onewheeldave

Increasingly children are seeing what is really going on here- for example Greta Thunberg. Many are very, very stressed, to the point of mental illness as they look to the future and see blind adults who think 'business as usual' is possible. Business as usual is not possible; where our children are concerned, either we adapt, or, they die. It is that simple.

I believe that is being addressed as well, and it needs to be. Commuting huge distances is not sustainable and there are plenty of things that can be done to incentivise working closer to home and discourage working far from home [obviusly not in ALL cases, but definitely in some/many]. As we've seen during coronavirus, tele conferencing will increasingly remove the need to physically travel in many cases. Because industries always arise when there is opportunity, especially when old industries are dying and innovators and workers need to apply their skills in the new ones.

The manufacturer development and distribution of a cycle does not have as much impact on the environment as that of a motor vehicle. They are a feasible alternative to a lot/some of them. As car journeys continue to become more problematic, they'll be a feasible alternative for more of them, for at least some of their journeys. No, in places like Amsterdam with a good cycling infrastructure cycles are used a lot for non leisure activities like getting to and from work.

I'd argue that if the air is too toxic to breathe, good cash flow won't make up for it. Especially now it's looking like coronavirus is here to stay, and other such viruses will be occuring [incidently, in large part due to modern animal agricultural practices which are also damaging because of the absolute focus on 'good business' at the expense of health and environmental good practice] more often. Because any kind of lowered lung function greatly facilitates succumbing to these infections and inevitably follows from pollution. There are bigger pictures here. And the more that's put into 'clean air' the more taxes and jobs will be generated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in dream world. Don't the motorists here arguing against schemes to promote 'clean air' have children? Think about what your children will have to do in a world where 'clean air' is a distant memory.

The main reason people don't cycle in Sheffield is that it isn't safe. When it is safe, it follows that those people who want to cycle but don't because it isn't safe, will then cycle. Look at Amsterdam- it is safe to cycle there, and, as a direct consequence, lots of the population cycle. If a third or quarter or half of all traffic becomes cycles, that's way more than a couple of cycle accessory shops. And motorists who switch completely from their cash gobbling cars [road tax, fuel, insurance, repairs, future environmental taxes and many more] to cycling are going to have a huge amount of cash to invest in their new hobby and transport. Most cyclists avoid the area- it's an unsafe and unpleasant road. Until now of course.

Maybe they have, and, in some ways Sheffield has lost out [business] in the short term. In others it has gained [clean air]. If this progress continues, who knows how businesses may be created due directly to the increase in cycling, the better air quality etc.

It is likely that there is, as you say, no evidence of damage to business, could be due to the fact that there is no damage to local businesses. It's not like they'd be getting passing trade from the thousands of cars rolling past at high speed. I may well do- if I was a cyclist, or, if I had children and didn't want them growing up in a post environmental catastrophe, or if I had health concerns about me breathing in constant traffic fumes from the vast number of cars passing constantly at the place of my work, etc, etc. Maybe, in the short term. But if you look at the science ['induced demand'] total emmisions fall, due in part to drivers just getting sick of the slow moving traffic and switching to other modes. It is well-established science that has been done over decades- if roads are widened, traffic increase long term, thus so do emmisions. Limiting traffic has the opposite effect.

More likely to be the time of day- 12 noon, outside of rush hour. Maybe it's working as intended, and some motorists on non essential short journeys have got sick of the traffic and walked/cycled instead? No, it doesn't. I don't imply, I say. if most cyclists don't know it exists, obviously not many cyclists will use it. If more did, or most did, then some would use it, certainly more would, no reason to think most would If they want the unique experience of being safe on a busy Sheffield road, then yes. This is the only road cycle path in the area where you can't be hit by a car.

????How do you read my post and think that I've suggested anything like that??? No, I'm simply giving reasons why not many cyclists are on it at this early stage. I had no particular reason to be on it this morning, other than I really like the very unusual feeling of being safe on a road on a cycle. I hope though that cyclists from Totley and other distant areas of Sheffield do come down when they hear about the cycle path, because the more cyclists who experience that very rare feeling of being safe on a road, the more likely it is that they will insist on more proper safe cycling routes being instigated. EDIT- forgot to mention, traffic was fine at that time [12 noon], cars flowing smoothly despite the cycle path.

I was replying to a poster who incorrectly claimed the lane was used by 1 cyclist. So yes, 4 cyclists in the time I was on it. [5 including me]. There are several reasons why uptake in this very early stage is low- 1. most Sheffield cyclists do not know it exists 2. most Sheffield cyclists have avoided that area as, prior to the new proper cycling lane, that road was not safe to cycle on due to the high volume of fast moving traffic, including lorries, many of which would pass way too close to cyclists, putting their lives at risk 3. that area has had white/red blocks on it for the past year due to the extensive road works that have been causing traffic backlogs for the past year. Any cyclist passing through would likely assume that is what this is, at a passing glance it's not immediately obvious that it is a cycle path, and, once you've zipped past the entrances, whether you're on the road, or on the footpath, it is then too late to get onto it 4. Fear. As we've seen on this thread, one person has decided to not cycle, but switch back to their car as a direct result of the hostility they've seen on here from motorists tiowards cyclists

That's called bullying, another reason there aren't as many cyclists on the roads as there should be. An evidence of damage to local businesses? All the science says that, long term, emmisions will be reduced by such schemes.

It is aiding cyclists- they need proper safe cycle lanes, this is the first. You're wrong when you make the bizarre claim that one person used the lane today, when I was on it at midday I saw 4 cyclists on it.

Here are some of the actual reasons why cycle registration and compulsory training are a bad idea, including summaries of past schemes that have failed, often because such schemes cost far more to administer than they collect; from- https://www.bikebiz.com/bicycle-licensing-for-dummies/

Of course. But it's OK for cyclists to ride responsibly on pavements especially if the they judge the road to be too dangerous to cycle on, as stated in the Home Office guideance. Do you want to comment on motorists giving insufficient room when passing cyclists?- that's against the Highway code, you don't seem to be as concerned with that, even though it's a main reason cyclists end up on the pavements.

Two sets of Home Office guidance say otherwise- https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike "when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required". The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law " Whether an adult feels safe in traffic very much depends on the traffic- many motorists pass way too close, this is against the highway code, would you care to address that? With new increased capacity there would only be a short term reduction in congestion and therefore fumes; long term, increasing road capacity results in more cars than before, therefore more congestion and more fumes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

I'd say cycling on pavements is fine if the cyclist is doing so with due care and attention and I believe some years back the govt did issue instructions to police forces that this was the case. Riding on pavements at speed is not OK. One reason that cyclists do ride on pavements is because the road alongside is not safe, due to reckless driving by motorists, many of whom break the highway code by passing cyclists with insufficient space- this is very common and very dangerous. On the stretch of road in question [Shalesmoor] the road is not safe for cyclists, so of course many would use the pavement.

Looks fantastic- heartening to see. Good article too. Do you want to give any reasons why you want it ripped down? Should be interesting

Fair enough- it's one of the aspects of my autism, difficulty finding specific stuff in big blocks of text; nothing to do with eyes being open or shut.

I'll do it for you, your reasoning was-

Don't know- I can't see a date on it. it could be regs for masks on public transport, they won't necessarily apply to the incoming rules for shops.

Not an official govt pronouncement; but thanks anyway, hopefully that will follow. Noticable that it is predicting that the exemptions for compulsory masking in shops are looking to be tighter than they were for public transport.

In your opinion- mine differs. Also, I'm talking about rapes, muggings and other crimes facilitated by masks. You tell me. Make sure you link to valid evidence.

No, I am well able to distinguish between behaviour and opinions of mine that are based on the rigidity of thought and habit associated with autism, and that based on actual reasoning.

I don't think so. I'm keeping my eyes open for an official mention of exemption from compulsory mask wearing in shops for disabled people- I've seen nothing yet, please do let me know if you see anything. I know that disabled people are exhempt from mandetory masking on public transport, but this latest escalation of compulsory masking is a new thing.

I'm talking about any rape, or mugging, or any other crime where wearing a mask is an advantage. Up till very recently, a person in a mask would stand out a mile, and generally be assumed to be very likely up to no good. Now it is becoming the norm- that is a great asset for criminals.