Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[alchemist]

46 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

There’s no need for such a system. Nowhere else in the world has it, so why should we?

Do you also think pedestrians should have insurance and carry an identification plate?

 

 

Ahh, the good old chestnut whenever this is suggested, thanks for being so predictable

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

Sorry but to get back to the origin of this scheme, it is NOT an environmental scheme, it is a scheme to facilitate easier public movement when the public are being discouraged from using public transport. That is the reason the money was given to the council. Not to save the planet. That is for another day. Ideally when the aircraft industry is brought to book. 

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. 

1 hour ago, creweblade said:

Agree with rjrb - the issue here is that this particular additional cycle lane is inappropriate on the cities arterial ring road especially as the route in question already had a cycle lane and one of the widest footpaths around - bob Jackson and the rest of the council need to have the guts to realise they messed up and reverse this particular change

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.

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

So a scheme that was several years in the planning has been sacrificed barely 6 months after completion, removing road capacity that was (and still is) clearly needed.

There was an interesting section on the BBC's click show at the weekend regarding electric bikes, apparently in many EU countries cyclists using these need to be registered and insured.  Bring it on.

Registration and insurance- fantastic way to encourage more cycling

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

And we wonder why a lot of cyclists seem to be against a number plate type  system and insurance.

 

Seems like cyclists don't want to be identifiable or accountable.

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.

1 hour ago, Crissie said:

I've just returned to cycling after 20-odd years.  I'm in my 60s, overweight and unfit.  I've now lost weight, feel fitter and better, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.  You're right, cycling won't suit everyone, nor all lifestyles, but negativity won't encourage anyone.

Excellent

44 minutes ago, BoroB said:

You may think its unfair and unfounded, I think cyclists should be subject to the same rules as other road users who have to pass a test, be insured and have a number plate to identify them.

If you're so into equality, shall we insist that motorists all drive cars with the same zero emmisions as bicycles

20 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

 

 

An adult cyclist who feels the need to have the security of the pedestrian pavement, shouldn't be on a bicycle in the first place. 

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?

[RJRB]

7 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

And you continually fail to address the subject or recognise that this scheme is a wasted opportunity.

Pedestrians do not have to slavishly follow a particular route.

If you are walking somewhere particular then you follow roads,cross roads and basically go as the crow flies.

Bicycles have many similar options.

Cars have to go as dictated.

Returning to the subject,a quick glance at a map will show you that Shalesmoor to the Parkway loops away from the centre ,as required by previous planning decisions to take traffic away from the city.

 

[BoroB]

4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

 

33 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

Not draconian measures, just equal measures. 

 

So  with a highway being  made up of a road and a footpath,  isn't it usual for vehicles to use the road element and pedestrians to use the part specifically  allocated to them, called the footpath or pavement, to ensure safety for both different parties?

 

I would think that its not a very good idea for a pedestrian to use the road element of a highway and likewise not sensible, if not illegal, for a motorised vehicle to drive on the pavement/footpath element.

 

With regards to number plates and insurance, I believe they help make motorists behave in a responsible manner.  Not all motorists but a vast majority. That's what laws and regulations are there for. Without them behaviour on the roads would be worse.

 

So lets expand the scheme to all road users, treat everyone the same. Equal measures.

 

Not really bothered what happens  worldwide, just with what happens  in the UK.

 

 

[Baron99]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

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?

Their  brains don't stretch to learning or abiding by the Highway Code then? 

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. 

 

Not a shared pavement of course, just the single pavement, reserved solely for pedestrians not scared adult cyclists, who's 'self preservation' puts those entitled to be there at risk. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Baron99

[BoroB]

44 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

Registration and insurance- fantastic way to encourage more cycling

 

If you're so into equality, shall we insist that motorists all drive cars with the same zero emmisions as bicycles

 

Not encourage more cycling but responsible cycling. Some practice it, some don't.

 

The movement towards zero emission cars is taking place and will probably be the norm in the next generation or so,

 

Can we say the same for cyclists being registered,  insured and accountable?

[Tony]

14 minutes ago, BoroB said:

With regards to number plates and insurance, I believe they help make motorists behave in a responsible manner.  Not all motorists but a vast majority. That's what laws and regulations are there for. Without them behaviour on the roads would be worse.

 

Good to see that you've not lost your sense of humour in lockdown.  🤣

[onewheeldave]

27 minutes ago, BoroB said:

 

 

 

With regards to number plates and insurance, I believe they help make motorists behave in a responsible manner.  Not all motorists but a vast majority. That's what laws and regulations are there for. Without them behaviour on the roads would be worse.

 

So lets expand the scheme to all road users, treat everyone the same. Equal measures.

 

 

 

 

Let's not- it will lead to even less take up of cycling when we need much more

21 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Their  brains don't stretch to learning or abiding by the Highway Code then? 

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. 

 

Not a shared pavement of course, just the single pavement, reserved solely for pedestrians not scared adult cyclists, who's 'self preservation' puts those entitled to be there at risk. 

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

 

 

[darylslinn]

12 hours ago, Resident said:

But there also needs to be a massive push in educating cyclists too, it's always the motorist that's the big bad and the cyclist is alway made out to be virtuous and beyond reproach.

 

My job has me driving around the city most of the day and the shear number of them that think the rules and laws of road use are optional if you're pedal powered is staggering. It is a GENUINE surprise when I see one stop at a red light. I've seen them cut up HGVs & buses, go down the left side of vehicles indicating left (on road without cycle lanes).

 

In my experience of driving in Sheffield over the last 2 years the biggest danger to cyclists around Sheffield IS the cyclist. 

It's not helped by the fact the SYP are less than useless and don't bother to give anyone driving/riding in a manner that would contravene the highway code a tug and a word. 

What is amusing  to me that having spoken to a cyclist that uses this route, they now prefer to cut through Kelham Island that is now safe with it not being a rat run for cars avoiding Shalesmoor.... apparently it's also quicker.

34 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Their  brains don't stretch to learning or abiding by the Highway Code then? 

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. 

 

Not a shared pavement of course, just the single pavement, reserved solely for pedestrians not scared adult cyclists, who's 'self preservation' puts those entitled to be there at risk. 

And yet cyclists still prefer to use the pavement around there because of the intermittent way the cycle lane is set out across road junctions and bus stops.

[Parkside]

30 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Their  brains don't stretch to learning or abiding by the Highway Code then? 

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. 

 

Not a shared pavement of course, just the single pavement, reserved solely for pedestrians not scared adult cyclists, who's 'self preservation' puts those entitled to be there at risk. 

It seems strange that  the electric carts that so many now use as every day transport can  take all the pavement up and travel at 8 MPH  , while a person on a shopper type bike is deemed to be breaking the law while taking up less space and usually at a slower speed. .