onewheeldave

In many cases it will be jealousy. Most motorists grew up in an age where cars were seen as a rite of passage and as symbols of freedom. The reality in 2020 is diametrically opposed to freedom. The motorist must accomplish jumping through an ever-expanding list of hoops including, being ruthlessy fined if their most minor deviation from the rules is caught on camera, the degredation of that fine increasing for each day they have the temerity to maintain their [often justified innocence] so they just pay up to avoid the threat of it escalating to hundreds of pounds and the threat of bailiffs. Getting more thoroughly ripped off by insurance companies with each passing year, the ever rising cost of maintenance and repairs as manufacturers incorporate more and more chip based tech into the most minor of car functions, so, if your window winder breaks, it'll cost £300 for a technician with the necessary software for that proprietary chip to fix it. Huge amounts of time sitting in their souped up sports car going absolutely nowhere it gridlocked traffic- wait for this light, wait for that, stop, start, stop again. Getting progressively more overweight and ill due to lack of exercise due to all the time sat in their car going nowhere. Then to top it all, watching cyclists whizz through the jams, carefree with none of those beaurocratic hoops to worry about, far less expense; getting to their destination way faster than the motorist [cycle is the quickest way to get from A to B in gridlocked city centres] getting fitter and healthier in the process. Humans are primates, this is how primates behave when they see someone else get a better deal.

Masks aren't useful in rapes and muggings?! I'm keen to see your reasning on that one. That is patently not true. The negatives I'm given for compulsory mask use [I've no problem with voluntary maks use] include health issues, civil liberty issues, facilitation of masked crime [assualts/rapes] and disproportioate negative effects on minority groups, including many autistic people, deaf people and disabled people in general. They don't need help with knowledge of what type of posts break forum rules, but they do welcome having the posts pointed out to them as they have limited time and there are a lot of posts on this forum. What you said exactly was- i.e. if it limits the spread or not, do it, conform. Conforming is, in your own words "The point". "if it limits the spread or not" includes the scenario where it does not limit the threat i.e. it doesn't work- nevertheless, your advice even in that scenario is "just conform".

Another negative of masks which I've not seen discussed anywhere, is that they greatly facilitate crimes like muggings and sexual abuse/rape. In a society where video cameras are common and often not noticable, there is a disincentive to commit such crimes, where the opportunity may arise, due to fear of the potential attacker of their face having been recorded on a shop camera 100 yards down the road, which could enable police to connect that person with being in that area at the time of the assault. When mask wearing becomes the norm, I think it's inevitable that muggings and sexual assaults/rapes will rise . [this point relates to general maks wearing, not the upcoming mask compulsivity in shops- however, making masks compulsory in shops is highly likely to increase the wearing of masks in all public scenarios, plus, having seen a front page report today on the govt considering making masks compulsory in offices as well, it's looking like making them compulsory in shops is the thin edge of a big wedge]

No- they are the same. I'm autistic and in addition have very, very specific dietary requirments [very common in autistic people and more so in my case as I use diet to control serious physical issues]- no way a voluntary group could source the foods I need. I agree, I've no problem with anyone choosing to wear a mask, I've got a big problem with forcing people to wear one. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52985446 Several examples there I've noticed that most stores seem to have removed the distance markers/arrows. Consensus of experts seems to be that social distancing is more effective tham masks, so if compulsory masking leads to less social distancing, then it is counter-productive (makes things worse, not better] At least you're honest - doesn't matter if masks are useless, the important thing is that people conform. THAT is exactly why I oppose compulsory masks, because forcing conformity for no good reason other than conformities sake, is the root of totalitarianism. The rest of your post is pure ad hominem attack, which is against forum rules.

Let's not- it will lead to even less take up of cycling when we need much more Please remember to chip in the next time someone claims the new cycle path is unnecessary due to the big wide footpaths on that stretch

They're not immune, as you well know. Neither did I claim they were, as you well know. In addition to the risks of the virus, they've also been hit disproportionatley hard by the lockdown, some are dead because of it. I very much doubt that the population of England at that time would have complied with house arrest of the healthy population and being forced to wear cloth rags on their face.

No one has said it is an environmental scheme. But obviously more cycles and less cars on the roads are very good for the environment. Aircraft are also bad for the environment but is would be very silly to insist on eradicating aircraft before we're allowed to discuss the environmental issues of cars and the environmental positives of cycles. The cycle lane is rubbish- a strip of paint in the gutter, with cars/vans/lorries whipping by at high speed, often way too close. Registration and insurance- fantastic way to encourage more cycling No, they just don't want unecessary and pointless bureaucracy and expense for something so simple, pleasant and environmentally friendly as riding a bike without being killed. Excellent If you're so into equality, shall we insist that motorists all drive cars with the same zero emmisions as bicycles Any cyclist with a brain and sense of self preservation would be on the pavement on that stretch prior to the recent installation of a proper cycle path [not the old strip of paint in the gutter, the new one with barriers so cars can't get into it]. Anyway what's the deal with the anti-new path brigade- 1/2 of them are complaining when cyclists use a footpath, but in this thread they're saying we don't need the new cycle path as the pavement is so wide and lovely for cyclists?

I like that. Be aware then that you wearing a mask makes some of us uncomfortable- reminds us that there are moves afoot to bully and force us to do something we don't want to do. The measures have affected many minority groups from the start- many autistic people cannot queue for example, and so couldn't get into shops. As part of my role as Autism Acceptance Officer for a local social enterprise I did do a small survey asking supermarket managers what instructions they had been given for autistic people who couldn't queue- the answer was 'none'. The lockdown has disproportionately impinged upon autistic people, deaf people and disabled people in general, from the start. Be aware that disabled people are exempt from wearing masks on public transport- hopefully the same will be true for the upcoming shop/supermarket mask requirements. Though it is worth noting that many disabled people are avoiding using public transport because of the hostility they receive from some masked members of the public who can't seem to deal with people not wearing masks even when they are fully entitled to not do so.

This particular scheme is an effort to increase cycling uptake and an increase in cycling with the consequent decrease in motor vehicles is very much about saving the environment [as well as saving the medical services and public health]. As Tony points out, the main block to people taking up cycling is that the roads are currently not safe for cyclists. Once they are safe for cyclists, there will obviously be a lot more cyclists, given that taking up cycling comes with great financial savings and health improvements [the exact opposite of car use] as well as being very pleasant in itself.

A thought on the emergency vehicles having problems getting through. This of course is an issue on any city centre road in rush-hour, regardless of the current situation with the cycle path. However, if said path was wide enough for emergency vehicles to get through, it would be an amazing asset in emergencies as ambulances responding with sirens on, could have a clear path without the usual waits for numerus cars to get out of the way. Simply shift the blocks temporarily at the start of the path, and, it would be by far the fastest route in emergencies.

No, I'm just aware that the negatives of the measures far outweigh the positives i.e. very serious threat to civil liberties which could well facilitate a rise in global totalitarianism, now it's clear just how complient much of the public are, along with the inevitable deaths caused by a trashed economy, the effects on mental illness etc, etc. Just seeing a bigger picture. Many people have not had treatment during the lockdown. The lockdown which ironically was meant to stop the NHS being overwhelmed; the NHS has come nowhere close to being overwhelmed [see youtube for lots of videos of nurses and medical staff posting their mass dance routines they used to alleviate the boredom]. Sadly it is likely to be overwhelmed over the net year due to the huge backlogs of patients who couldn't be treated due to the lockdown. --------------------------- Very sad to see a total lack of public awareness, media attention & govt attention on the ACTUAL causes of coronavirus. Modern animal agricultural systems are almost always the root cause of viruses crossing the species barrier and becoming pandemic- we've not seen much about that in the news have we? [other than the wet markets of course, which is not what I'm talking about here]. And the main cause of people dying from what is, for most, a minor illness, is extreme ill-health i.e. type II diabetes, obesity, heart disease, rife in our cultures and the majority of which is caused by modern bad diet and lifestyle. So, lots of pressure to force people to wear a mask, but no mention of sorting out diet/lifestyle, losing weight, stopping smoking etc. Someone smoking is doing far more to boost their chance of getting the virus [and hence, in your eyes, putting everyone at risk] than someone not wearing a mask- how come they are not being targetted? Another main factor in increasing susceptability is air pollution- I see we've missed another huge opportunity having seen what the absence of cars did to air quality- now the roads are very much headed back to 'normal'. But Hey- forget about all that- it's only facts and science; let's focus on forcing everyone to wear masks

Vera Lynn, World War II, civil liberty and attempts to take away civil liberty. The Elderly have every right to choose how they conduct their lives for the [probably] short time they have left, they lived through the last big attempt to take away everyone's civil liberty and many fought against it. They are also the very group most vulnerable to the virus, so, if they choose to not cower under masks, and even to be close to one another, that is their right. You're choosing to curtail your 'liberty'. Worse, you're trying to impose your choices on those who have refused to comply with the erosions to civil liberty that have been imposed. Truth is not remotely determined by popular opinion [think of World War II for one of many examples]. Really? I indeed do not want to be part of that 'team'. As for restrictions, it's looking like global totalitarianism in well under 40 years We British used to have a tendency to resist authoritarian bullying, sadly seems to have dissapeared now. Not wanting to be forced against our will to wear a mask is nothing to do with vanity. Many have been denied cancer treatment as well as treatment of many other conditions- as a result of the coronavirus measures/lockdown; there will be a lot of deaths over the next few years due soley to the lockdown. Children with terminal cancer have died unable to be visited by their families due to the measures.

Good, it was the traffic, glad to see people telling it the way it is. If the roads were not jammed with ridiculous numbers of cars emergency vehicles would never have problems.

No-one has said it would. No-one. In isolation it is a meaningless statistic. How many cyclists used the road in that period? How many didn't use it because they judged it to be dangerous? How many injuries/deaths would have occurred if all those cyclists who didn't use it as they judged it to be too dangerous, had done?

That wouldn't help with congestion according to the established science [induced demand]. How is averting ecological collapse caused [in large part] by car congestion, a strawman in a thread addressing congestion and the cycling solution to polution?

I'm prioritising the things I consider really important- getting more cycles on the roads, getting a lot less cars/vans/lorries, saving the planets ecology, helping public health, trying to prevent the next generations of children growing up in a dying environment etc. I appreciate what you're saying here "which is never going to be used by commuting or leisure cyclists in any number." however, I've addressed it several times. That road is not safe for cyclists, and it's not perceived as safe for cyclists, and that, IMO, accounts for there not being many cyclists using it. IMO, it is a fantastic route for cyclists now it has a proper, car free path. Is this the best road for this path/experiment? I don't know- I suspect that whichever road had been chosen we'd have a similar amount of motor drivers up in arms for different reasons. Why don't you suggest some options where you think a dedicated car-free cycle path could have been put? That area has had snarled up traffic as long as I can remember, caused entirely by really excessive numbers of cars on the roads. As previously mentioned, making roads inconvenient for motor vehicles seems to be the only scientifically known way to cut vehicle numbers- I posted the links earlier [induced demand and car diet].

You'd have to define what you in particular mean by "proportionately beneficial to commuting cyclists". And remind me why the focus on commuting cycles? I use the route a lot when cycling, although I steadfastly avoided the actual road as it is not safe for cyclists [it is now, of course, as they have a dedicated car-free path]. This is also why you're not seeing many cyclists there at the moment- they will have been on it and decided that being passed by fast moving articulated lorries at 6 inch distance is not safe and found routes that aviod it. I use it a lot [when I cycle, which was a lot during the lockdown, less now as Sheffield is not a pleasant or safe place to cycle due to the car congestion] it connects town to the Penistone road [off road] cycle path which links to the excellent [off road] cycle path to Oughtibridge and has lots of options for scenic routes and options for avoiding or seeking out good steep hills. As a direct result of having access to a proper cycle path with a guarantee that I will not be passed at 6" by a lethal metal box, or rammed by a driver pre-occupied with their illegal use of a phone, I will certainly be doing more cycling.

To be fair, if Planner1 does sample the route, he should also do it on a cycle to get a real perspective. In fact, to all the motorists slating this scheme, to be fair I think you also do it on a cycle, and then find a similar road during rush hour and compare how it feels when you're using the more traditional 'cycle paths' in the form of a narrow strip of paint full of grit at the edge of a busy road being passed by vans at a distance of 6 inches.

Actually that's another reason why we don't require specific cycle accident stats at each specific location. Perception is key here. If potential cyclists perceive cycling in Sheffield as too dangerous then they won't get bikes and cycle. And the priority is to get more people cycling. Dedicated cycling routes with motor vehicles excluded is the best way to make cyclists feel safe, as it is impossible for them to be passed innapropriately or run into by cars, if there are no cars able to access the lane. It's really the only way to ensure safety.

Then you appear to be contradicting yourself. You are aware the work has been done- 2 cycle lanes put in place with barriers to keep cars out. Then you say work CAN'T be done without "statistics at the discrete site". Then you ask me for those stats, implying that you don't have them as that don't exist. So clearly the work can be done without specific site stats- the fact that it HAS been done proves that. Here is my exact quote See the bit in brackets? Some are climate change deniers- they deny climate change is happening full stop. Some are climate change [as in caused by humanity] deniers- they acknowledge that climate changes but deny it is caused by human pollution. I called you a "climate change [as in caused by humanity] denier" not a climate change denier. It's a very important distinction, otherwise confusion arises. Maybe that's what is in mind long term? Maybe this quicker and cheaper fix is simply the first stage?

I'm talking about general cycling death/injury statistics. I've explained why I don't get sucked into demands for evidence that doesn't exist and is not needed, and consider such demands to be stalling tactics [albeit maybe, in your case, unintentional ones].

I didn't say you were a climate change denier, I said you were a denier of human caused climate change. Do you believe that the current change in climate is caused by human activity [pollution etc]?

There are many types of evidence as well. Look at the death/injury statistics for cyclists, they are not good. Also, as I previously mentioned, absence of accidents in specific places could just as well be becasue cyclists avoid those areas as they consdier them unsafe for cycling.

Clearly not, as the lanes have been put in place.

When it comes to road bikes a lot of the riders who are serious about them don't use mudguards as it is seen as detreimental to the aesthetics of the bike, plus, those riders wear lycra and so dn't mind getting water/mud splashes as they just bung it in the washing machine afterwards. Others aren't into it in that way, but bought a full on road bike because they liked the look of it, and then on realising that they don't like getting wet, learnt that those types of bikes tend to have inadequate clearance so fitting proper mudguards is either impossible or very difficult. I wish bike sellers would point out to people in advance that road bikes are not good for general purpose cycling- they have very narrow tyres and inadequate clearance/fittings for mudguards, panniers etc. This tactic again? Reminds me of the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow- "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him." Another climate change [as in caused by humanity] denier then. And that's OK, you're entitled to your opinion. But, on a thread like this, when you're offering 'arguments' that basically are justifying increasing car numbers and condemning increasing cyclist numbers, it would be good if you could be open about the fact that you are a climate change denier.