ECCOnoob

What is it about the documentation or their sources that make you believe it's not true? You need to be looking into it a bit more. The British International Freight Association were reporting on truck driver shortages across the whole of Europe as early as 2018. Reuters have been regular reporting about out delivery backlogs, surges in demand and other problems causing short supply on a range of goods affecting the USA and mainland Europe as well as the UK. Bloomberg has reported on shipping issues with fierce bidding wars to find limited places for containers which is affecting the delivery and chain of raw materials which manufacturers need to make their own goods. It is not some black and white problem and certainly not something the hot air blowers, opinionators and politicos can be fobbing off as simply a brexit issue. In any event, none of which is regard the topic at hand which is this hysteria self made crisis on fuel.

So why dont people believe it when the fuel companies themselves are saying there is no shortage issues?? Let me guess, the people have a complete distrust in the corporate machine as much as they do the government. We really are doomed aren't we.

Actually, I disagree. It is partly our fault. I have said before that people as a collective are dumb, reactionary, emotive. They are fuelled by the media whose agenda is less on facts and more on sensationalism to sell their papers. It is widely documented that there are driver shortages all over Europe at the moment. So those simplisticly chirping about brexit can do one. A private company makes it very clear that they had a small number of outlets which had a limited supply and yet 24-hours later half of the bloody country is out there are hysterical filling up their vehicles, which of course the media then reports all over the papers with dramatic headlines which fuelled even more to go out and do the same. This is all in the face of not only the government but several distributors and few operators all clearly stating there is no shortage. If people just calmed down and just fuelled when they needed as they would do normally - supply will flow around. So therefore people are dumb and people are to blame. Trying to pay this on the government as a trust issue is nonsense. This "crisis" is virtually being created by ourselves.

I must have either been lucky or some of the news stories on the internet are all being hyped up. Went to Sainsbury's at peaks yesterday afternoon, no queues, no chaos, a couple of diesel pumps closed off but unleaded seemed plentiful. Similar story when I drove past my local independent garage which again did not have more than about 3 or 4 cars and no tailbacks down the road. Prepared to some of the horrendous scenes I've seen in the Sheffield Star about "motorist madness" I must be on a different planet. Maybe Morrisons and Tesco shoppers are a little bit more hysterical or selfish with their panic buying.

Nice change of subject there because you don't have an answer. Maybe you should use a dictionary yourself to look at the word preferential Anyway, since it is still not relevant to the original point raised and you have still not provided any categoric evidence that the truck was at fault in this accident - I'm done with this conversation. I have better things to be doing today. It is clear what you stand for. I disagree. Time to draw a line under this.

What you mean like closing off an entire road junction causing drivers to detour and reducing what was an arterial dual carriageway route from the city centre into a trundling single carriageway. That in my eyes is clear inconvenience to motorists and giving a favourable position to cyclists. In other words, preferential treatment. Without any such stupid installation of the temporary cycle lane both vehicle drivers and cyclists can still freely travel on it, use it and they could both still have equal access the various side roads. Do you get the point yet?

You first. Come on. Money where your mouth is, since you starting beating this old drum and clearly making wild assumptions about some tragic accident to further your obvious agenda. It's been pointed out that clearly it is not possible to avoid every single potential risk of a cyclist crossing a live traffic junction and potentially coming into collision with another vehicle. It is clearly not feasible to apply completely segregated cycling infrastructure across every single part of the road network. It is clearly obvious that there has to be some compromise on the roads which are used by both cyclists and other vehicles. So go on, give some good reasons as to why exactly cyclists should have priority over other road users. Why should motorised vehicles be subjected to a seemingly increasing number of heavy restrictions, partial or entire road closures, detours, road narrowing or other such measures which obviously cause significant inconvenience just for the benefit of cyclists. Why should they get the preferential treatment?

Why should bicycle commuters?

Yes but to do that, a perfectly legal access road leading to a specific location would have to be closed to vehicles. Thus the point is, unless we are going to close every single potential Junction where cyclist might crossover ( which is simply ridiculous) - this very same type of accident could have happened in a million other locations just as easily. A child of 5 can understand there has to be some compromise and there will always be some occasion when cyclists and other traffic are alongside each other. That comes with risk which is a simple part of life. Notwithstanding all this endless tit-for-tat argument, nobody has still proven categorically that the truck was at fault. Whose to say the injured cyclist wasn't to blame.

How could the junction be closed if the cement mixer turned into it. When exactly did this accident you are banging on about happen? Are we talking in the past or recent times? It's not making sense. Why don't you actually go off and get some proper facts and then we might be able to have some sort of proper debate. The tweet you quoted in post #1110 does not show that the junction is "closed off" nor from looking at the photograph above does there appear to be any signs either. Therefore, if the truck was perfectly entitled to make a left turn into this Junction to access wherever questions have to be asked as to what the cyclist did. Like I said before, responsibility works both ways

You still haven't provided one shred of evidence that the tipper truck is liable here. What about if your precious cyclist was riding recklessly. It's perfectly possible that the truck was patiently stopped, indicating to turn, then arrogant entitled cyclist comes flying past on the left side CAUSING an accident. As I said before, responsibility works both ways. Same sort of accident could have easily happened on any junction on any type of road. It could have even happened as a bike v pedestrian as there are many an opportunity where some arrogant cyclists comes flying up Fargate or down The Moor Despite your delusions, we don't cycle lane every single piece of tarmac. It's a traffic accident - that's all. Get over yourself.

Yes it does need saying because no one has a clue what the hell you are going on about. You are not seriously suggesting that we should suddenly close all junctions and all roads just in case a cyclist happens to have an accident when a different vehicle happens to turn into it. It's an accident. It could have been the cyclist's fault. It could be the truck's fault. It could have even been both. For god sake stop with a speculation and dramatics. Someone choosing to wibble and wobble along a live carriageway has an element of risk. Stuff happens. No matter how good and how separate the cycling infrastructure there will always be some point when a bike meets vehicles. Junctions have to exist. As others have said, the cement truck was not turning left on some whimsy. They needed access to that particular location. A similar just as tragic accident could happen anywhere else tomorrow and the week after and the week after that.

Based on...?

But people need to get around. Goods need to be transported. Services need to be maintained. Utilities have to be installed an upgraded. That ain't been done on the back of the bike. Even some of the most progressive cities particularly in the Nordic areas (even those offering totally free public transportation or heavy infrastructure involving cycling) still have great investment in their road systems to support the same. This is not one or the other and I think your comments are way off the mark. Flyovers and underpasses are the way to keep transport out of the close-knit central area and get it moving in, out and around far more efficiently. If what you see as "outdated, undesirable and a thing of the past" is reflected in the rest of the council planning department it explains so much about why we have the incompetent mess of a road system we have now

Who was found liable? What exactly were the circumstances of the accident? What was the visibility? What was the speed? Let's get some facts before making wild assumptions to clearly further some agenda. Cyclists have just as much as possibility for their OWN welfare as any other road users.

This is all well and good, and I don't disagree with many of the points that Andrew C has raised in their post...but Nobody seems to be addressing the obvious first question and biggest hurdle that most of these campaigners and groups seem to constantly ignore -- Why exactly should car drivers give up their vehicles. Why should they face some arbitrary decision on whether they need to use their car or not. They worked hard to pay for that vehicle. They pay for tax on that vehicle. Driving lessons and tests cost a lot of money and are hard work for many people to achieve. Driving is a perfectly legal activity mandated by the government. .... so, why on earth are people suddenly expected to stop after all that time and effort. Yes we have all heard the campaigns, yes we are all aware of the environmental impact but nearly all of the dialogue is focused on how vehicles are powered not the use of personal transport itself. Solution: change how they are powered and that is down to manufacturers and government not individual drivers. Yes we have all heard the dialogue about too many vehicles on the road but many would argue that that is a result of overpopulation and those selfish breeders are just as much a contributor to global warming than 100 car drivers. So how come the proud parents and yummy mummy brigade are not getting penalised the same way and made to face some harsh decision. Yes there are alternative means of getting around but a vast majority of people do not live in high-density urban environments like London or New York. They live in Suburbs. The working world and globalisation of economy means that many of them have to travel well beyond their place of residence everyday to get to work. Finally let's not forget the simple fact that nothing public transport wise is ever going to beat the the absolute control, flexibility and convenience of having personal transport. A miserable day sat in a traffic jam in a car is one thing but I bet most car drivers will still prefer it to being sitting in a traffic jam with loads of strangers on a bus or stuck in some cold damp railway station because of some delay or crammed underground in a sewer train. That is the first hurdle needs to be got over before anything else starts being brought up. All well and good going for the easy targets, disrupting and making a nuisance like the morons currently on the M25 but who exactly is answering the tough questions. It's almost laughable that car drivers are being penalised the way they are when our impact on the global emissions is minuscule compared to some other countries and the government announce they are already doing something about it. Add on the fact that they they are threatening to push car drivers into all Electric in the next decade when we are still running 50 year old diesel trains on our crippled embarrassing rail network. When the government does try to do something to drag the railways into the 21st century the same morons probably protesting on the M25 are then complaining about HS2 and the disruption that's going to cause to the landscape. When the local authority tries to set up some ambitious tram network it's always met with the "how much?" brigade banging on about how many nurses or doctors or care workers it could pay for.... People wonder why these don't get taken seriously.

Hahahaha. You don't seriously think the incompetent bureaucrats at our council want us plebs driving into the city centre do you? No no no. Did you not get the memo? We are all being forced to be cycling and walking. It's all part of their wonderful "connecting Sheffield" scam, err, sorry I meant scheme. .

Yes and vice versa when NHS treatment goes wrong. I've seen those compensation amounts flowing out from NHS Resolution. Don't be underestimating how many claimants start demanding private restoration treatment as part of their settlement as soon as they prove negligence. Nice try.

You must be joking. Morgan is one of the biggest two-faced backstabbing fakers of the lot. Crawling up someone's back side one-minute whenever it suits his ego or boosts his profile and then at the flip of a coin he is laying into them all over the screen and social media because they did or said something he didn't like. That's behavioral traits he was notorious for even back in his gutter press days. People go on about how great it is that he "speaks his mind" if that's a good thing. Donald Trump speaks his mind, Katie Hopkins speaks her mind, Jesus even Adolf Hitler spoke his mind but I doubt we'll have many on here praising him for being outspoken and to the point. Morgan is an ego filled narcissistic bully with a long-standing history of extremely vile, aggressive and vindictive actions against people or organisations he decided he doesn't like. After the insider share dealing, phone hacking, fake photographs, public spats online, trolling and of course unprofessional childish on-air walkout scandals its a absolute disgrace that this creature was given any form of public platform let alone still being hired to be the face of a TV networks. My only hope is that one day he well and truly gets what he deserves.

Dear me Murdoch is as deluded as Morgan. No dear every channel does not want him. Can't wait to see this car crash happening. Have they not seen GB News start on a low point and continue to bury itself in the core of the Earth. Oh well, at least it will hopefullt get him off mainstream TV and into the obscurity of the back end of the channel list where he belongs.

Not at all. But as someone who has been involved in community projects in the past and still does committee stuff for charities I often get very frustrated when people start doing a load of armchair criticisms, and having a go at something groups have worked hard to establish, without fully understanding its purpose and aims. Like I keep saying, if people feel its poor quality and they could do better, the opportunities are there. Get on with it. Assuming since you cannot "be bothered" to reply my to my post you will not be one of those. I'm sure people will make up their own minds. I just like them to have the full context and understanding before they do.

Because it's supposed to be about giving a platform for the minority voices who are generally overlooked. It is supposed to be a community station run and fronted by members of the community. It is not about making money or becoming some superstar status. You are right, people can chase the money and fame offered by platforms such as YouTube but don't think for a second they won't face the same if not even more strict levels of control, rejection and overrule. Don't think for a minute that out of the thousands of thousands of YouTubers uploading everyday they are all making comfortable living out of it. In fact for many it's net deficit. It's even worse as there is so little human control and more by the might of the algorithm. If they are not producing the type of populist content that the algorithm mysteriously and totally randomly computes is attractive to advertisers you watch how much quicker they will fade into obscurity. Yes of course Sheff TV has to have some form of pitching and control and audition but that is because they are bound by the broadcast regulations just like any other network. However let's think beyond just money. Like many voluntary projects it is about someone's passion, someone's interest or just reaching out to a slightly wider audience. Not everyone has the internet, as people keep saying on this forum, and this offers a smaller more bespoke platform those people but still with a potentially wide audience capture. It can offer real local news which is not coming from some journalist phoning it in from the other side of Leeds (or in some cases on Commercial local radio literally google searching for the town location and picking the top 2 stories while sitting in some centralised news centre in London). It can also offer a great opportunity for anyone with an interest in film or Media to hone some of their skills in a real live studio setting. I emphasize again, it is supposed to be about a community service. It never is or was intended to be some genuine rival to ITV or Netflix. Regardless, the simple point is that instead of people sitting there whinging and moaning about the channel content, they can get off their backsides and go produce something themselves if they think it's so easy. That is the whole point about open access.

Its a not-for-profit community station Go ahead and submit a pitch for your own show if you feel its not delivering what people want and could do better. That is partly what it's all supposed to be about. Open access for the local community. https://web.sheffieldlive.org/get-involved/

The people are consenting to it. They consent to it everytime they sign up to a newsletter to get a 20% discount. They consent to it everytime they sign up to a free Wi-Fi service in a store or train station or shopping centre. They consent to it through their home broadband service..... oh, they may think that they have a right to privacy but at the end of the day it is not their network - it is not there server - it is not their broadband. They are renting it from somebody else who behind the scenes has full control to track monitor and observe anything that happens on that network. It's all there in black and white. Set out in the contract information. All explained in the terms and conditions agreement. But I bet most people don't bother looking at it before they hit the big green accept button. Many years ago they tried to restrict what companies could do with their use of sneaky cookies. When GDPR came into force they actually took quite a hard line over here and msde it very clear that companies have to get your consent for when they want to use tracking. That resulted in every single website and every single page popping up with annoying banbers asking you to consent or opt-out or select what levels of cookies and tracking you wish them to have..... what happened after 5-minutes, people got so fed up with it they just fell back into the habit of just hitting the I accept all button. Trying to control companies is one thing but actually getting joe public to pay attention and give a toss is an even bigger thing.

The redeveloped Market Hall. It's on the main street and replaced the old Metropolitan Centre building. It's had its soft opening but is still a long way from finished with many of its leisure facility still to be built. Also as with most of these redevelopments, four or five of the shops I have seen on the tenant list are simply moving from other locations in the town including Next, TK Maxx and SportsDirect. That's some quite big hole being left elsewhere. From what I've seen it is nice enough and a freshening up of the area but I wouldn't be making any special trip to it yet unless you are in town anyway. It's really not worth it.