Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[RJRB]

6 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

Forgive me for returning to this rather tedious thread but the fact remains that the input from any cycle group can not be relevant.

 

The aim as admitted by supporters of this scheme is to raise the level of cycling in the city. Correct? 

 

If that is the aim, why contact people who already cycle? They are already doing what this scheme was intended to do. 

 

The only meaningful consultation would be with non cyclists to ask what would be needed to get them on a bike surely?

 

THEY are the target of the scheme not the existing ones. Or is this too complicated?

A 2 hour trip out of the ivory tower  with a clipboard would gain a more useful insight than any pressure group for the already converted surely.

 

Suggested question. What would it take to get you to cycle to town?

 

Oh hang on, we have a council involved who already know everything. Damn

Back to the drawing board.

As your observation on the other thread,when your starting point is  an objective,however off the wall ,then you can produce surveys that apparently justify it.

The response to any criticism seems to be give me the proof,rather than applying common sense.

 

[Bargepole23]

17 hours ago, RJRB said:

As I have said before,practically and realistically where would these cycle routes be placed to cater for this imaginary horde of cyclists commuting into the city centre from all points of the compass.

Cyclists are similar to pedestrians in that they take the most direct route unless just out meandering.

Perhaps in the good old days when thousands commuted from Attercliffe and Darnall to the numerous industrial sites in the Don Valley a cycle route would have been viable.

Cars can and are sent by circuitous routes as dictated by our planners and road traffic engineers.

So which roads would you suggest for permanent conversions which would be used.

Its a pipe dream and schemes such as this one are just paying lip service .

 

A permanent, segregated, route from Ecclesall to town, as part of Ecclesall Rd. Similarly from Meadowhead to town, along chesterfield rd. Similarly along abbeydale road from Totley, from oughtibridge along middlwood and infirmary rd. In fact, provide every arterial route with a parallel, segregated route.

 

Remove parking bays as required.

36 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

Forgive me for returning to this rather tedious thread but the fact remains that the input from any cycle group can not be relevant.

 

The aim as admitted by supporters of this scheme is to raise the level of cycling in the city. Correct? 

 

If that is the aim, why contact people who already cycle? They are already doing what this scheme was intended to do. 

 

The only meaningful consultation would be with non cyclists to ask what would be needed to get them on a bike surely?

 

THEY are the target of the scheme not the existing ones. Or is this too complicated?

A 2 hour trip out of the ivory tower  with a clipboard would gain a more useful insight than any pressure group for the already converted surely.

 

Suggested question. What would it take to get you to cycle to town?

 

Oh hang on, we have a council involved who already know everything. Damn

Back to the drawing board.

Because they have direct, and very relevant experience of what that entails, how safe they feel doing it etc, which can clearly be fed into the provision of new routes and improving existing. With the end goal of increasing uptake.

 

Or is that too complicated?

[onewheeldave]

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

I am fully supportive of the benefits of exercise whether it be cycling,walking running or playing sports.

 

Then what are you thoughts on the fact that a main block to people integrating cycling into their lives is fear of being killed/injured on the roads by motor vehicles? Currently you aren't 'fully supporting' cycle lanes devoid of motor vehicles.

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

 

I just ask again how do you see the development of useful cycling routes along the many main arterial routes into Sheffield centre plus of course the many short cuts available.

 

How do you see it?  As segragated car free lanes? [which will require less lanes for cars]. As painted strips on the side of busy roads? [which don't seem to work]. Or something different?

[onewheeldave]

2 hours ago, RJRB said:

 

I don’t intimidate cycling groups on my many trips into Bradfield and Derbyshire,where I see many,nor do I bully cyclists in inner Sheffield where I see very few.

 

No ones saying you do. But some motorists certainly do, intentionally or otherwise.

 

Imagine being on a bike and a lorry passes by so close that it almost touches you, knowing that if it does touch you, you'll likely end up under it's wheels. That is extremely intimidating, whether the lorry driver is doing it intentionally or not.

2 hours ago, RJRB said:

 

You seem to be one of the more militant cyclists who have espoused a pipe dream that is totally impractical.

Standing up for cyclists rights to use the roads safely is not militancy.

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

 

Because they have direct, and very relevant experience of what that entails, how safe they feel doing it etc, which can clearly be fed into the provision of new routes and improving existing. With the end goal of increasing uptake.

 

Or is that too complicated?

Not complicated at all, just irrelevant when trying to get NEW cyclists on the road. The experience of current cyclists only pertains to the routes THEY take and the  Hazards THEY perceive on the cycles THEY ride. The problem with this is you may not get the answers you want so are obviously against asking them the questions.

Who knows, that could end up in cycle lanes that are useful. 

No lets not go there, there lies common sense.

I am out again now, you cant educate pork is the saying

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

Not complicated at all, just irrelevant when trying to get NEW cyclists on the road. The experience of current cyclists only pertains to the routes THEY take and the  Hazards THEY perceive on the cycles THEY ride. The problem with this is you may not get the answers you want so are obviously against asking them the questions.

Who knows, that could end up in cycle lanes that are useful. 

No lets not go there, there lies common sense.

I am out again now, you cant educate pork is the saying

When you resort to petty insults, you’ve lost the argument.

 

Do you seriously think that council transport planners ( and cycling / active travel interest groups )  don’t understand these points?

[RJRB]

3 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

A permanent, segregated, route from Ecclesall to town, as part of Ecclesall Rd. Similarly from Meadowhead to town, along chesterfield rd. Similarly along abbeydale road from Totley, from oughtibridge along middlwood and infirmary rd. In fact, provide every arterial route with a parallel, segregated route.

 

Remove parking bays as required.

Because they have direct, and very relevant experience of what that entails, how safe they feel doing it etc, which can clearly be fed into the provision of new routes and improving existing. With the end goal of increasing uptake.

 

Or is that too complicated?

Well,you have managed to actually name the routes where you would like to see permanent cycleways.

Now sit back and consider the practicality of closing what are frequently single carriageways to private vehicles.

Perhaps Planner 1 could add his views.

 

[Guest busdriver1]

24 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

 

Do you seriously think that council transport planners ( and cycling / active travel interest groups )  don’t understand these points?

Your defence of the indefensible proves that at least the council dont and the use of groups with little to offer a real consultation backs it up. 

My other comments remain as validated by the above.

[RJRB]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

When you resort to petty insults, you’ve lost the argument.

 

Do you seriously think that council transport planners ( and cycling / active travel interest groups )  don’t understand these points?

The argument as far as Shalesmoor is concerned is far from lost.

It remains a complete white elephant.

It does get frustrating that certain self evident truths are evaded and the major issues are dodged .

 

[NewBiz]

On 26/07/2020 at 17:12, Planner1 said:

No, the government had set very short timescales for spending the money, so there was no time to consult properly, so they didn't consult. Because the scheme has been done on a temporary basis, people would get the opportunity to have their say if it were proposed to be made permanent.

Oh good phew so it's only temporary! So when the ensuing mayhem finally permeates through to the masterminds who dreamt this scheme up, they will remove it, and allow the city to get back to work. That's the best news I heard in a while