Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Planner1]

6 minutes ago, Fudbeer said:

Exactly I don't care where the money comes from there are so many other traffic/cycle schemes they could have spent it on with proper consultation with all the relevant groups and careful analysis of the consequences/ benefits.

 

This just sums up the arrogance of the council to me infact it reminds me of the way they  removed the trees near Endcliffe park again without proper consultation.

I think you have to look at it from the Council's  point of view.

 

The Government offers them a couple of million to go out and do something, but it has to be done at really short notice and they won't have time to do the usual public engagement. If they turn it down, they will be criticised, if they go ahead with minimal consultation, they will be criticised. They can't win really.

[Guest busdriver1]

6 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Like I said, if something is really important to you, you'd adjust your spending priorities. so, if minimising your emissions from travel to work was important, you'd live nearer work or travel sustainably.

 

The point I'm making is that when drivers get inconvenienced or delayed nowadays, they wave the pollution "card" around, when actually, it's not really that important to them and they just bring it out to argue against any delays that affect them.

So I will take on your advice, Which bills do I not pay then? Electricity? Rent? Council tax* good case for that, water, gas. Or should I stop eating.  I could get a job nearer home but in my industry that would involve working in Sheffield so thats not going to happen.

I wish like you I lived in a total bubble where everything was perfect and just how the council want it to be but sadly i live in the real world and live accordingly. 

My choices are governed by the career i am in and the remuneration I gain for it, I love my job and whilst it is not the best paid job it is rewarding and I can get by on it.

I do not wish to live in the city where I work, it is not a nice city and even makes Shefield look attractive ( but not that attractive). I am happy living where I do in Beautiful Rotherham. Interestingly a town that has not felt the need to introduce any crazy cycling schemes to use up government ( our ) money just because its there. 

To say that I and many others contributing to this thread are using the pollution card is nothing short of patronising, as I have come to expect.

14 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I think you have to look at it from the Council's  point of view.

 

The Government offers them a couple of million to go out and do something, but it has to be done at really short notice and they won't have time to do the usual public engagement. If they turn it down, they will be criticised, if they go ahead with minimal consultation, they will be criticised. They can't win really.

Well they could have said, we dont have anything urgent that would work for the benefit of cyclists without causing major problems to others so we will give it a miss this time.

Oh sorry how silly of me, we are talking about Sheffield Council.

[Fudbeer]

36 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I think you have to look at it from the Council's  point of view.

 

The Government offers them a couple of million to go out and do something, but it has to be done at really short notice and they won't have time to do the usual public engagement. If they turn it down, they will be criticised, if they go ahead with minimal consultation, they will be criticised. They can't win really.

But do they not have other schemes that have been properly researched and are awaiting the finances ? Would have thought that was part of their job to have future improvements in the pipeline?

[alchemist]

1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

 

Here are some of the actual reasons why cycle registration and compulsory training are a bad idea, including summaries of past schemes that have failed, often because such schemes cost far more to administer than they collect; from-

 

https://www.bikebiz.com/bicycle-licensing-for-dummies/

 

 

Interesting article, written for a bike forum in America so understandably biased.  Its main arguments seem to be that even if you register people it wont stop them being bad.  Whilst this is true it would act as a bit of a deterrent and help catch the blatant law breakers

[RJRB]

I did suggest this ,perhaps tongue in cheek earlier,but I am prepared to be shot down in flames.

Firstly I am sorry that the bicycle loan scheme had to be scrapped due to vandalism .

Secondly we increasingly have pedestrianised areas of the city stretching from Moorfoot to Commercial Street.

My scheme would be a cycle lane straight down the middle with pedestrian walkways down each side.

This could be used by bike owners or perhaps private bike hirers,and e scooters.

It could even be a direct commuter route across the city centre.

Get to work Planner 1 and make this scheme viable and popular.

[onewheeldave]

3 hours 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 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.

It is aiding cyclists- they need proper safe cycle lanes, this is the first.

 

You're wrong when you make the bizarre claim that one person used the lane today, when I was on it at midday I saw 4 cyclists on it.

[Parkside]

4 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

It is aiding cyclists- they need proper safe cycle lanes, this is the first.

 

You're wrong when you make the bizarre claim that one person used the lane today, when I was on it at midday I saw 4 cyclists on it.

I have used it both ways today , it was brilliant .

[ECCOnoob]

4 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

It is aiding cyclists- they need proper safe cycle lanes, this is the first.

 

You're wrong when you make the bizarre claim that one person used the lane today, when I was on it at midday I saw 4 cyclists on it.

Wow!!!!  A whole four people!!!!!   

 

Let's do some stats about cars per hour vs bike per hour through that stretch and then we can talk seriously about it supposed benefits.

 

Until then let's stop with the flim flam and call it what it is.  An incompetent, unwanted, unnecessary, failed idea introduced by egotistical morons with an anti-car agenda.  

 

The people who they are supposed to serve have clearly spoken.  

[onewheeldave]

3 hours ago, Crissie said:

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.

That's called bullying, another reason there aren't as many cyclists on the roads as there should be.

3 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

 

The damage to local businesses is just another level of damage but hey, thats ok.....

An evidence of damage to local businesses?

2 hours ago, Resident said:

So a scheme that was brought in, in part, to reduce emissions has had the opposite effect and because it's the motorists that have pointed this out it makes the argument invalid? 

 

Have you been skipping your meds again? 

All the science says that, long term, emmisions will be reduced by such schemes.

[onewheeldave]

14 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Wow!!!!  A whole four people!!!!!   

 

Let's do some stats about cars per hour vs bike per hour through that stretch and then we can talk seriously about it supposed benefits.

 

Until then let's stop with the flim flam and call it what it is.  An incompetent, unwanted, unnecessary, failed idea introduced by egotistical morons with an anti-car agenda.  

 

The people who they are supposed to serve have clearly spoken.  

I was replying to a poster who incorrectly claimed the lane was used by 1 cyclist.

 

So yes, 4 cyclists in the time I was on it. [5 including me].

 

There are several reasons why uptake in this very early stage is low-

 

1. most Sheffield cyclists do not know it exists

2. most Sheffield cyclists have avoided that area as, prior to the new proper cycling lane, that road was not safe to cycle on due to the high volume of fast moving traffic, including lorries, many of which would pass way too close to cyclists, putting their lives at risk

3. that area has had white/red blocks on it for the past year due to the extensive road works that have been causing traffic backlogs for the past year. Any cyclist passing through would likely assume that is what this is, at a passing glance it's not immediately obvious that it is a cycle path, and, once you've zipped past the entrances, whether you're on the road, or on the footpath, it is then too late to get onto it

4. Fear. As we've seen on this thread, one person has decided to not cycle, but switch back to their car as a direct result of the hostility they've seen on here from motorists tiowards cyclists

Edited July 16, 2020 by onewheeldave