Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[onewheeldave]

 

48 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Yes it is ok.... if you're 4 years old & with your mum or dad.   For adult cyclists it's ILLEGAL.  See the Highway Code. 

 

Why can't cyclists understand this?  Are their helmets on too tight? 

 

Oh the 'reckless driving' argument is wearing a bit thin. Even if it were slightly plausible, that still does not give cyclists the right to break the law & endanger pedestrians by riding on a pavement only designated solely for the use of pedestrians. 

 

Said it before; if an adult is not confident riding a bike in traffic, they shouldn't be on the road in the first place.  Maybe it's time to bring back an updated cycle proficiency course before they're allowed out on any road? 

Two sets of Home Office guidance say otherwise-

 

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

 

"when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".
The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law "

 

Whether an adult feels safe in traffic very much depends on the traffic- many motorists pass way too close, this is against the highway code, would you care to address that?

27 minutes ago, Hayley1 said:

The pavements along that stretch of road are really wide and I see only a handful of pedestrians using them. If they have to widen the cycle lane, why on earth would they not have made the pavements slightly narrower on each side and left the new increased capacity for the vehicles that use this vital stretch! 

 

In the few weeks we had of using the extra lanes, the exhaust fumes will have decreased because the vehicles will have passed through quicker.

 

Now that we're down to single land traffic, more fumes will be increased immensely...which then will mean we have no chance of meeting the government's rules on gasses....that means the council will make the plans even tighter, ending up with the charges being enforced on every private vehicle.

 

 

With new increased capacity there would only be a short term reduction in congestion and therefore fumes; long term, increasing road capacity results in more cars than before, therefore more congestion and more fumes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

 

 

[Baron99]

7 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

Two sets of Home Office guidance say otherwise-

 

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

 

"when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".
The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law "

 

 

So we're all agreed then riding on the pavement designated solely for pedestrians IS against the law, hence the FPN (Fixed Penalty Notices). 

[onewheeldave]

5 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

So we're all agreed then riding on the pavement designated solely for pedestrians IS against the law, hence the FPN (Fixed Penalty Notices). 

Of course. But it's OK for cyclists to ride responsibly on pavements especially if the they judge the road to be too dangerous to cycle on, as stated in the Home Office guideance. 

 

Do you want to comment on motorists giving insufficient room when passing cyclists?- that's against the Highway code, you don't seem to be as concerned with that, even though it's a main reason cyclists end up on the pavements.

[RJRB]

2 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Of course. But it's OK for cyclists to ride responsibly on pavements especially if the they judge the road to be too dangerous to cycle on, as stated in the Home Office guideance. 

 

Do you want to comment on motorists giving insufficient room when passing cyclists?- that's against the Highway code, you don't seem to be as concerned with that, even though it's a main reason cyclists end up on the pavements.

What’s the point of this tit for tat debate.

Some vehicle drivers are inconsiderate to all other road users and pedestrians and some cyclists are equally inconsiderate and in some cases not at all traffic savvy.

How this can be overcome I have no idea,but the Shalesmoor project was a total misjudgement.

I am not celebrating yet for who knows where the red and white barriers may reappear.

 

 

 

 

[Longcol]

1 hour ago, ECCOnoob said:

You know the council.  Quick to implement something.  Slow to admit defeat and back down.

 

Anyway, quite an interesting little nugget in the article....   "“If congestion passes the level that we have identified as critical, we will consider removing it early"

 

So there we go folks.  You know what to do.    Lets flood it. Cause mayhem.  Back up the queue all the way back to Rotherham  and they will prioritise its removal. Time to really stick two fingers up at the "Active Travel Commissioner" which nobody asked for. 

 

 

I doubt if you could find enough people on SF to cause a queue back to Corporation Street, never mind Rotherham 😎

Edited July 15, 2020 by Longcol

[Weredoomed]

On 14/07/2020 at 12:39, Tony said:

Bring me solutions not problems.

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".

4 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

I'd say cycling on pavements is fine if the cyclist is doing so with due care and attention and I believe some years back the govt did issue instructions to police forces that this was the case.

 

Riding on pavements at speed is not OK.

 

One reason that cyclists do ride on pavements is because the road alongside is not safe, due to reckless driving by motorists, many of whom break the highway code by passing cyclists with insufficient space- this is very common and very dangerous.

 

On the stretch of road in question [Shalesmoor] the road is not safe for cyclists, so of course many would use the pavement. 

Thank you for giving car drivers, busses, lorries, vans and motorbikers permission to drive along footways if they so choose to with due care and attention. Very generous of you.

 

Presumably the cyclists who go the wrong way down one way streets also make it OK for motorised vehicles to do the same whenever they choose?

[darylslinn]

A gentleman on a bicycle joined the A61 from the junction of Gibraltar Street this morning at around 7am.

He rode along the pavement all the way to the Shalesmoor roundabout keeping the cycle lane to his right, weaving past lamp posts and people until he reached the crossing before the roundabout where he had an altercation with a man 'legally' walking along the pavement.

After a few moments of them both shouting and gesticulating the man on the bicycle then went over the crossing to the opposite side of the road, rejoined the pavement and cycled along the pavement in the direction of Rutland Road.

Cyclists are NOT using the cycle lane and he is not the first person i've seen in the last week or so doing this !

A total waste of time and not of any use to persons such as myself travelling from the South of Rotherham to the Hillsborough area as part of my daily commute.

I cannot walk that distance and because of ill health certainly can't cycle that distance.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hayley1 said:

The pavements along that stretch of road are really wide and I see only a handful of pedestrians using them. If they have to widen the cycle lane, why on earth would they not have made the pavements slightly narrower on each side and left the new increased capacity for the vehicles that use this vital stretch! 

 

In the few weeks we had of using the extra lanes, the exhaust fumes will have decreased because the vehicles will have passed through quicker.

 

Now that we're down to single land traffic, more fumes will be increased immensely...which then will mean we have no chance of meeting the government's rules on gasses....that means the council will make the plans even tighter, ending up with the charges being enforced on every private vehicle.

 

Like many commuters, I have little choice but to use this road. I cannot possibly ride a bike to my workplace for reasons I choose not to share with strangers, and while I would dearly love an electric car, they are way out of my price range.

 

There is a place for both. It just needs sensible planning rather that shooting from the hip.

Spot on Hayley1

Edited July 15, 2020 by darylslinn

[catmiss]

Pedestrians and cyclists sharing pavements don’t mix. whilst walking to the tram stop I swerved to avoid a puddle and an unheard cyclist ran into me, he blamed me for the accident and damage to his bike

before riding off with no way of identifying him or the bike.  The injury I sustained took several weeks of inpatient and outpatient treatment. On another occasion a young female cyclist going hell for leather plowed into a group of us who’d been forced to stop at a minor junction by a car reversing. A couple of people had minor injuries but the cyclist explained she didn’t feel safe riding on the road- it didn’t feel particularly safe being a pedestrian either. The sooner cyclists have designated cycle routes through the main city thorough fares the better 

[Martin C]

If cyclists choose to/really must cycle on the pavement they should (if not at all times then certainly on approaching / passing a pedestrian) travel at no more than 3mph. People walking on pavements should not have to be aware of /make allowances for vehicles travelling at 10mph+

The scheme under discussion is still rubbish though.

[Hayley1]

9 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

With new increased capacity there would only be a short term reduction in congestion and therefore fumes; long term, increasing road capacity results in more cars than before, therefore more congestion and more fumes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

 

 

There will be a huge increase on the amount of pollution around Firth Park etc. as a result of this ill thought out plan as more people will come off junction 34 to get to Hillsborough and up to Wisewood, Stannington etc.  Which to my mind is certainly worse as we drivers will then be passing schools, homes, residential homes etc.