting' cycle lanes devoid of motor vehicles. How do you see it? As segragated car free lanes? [which will require less lanes for cars]. As painted strips on the side of busy roads? [which don't seem to work]. Or something different?

You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that the increase is mainly from cyclists exercising/leisure, do you have any? Even if it is true, what's the problem? The big positives of cycling include health and fitness which not only improves quality of life, but removes the massive strain on the NHS caused by the chronic illnesses tht are a result of lack of exercise; this is as true for leisure cycling as commuting. The main block to people cycling, whether for commuting or exercise/leisure, is the fact that Sheffields roads are currently not safe for cycling- providing safe cycle paths removes that block leading to more cycling and the consequent improvements in health. I agree- just yesterday I was passed twice, scarily close by cars. I'm trying to keep up the increased cycling I commenced during the lockdown, but the fact that I could be maimed/killed at any given moment by inept motorists is making me question the wisdom of cycling on these roads. The reason there are low numbers of cyclists is intimidation, pure and simple- anyone opposing proper cycle lanes where motorists are not permitted is complicit in bullying. Not true. Many cyclists will take a longer route if it is safer and will totally avoid long straight busy roads due to the danger of being passed too close by fast motorists.

Pound shop on the Moor usually have blister packs of assorted watch batteries.

Disabled people exempt from masking are not necessarily especially vulnerable to coronavirus, and enforced isolation in addition to being completely uneccesary for their own health, would likley cause considerable damage to their mental and/or physical health.

You think disabled people who would be damaged by masking should not be exempt? Given that you generally won't be able to tell the difference between a "belligerent arsehole" and a person with a hidden disability, how do you [silently] judge them? Is there not a danger and probability that you would judge a person as a "belligerent arsehole" when in reality they are a person with a hidden disability?

No, I said in the eyes of some of the people you are labelling as 'selfish', they will be seeing you as selfish. My exact words: "You can quibble with their reasoning, but that is how they think, so IMO it is wrong and unproductive to lable them 'selfish'- in their eyes, you are the selfish one, as you seem not to care about the huge numbers who will suffer in the near future as a result of the lockdown that you want. Some of them- as pointed out above, many don't want further lockdowns precisely because they want less people to die." I don't think a vaccine will lead to 'normal'. Especially if, as many are anticipating, the authorities make the vaccine compulsory for everyone- if you think there is an issue with those labelled as 'anti-vacc' now, I can guarantee there will be a severe escalation if the authorities try to impose a mandatory coronavirus vaccine [probably yearly] on everyone.

Ability to enforce isn't necessarily the main criteria for implementing it- when it comes to rules designed to slow/minimise transmission of virus it is more important that a substantial portion of the population follow it. Clearly sex with strangers is very likely to spread the virus from one person to the other. As we've seen with other lockdown measures, some of which do not make nearly as much sense, while not all people follow them, most do. There is a school of thought that many more people already have coronavirus than is supposed, and the majority of them are asymptomatic and, that a explanation for the rise in numbers when testing is increased, is due to the increased testing turning up these large numbers of people who are assymptomatic and have the virus. If that is the case, then increasing testing isn't necessarily such a positive thing. Very presumptious to assume that they are all selfish. Many of these people sincerely believe, and can rationally justify, their view that more lockdown will lead, ultimately, to more death and misery than the effects of the virus. The economic effects from lockdown have not really started yet [although the US seems to be suffering, with high levels of home repossessions?] but it looks likely that many will die or suffer over the next few years. You can quibble with their reasoning, but that is how they think, so IMO it is wrong and unproductive to lable them 'selfish'- in their eyes, you are the selfish one, as you seem not to care about the huge numbers who will suffer in the near future as a result of the lockdown that you want. Some of them- as pointed out above, many don't want further lockdowns precisely because they want less people to die.

Many disabled people who are exempt from wearing masks would feel extremely threated and challenged if 'politely' asked why they are not wearing a mask. I've previously described how 2 people I know no longer use public transport and now limit their shopping, despite being exempt from mask wearing, as they are very anxious about how some members of the public are hostile towards people with hidden disabilities not wearing masks. How does the silent judging work when you can't tell the difference between the 2?

Additionally there are at least 2 documented instances of military officers refusing to launch nuclear missles when protocols dictated that they should have done, one covered in the documentary "The Man Who Saved the World [2014]" covering how Stanislav Petrov stood aganst protocols and the other officers present who were pressing for him to launch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saved_the_World The Man Who Saved the World is a 2013 feature-length Danish documentary film by film maker Peter Anthony about Stanislav Petrov, a former lieutenant colonel of the Soviet Air Defence Forces and his role in preventing the 1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident from leading to nuclear holocaust. And very lucky for us all that he did refuse to launch, as, if he had, our world would not exist.

It is. I know several people who are exempt from mask wearing, and who no longer use public transport and restrict their shopping as they are anxious about the hostility of some members of the public.

I very much doubt that any cyclist would refuse to move to let an emergency vehicle pass! Care to comment on the fact that cycle paths like these will be very good for emergency vehicles getting to the people that need help in the fastest possible time?

Then it made a mistake didn't it, as if it had not moved into the cycle lane, the fire engine would have been able to do so, and then have been able to quickly whizz past the traffic. Even if on the longer video it made sense for the truck to enter the cycle lane, it should then have taken the left turn up the side road so the fire vehicle could have passed it. One thing that is very clear from the video is that the cycle lane without blocks is wide enough for emergency vehicles- there is a great opportunity here; once it is established that such cycle lanes are for cycles only, and for use by emergency vehicles in emergencies, and under no circumstances to be used by other motor vehicles, then we have the fastest possible routes for emergency vehicles.

There are several sections of the path, like the one in the video, where there are no bollards, so at that point the fire engine wouldn't have to stop and move anything- it was blocked soley by the parked truck. If the engine had entered at the start where there are bollards, then yes, it would have to move them- not at the other end though, as the cycle path merges into the road.