Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Planner1]

11 hours ago, Weredoomed said:

I think you'll find that's what we pay those allegedly highly-skilled* people SCC to do.

 

Although they've got it mixed up and have brought us a problem at Shalesmoor, rather than a solution.

 

*Evidence of their actual skill level seems to be somewhat adrift from "highly".

I think you are perhaps forgetting that it was a politician who decided to implement this scheme in this location.

 

The officers advise the politicians, present them with options and tell them what the likely impacts are.

 

The politicians make the decisions, because  nowadays, in many cases (like this one), you can't deliver an improvement for one type of road user without inconveniencing another. The politicians have to take difficult decisions in the best interest of the city and its people. They are accountable at the ballot box

 

If a politician has made a decision you don't like, you shouldn't  blame the officers or imply they are lacking in skill.

[Planner1]

12 minutes ago, Ravenger said:

and is causing traffic chaos in the surrounding area, and probably not helping pollution levels either;

I'd think "chaos" is a bit of an over used exaggeration. Its causing some queuing on a section of the inner ring road. That's not "chaos" in my book.

 

I do find it rather hypocritical when motorists trot out the pollution argument. If they were that concerned about it they'd be either driving a zero emission vehicle or using a more sustainable form of travel.

[Resident]

2 hours ago, Baron99 said:

That would be down to the individual cyclists to take action.  As far as I can see these days, many of them wear helmet cameras & so if they feel they have been cut-up; squeezed into the gutter; suffered due to poor driving by  motorists or generally abused on the roads, they have the evidence to show the police, including the vehicle registration. 

 

Have any kind of confrontation with a cyclist riding on the pavement, like I did a few weeks ago, (bear in mind we're not talking usually walking along pavements next to major roads stacked with traffic), while walking my dog, where I refused to back down, (fortunately I'm a big fella, not easily intimidated), the result is usually the cyclist ends up in their rightful place, back on the road for 50m of so until they're well out of my way & they believe they're safe, then I usually cop for 'the rods' & a volley of abuse.   Nice. 

 

Such abuse only confirms further to me that such cyclists KNOW they're in the wrong for cycling on the pavement in the first place & I'm right. 

 

Do you know, I might just buy a cycle helmet with a camera attached so I can wear it when I take the dog out for a walk,. so I can identify & report cyclists to the authorities. 

 

I'm looking for a new hobby. 

Just buy a body-cam. Saves you looking like a complete tit in a helmet. 

[Guest busdriver1]

6 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I'd think "chaos" is a bit of an over used exaggeration. Its causing some queuing on a section of the inner ring road. That's not "chaos" in my book.

 

I do find it rather hypocritical when motorists trot out the pollution argument. If they were that concerned about it they'd be either driving a zero emission vehicle or using a more sustainable form of travel.

Hold on, I will just shake the money tree then rush out and buy a zero emissions car, or should I cycle the 35 mile trip to work every day? 

The point that is being made and made clearly is that this scheme is causing unnecessary pollution and is not aiding cyclists.

The damage to local businesses is just another level of damage but hey, thats ok because 1 person used this cycle lane today hurray.

Edited July 16, 2020 by busdriver1

[Planner1]

17 minutes ago, Ravenger said:

That this was ever considered a good idea reflects very badly on the Council, and it has been a complete waste of money. How much did it cost to implement this ludicrous scheme? How much will it cost to remove it?

Does it really reflect badly?

 

The government have funded these "emergency" measures and they are the main funders for all transport schemes.  The funding usually comes via the City Region. It is government and City Region policy to promote significant mode shift to active travel modes.

 

Do you not think that by adopting radical measures to promote cycling and walking, the Council actually put themselves in a good light with the people who fund the schemes, which may be to their benefit in future government funding programmes?

[Guest busdriver1]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Do you not think that by adopting radical measures to promote cycling and walking, the Council actually put themselves in a good light with the people who fund the schemes, which may be to their benefit in future government funding programmes?

Or could they prove to government they are not fit for purpose and should not have any future funding because they made such a balls up of this lot?

[RJRB]

11 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I think you are perhaps forgetting that it was a politician who decided to implement this scheme in this location.

 

The officers advise the politicians, present them with options and tell them what the likely impacts are.

 

The politicians make the decisions, because  nowadays, in many cases (like this one), you can't deliver an improvement for one type of road user without inconveniencing another. The politicians have to take difficult decisions in the best interest of the city and its people. They are accountable at the ballot box

 

If a politician has made a decision you don't like, you shouldn't  blame the officers or imply they are lacking in skill.

Rather defensive of your profession.

I assume that the case was built and presented by planners and traffic engineers to the powers that be,and between them they arrived at a scheme that was irrational.

Some aspects were chaotic such as emergency vehicles unable to make progress.

Others were inconvenient,time wasting,extra pollution causing.

A case can be presented in a number of ways depending what outcome you prefer.

I can only assume that in this instance it must have been persuasive.

 

 

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, busdriver1 said:

Hold on, I will just shake the money tree then rush out and buy a zero emissions car, or should I cycle the 35 mile trip to work every day? 

The point is that if something is really important to you, perhaps you adjust your spending priorities and actions accordingly.

 

You don't necessarily have to buy a new car, you can lease one or use public transport.

[Crissie]

26 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

In my life I have taken and passed 4 tests for different categories of road vehicles and passed them all first time. That is not something many can say, yet, I am still happy to take another, I want the roads to be safe for all and that would go a long way towards it and would also sort out some who really should not be on the roads but had a lucky day on their test day.

I too have passed several tests - 5 in total, counting IAM car & bike.  None of these matter one jot to the people targetting cyclists as an object of hate, whether they're good or poor, competent or inexperienced.
I don't think I'm a good cyclist yet, it's twenty-odd years since I last cycled. I'm inexperienced but consider myself safe and considerate.  If I feel unsafe or uncertain, I stop (safely) and assess how to proceed.  As I gain more experience, I find that I'm having to stop less often, as I don't come across new and uncertain situations so frequently.  But despite doing this to help my health and fitness, and to reduce the number of cars commuting, rather than being encouraged I sense a growing animosity towards all cyclists, and for this reason I shall be returning to car commuting.

[Guest busdriver1]

Just now, Planner1 said:

The point is that if something is really important to you, perhaps you adjust your spending priorities and actions accordingly.

 

You don't necessarily have to buy a new car, you can lease one or use public transport.

So I can lease a zero emissions car or use public transport? 

Show me where I can get public transport at 3 in the morning. 

Show me where I can lease a car for the equivalent of my current outgoings on transport.

Surprisingly i am not on a council salary so cant afford to do so. I live quite happily within my means but such luxurys are well beyond them for me and many many others.