Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[onewheeldave]

6 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

You are wrong, I am not a climate change denier and throwing such an accusation at me, though fashionable and woke, is totally inaccurate - please retract it immediately.

 

 

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]?

[Parkside]

Take the Walkley  turn off from Brook hill traffic Island then do a right on the roads just up the hill near Western Park , Follow  any road down hill , job done ,the tail back avoided , easy that isn't it .

[onewheeldave]

1 minute ago, Weredoomed said:

Well what are the death injury statistics for cyclists at Shalesmoor then? Presumably you must know what they are to assert how dangerous it is. Can you prove it is actually dangerous rather than perceived as being so?

 

And if cyclists choose to avoid the area and go another way, there isn't a problem for them at Shalesmoor because they aren't there in the first place.

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].

[Weredoomed]

17 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

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].

No, that's not how it works. For an improvement to be implemented the statistics at the discrete site must justify the work. How do you think SCC decides where  to install a new signalised crossing - based on who shouts loud enough?  Although I suspect officers appeasing gobby politicians may be a factor occasionally!

 

The evidence does exist and it is needed, otherwise how do local authorities prioritise their spending?

 

Saying that X number of cyclists are killed/injured nationally each year is not justification to install a cycle lane at Shalesmoor, where one already exists by the way, with no evidence that I know of that it is in any way inadequate. Nor is the number of annual fatalities/injuries necessarily justification to install a discrete cycle network.

 

On a separate but related issue, you may not realise that across the UK it is estimated that there could be up to 74,000 deer-related motor vehicle accidents annually, resulting in 400 to 700 human injuries and 20 deaths. I am deafened by the uproar that causes from both environmentalists/naturalists and those concerned about human life, aren't you?

Edited July 9, 2020 by Weredoomed
added question

[tinfoilhat]

5 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

No, that's not how it works. For an improvement to be implemented the statistics at the discrete site must justify the work. How do you think SCC decides where  to install a new signalised crossing - based on who shouts loud enough?  Although I suspect officers appeasing gobby politicians may be a factor occasionally!

 

The evidence does exist and it is needed, otherwise how do local authorities prioritise their spending?

 

Saying that X number of cyclists are killed/injured nationally each year is not justification to install a cycle lane at Shalesmoor, where one already exists by the way, with no evidence that I know of that it is in any way inadequate. Nor is the number of annual fatalities/injuries necessarily justification to install a discrete cycle network.

 

On a separate but related issue, you may not realise that across the UK it is estimated that there could be up to 74,000 deer-related motor vehicle accidents annually, resulting in 400 to 700 human injuries and 20 deaths. I am deafened by the uproar that causes from both environmentalists/naturalists and those concerned about human life, aren't you?

We should probably ban cars then, safer for everyone.

[Weredoomed]

24 minutes ago, Parkside said:

Take the Walkley  turn off from Brook hill traffic Island then do a right on the roads just up the hill near Western Park , Follow  any road down hill , job done ,the tail back avoided , easy that isn't it .

It is and I do it regularly. 

 

BUT.

 

That's called rat-running and through residential areas into the bargain. Highly frowned upon by our betters at SCC, who would rather close off those roads, given half a chance, and force everyone onto a single route that is thus susceptible to gridlock in the event of an accident. But if everyone walked or got on a bike, everything would be sweetness and light. Apparently.

28 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

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]?

To a large extent yes. And you DID call me a climate change denier. Please stop trying to mince words.

4 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

We should probably ban cars SCC then, safer for everyone.

Fixed that for you 🤣

[Martin C]

Wouldn't a better (albeit more expensive) solution in this case to have been to have cut into the fairly wide  (and more than adequate for normal footfall) pavements thereby extending the width of the existing cycle lanes - then adding the red and white barriers to still achieve separation of cycles and motor vehicles?

Edited July 9, 2020 by Martin C
grammar

[RJRB]

This is not an argument created by an anti cyclist brigade.

It’s about the total unsuitability of carrying out this experiment as an add on to a scheme that was intended to ease traffic flow around the city.

There are far more leisure cyclists heading up Loxley Road than I have ever seen heading down Shalesmoor.

In no way is this section of road an important route for cyclists.

Its a loop around the city centre and any cyclist is more likely to use the pathways and back streets if trying to get to  or past the city.

These “rat runs”have been effectively blocked for motor vehicles by No Entry,One Way and other deterrents.all of which can and are conveniently ignored by cyclists.

Someone in an ivory tower is responsible for a total misjudgement and interpretation of a political wish.

 

 

 

[Weredoomed]

2 minutes ago, Martin C said:

Wouldn't a better (albeit more expensive) solution in this case to have been to have cut into the fairly wide  (and more than adequate for normal footfall) pavements thereby extending the width of the existing cycle lanes - then adding the red and white barriers to still achieve separation of cycles and motor vehicles?

It certainly would but that would require civil engineering works, which - as you say - are considerably more expensive than a bit of white thermoplastic and a few red/white plastic blocks. That's without even thinking about any statutory undertakers plant that might be in the footways that would need lowering or protecting/diverting and god alone knows how long it would all take to implement!

5 minutes ago, RJRB said:

This is not an argument created by an anti cyclist brigade.

It’s about the total unsuitability of carrying out this experiment as an add on to a scheme that was intended to ease traffic flow around the city.

There are far more leisure cyclists heading up Loxley Road than I have ever seen heading down Shalesmoor.

In no way is this section of road an important route for cyclists.

Its a loop around the city centre and any cyclist is more likely to use the pathways and back streets if trying to get to  or past the city.

These “rat runs”have been effectively blocked for motor vehicles by No Entry,One Way and other deterrents.all of which can and are conveniently ignored by cyclists.

Someone in an ivory tower is responsible for a total misjudgement and interpretation of a political wish.

 

 

 

Hammer, nail, head.

[Tony]

39 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

Well what are the death injury statistics for cyclists at Shalesmoor then? Presumably you must know what they are to assert how dangerous it is. Can you prove it is actually dangerous rather than perceived as being so?

 

And if cyclists choose to avoid the area and go another way, there isn't a problem for them at Shalesmoor because they aren't there in the first place.

The statistics.

https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search

 

The perception.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/821842/walking-and-cycling-statistics-2018-accessible.pdf

Factors influencing cycling rates

 

Three fifths of adults feel that it is too dangerous to cycle on the roads. In 2019, the first wave of the National Travel Attitudes Study (NTAS) showed that 61% of adults aged 18+ in England agreed that “it is too dangerous for me to cycle on the roads”. Women were more likely than men to agree (68% to 54%) and people were just as likely to agree if they were aged 25-34 as they were aged 65 and older. Cyclists were less likely to believe that cycling was too dangerous for them than non-cyclists (50% to 65%)

 

 

 

The solution going into the future looks like permanent variations of Shalesmoor. The hard truth is that people are going to have to get used to their privileges being shared around a bit more with other, more vulnerable, highway users.  Times change and the days of car-centric design are over and we can either rage against it or work together to make it better for everyone. 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Tony