onewheeldave

And the fire engine wouldn't have been blocked if a truck wasn't parked in the cycle lane. As others have mentioned, a wide cycle lane where cars aren't allowed would be an excellent resource for emergency vehicles as they would be able to get to the emergency very quickly, without the usual delays waiting for cars to shift. Unless of course, a motor vehicle parks in them illegally. And this highlights why blocks were placed- if cars aren't prevented by physical means, they will end up in the cycle lane. So, to be clear, in this situation the fire engine was stalled by a truck parked illegally in the cycle lane. If there was no cycle lane, the fire engine would probably have got through quicker, but still have been delayed by the cars in the two lanes moving to the side. However, the quickest of all would have been one lane of traffic and a cycle lane, lacking the illegally parked truck- the fire engine would have whizzed by on the cycle path without any cars having to move to the side.

It's very different, cyclists can now use the road in safety There is a truck apparently parked on the cycle lane? Which was blocking the fire engine.

Bear in mind that a lot of vulnerable people are being hurt by this compulsory masking. I work with disabled and autistic clients and know of several who will no longer use public transport, even though they are exempt from masking, due to the perceived and actual hostility of mask wearing members of the public who resent vulnerable members of the community having a 'get out'.

Telephoto lens are used on video as well as photos, they produce the same effect of making people look closer together. It makes sense to social distance, but it just reduces an already very small risk to one a bit smaller. Virus transmission outdoors is very unlikely. An analyis of traced covid infections showed the vast majority to have occurred indoors, in that analysis only one was found that occurred outdoors. Likely it is the shifting air and uv light, the virus does not do well in tose conditions.

It doesn't eliminate it, it's very rare that any risk management of any kind will 100% eliminate the issue. But being outside does more than reduce chances of catching COVID-19, it makes it very unlikely indeed.

No. ""Outside activities are known to be much safer. This is one of the few facts on Covid-19 that is virtually universally agreed," says Prof Keith Neil, a professor in infectious diseases at the University of Nottingham."

Masks aren't uniforms.

Morrisons may be breaking the law then, as it is not compulsory for shop workers to wear masks.

It is not compulsory for shop workers to wear face coverings.

Also plenty of people who care and have respect for others safety and well being who refuse to wear a mask; people who realise the importance of civil liberty and are aware of negative consequences to compulsory mask enforcement.

A lot of car drivers also cycle and have a much greater grasp of the issues than most drivers who don't- especially an understanding of how hostile and dangerous Sheffields roads currently are to cyclists. That's zero.

There still remains the very annoying section with the gate that is locked every day very early in the evening, for what reasons I cannot imagine. It would be good if that could be removed.

Unfortunately the Five Weirs walk has a lot of problems. It is not well marked, it took me many attempts before I could traverse it without getting hopelessly lost and ending up on various industrial roads. It often has sections closed off- this adds to the previous problem because once you've come off it, trying to work out how to get back on at the next section is often impossible. One section has a gate, which is locked shut at, I believe 5pm every day! After the last lot of floods, a large section was washed away and, as far as I know, is still unrepaired and completely closed off. It is a shame as it is potentially a very good idea, but the reality does not match up to the potential. When it is fully open it is good as both a leisure ride, and as a commute- certainly as a route from the Wicker to Attercliffe, as the roads there are not cycle friendly- too many fast moving cars/lorries whizzing by.

Sometimes; other times it works really well. Reminiscient of the smoking situation up till recently where millions were being killed by it and with every new generation producing new addicts due to the insiduous marketing of it, and its social status as being a 'normal' activity, a 'lifestyle choice'. Everything was tried- scientific evidence, medical advice, education etc etc. Pleas made to smokers to voluntarily desist from inflicting their toxins on others, education campaigns on passive smoking etc, etc. In the end, only bans on advertising tobacco and increasing bans and restrictions on smoking in public places did the job. And just as motorists are currently complacent that cars can't be dealt with in the same ways, so did smokers ridicule the suggestions of, for example, banning smoking in pubs. Well, it got banned, in pubs, and now, after years of that being the norm, I think most people are very glad it happened, and look back in astonisment that smokers were ever allowed to inflict their poison on others in pubs and, at one point, on buses, schools and indeed, wherever they wanted. So, that's an example where pressure on people worked really well.

?????!!! Others would see that as what it is.

No I didn't see the link you posted earlier, I've seen it now, thanks for that. 28% of road deaths being cyclists does sound very bad, but it is in the context of a nation where there are a lot more cycles, and a lot less cars, than in the UK, so naturally when deaths happen, many of them will be cyclists, because cyclists make up so more more of the total. This article- https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/more-cycling-fatalities-than-deaths-in-cars/?fbclid=IwAR2QVdDOr9WQGd4hnYAJUszlV-7wy3s6zmLOsz342WCXGR1AMbYNZjtbm-w addresses why when the figures are put into context, they are not as alarming as they seem when not in context. It also points out that a quarter of the deaths are on E-bikes, which are relatively new and clearly more dangerous than standard cycles. I'm no fan of E-bikes personally- obviously they are useful for [some] disabled cyclists and elderly people, but I think anything that increases the speed of a bicycle will clearly increase dangers. The article doesn't mention whether Dutch E-bikes are unrestricted or not, if they aren't, that will make things worse. The article you link to mentions the vast amounts of tourists that Amsterdam attracts- many of the issues the American highlights are in fact due to the tourist problem- it sounds like Amsterdam is experiencing the same ridiculous congestion that we in the UK have with cars, only over there it is cyclists, bolstered by tourists and rental bikes. Still, it could be worse, if they didn't have such large amounts of cycles, imagine the same chaos and congestion, but with motor vehicles instead.

It is important to note that he is saying that wearing a mask does not decrease blood oxygen levels. He is not claiming that masks do not restrict breathing. Masks clearly do restrict breathing, that is why the govt allows people who are disabled and/or people who have respiratory issues to be exempt from masking. I am not aware of any people who are anti compulsory masking making a claim that wearing a mask reduces blood oxygen levels- [I'm not saying none have- just that I don't know of any]; what many are saying is that wearing a mask restricts breathing, which is a very different thing. He says 'I can't breathe', he does not claim that his blood oxygen is low. If you measure you blood oxygen levels using the device in the video, you'll find that, despite you finding the mask restricting your breathing, your blood oxygen levels will be fine.

Strawman time again No-one is, or has, tried to convince you that Sheffield is flat. Neither has anyone quoted Amsterdam because it is flat- Amsterdam has been mentioned because it has gone from being a city dangerous for cyclists [with a correspongingly low numner of cyclists] to a place with an outstanding network of cycle routes and a very high number of cyclists [including most motorists]. Sheffield hills are only a problem for those without appropriate gears- with a cycle with low gears they are easy to get up- I can manage any hill in Sheffield even when I am not fit, because I have a bike with low gears. The reason for the low number of cyclists in Sheffield is that the roads are dangerous, due to the excessive motor traffic. As previously mentioned, surveys have been done and the main reason given by people who would like to cycle but don't, is that the roads are too dangerous, not issues with hills.

What a fantastic strawman! Who's suggesting that we get rid of all history?! There is talk of getting rid of statues celebrating salve traders, and the resulting discussions are doing quite a lot to actually highlight certain bits of history concerning the oppression of those enslaved and the fact that some well respected historical figures were in reality, responsible for, or profiting from, that trade.

When it comes to the descent into global totalitarianism I'd rather it was over slower, ideally, that it didn't happen at all.

Equally, if we sell the ecosystem down the river to keep Poundland going, you could ask the employees if keeping their job was worth watching their children not being able to breathe?

Many don't use that road because it isn't safe. I never used it, except on maybe a nice quiet Sunday morning when there was a lot less cars. Other times I'd either avoid it, or go on the footpath, because, it isn't safe. I've probably used that route more in the past 2 weeks then I have in the whole of the last 2 years, because it is now safe. As the main block to cycling in Sheffield is the perception that cycling isn't safe on the roads full of vehicles, many of which put cyclists at risk by passing too close, it's a safe bet that a big reason they aviod this area is the same reason I did- it's not safe. It's in the future, so we don't know. I'd guess at thousands. Many cyclists use for bikes for the same reasons car drivers do- currently LOTS of cars use that route, cyclists don't as it's unsafe; once it's safe I'd expect lots of cyclists. It is also good for leisure riding [once it's made safe] as, if extended it would connect to the off road cycle route all the way to Oughtibridge.

Some will, some won't. As increasing numbers seem to be taking the expert scientific opinion very seriously, I expect that a lot, maybe even most, won't want to use cars to anywhere the extent that is the norm today. Please don't strawman by implying people who are environmentally concerned don't want or use modern technology- modern technology is key in solving this- they only oppose technology like carbon fueled vehicles which are responsible, along with planes and conventional animal agriculture, for the ongoing destruction of the world ecology. Do note that Greta Thunberg, despite taking climate threat very seriously, has now done more travelling of the world than if she'd just put her head in the sand and stayed in school, and, she's done it in environmentally friendly ways, taking boats instead of planes, for example.

School children are less blinkered- blinkering takes time to happen and a child has experienced considerably less of that process than adults who have been through the system. Teachers need no qualifications in this very complex subject as their job is to pass on the scientific consensus i.e. pass on to the child what the experts who do have experience and qualifications in this very complex subject. Which I'm sure you can see clearly in any other subject, yet on this one [environment] you seem to demand that any teacher must themselves have studied the subject to expert level?!

What you're calling the 'current trendy view' is actually the scientific communty consensus. Referring to Greta Thunberg as a 'silly Swedish teenager' is known as an ad hominim attack i.e. instead of engaging with their arguments, you call them a name instead. It is against forum rules and I suspect it's a main reason you're finding it difficult to get the rational debate you seem to be longing for. As for her being 'still at school', how is that relevant? It's clear to me that on issues like this many school children are considerably less blinkered, and, more intelligent than, much of the adult population.