Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[Planner1]

10 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

The ones on Moorhead for example.

It isn’t too wide.

 

The current national design standards, Local Transport Note LTN1/20 require an absolute minimum of 2m wide and up to 4m wide depending on volumes of cyclists, for a two way cycle track.

[ads36]

14 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

The ones on Moorhead for example.

i tried using some of those yesterday, in places they're barely a metre wide.

[Irene Swaine]

24 minutes ago, ads36 said:

i tried using some of those yesterday, in places they're barely a metre wide.

There are the ones on Church Way in Doncaster too, takes up half of the pavement and it's a modest pavement in a busy area.

[Chekhov]

This post was originally in the thread about the London ULEZ, but it is just as relevant in this one :

 

 

>>On 22/11/2023 at 15:56, @Delbow said:
What is it with right wingers and vehicle fumes? Why do they seem to want as much pollution as possible rather than making it go away?<<

 

The fact is city air has never been cleaner, it is a non problem, or, more accurately, ULEZ is a disproportionate answer to a minor problem.

We near the top of the law of diminishing returns as regards legislation designed to "keep us safe". In fact almost all that we are now introducing is disproportionate cobblers costing far more (in financial terms and/or restrictions on people's lives) than any possible benefit. 

 

And then :

 

The air in cities is cleaner than it has ever been, in the last few hundred years at any rate.

 

On 07/11/2023 at 11:02, Planner1 said:

It [the cycle way] isn’t too wide.

 

The current national design standards, Local Transport Note LTN1/20 require an absolute minimum of 2m wide and up to 4m wide depending on volumes of cyclists, for a two way cycle track.

You are assuming the "standards" are "correct" and reasonable.

I know for a fact many of the road "standards" (e.g. about the requirement for temporary traffic lights when the site is no bigger/wider than a parked car) are just OTT cobblers dreamt up by some bureaucrat with an over developed risk aversion and a total lack of empathy for road users' time.

Edited November 24, 2023 by Chekhov

[Bargepole23]

45 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

This post was originally in the thread about the London ULEZ, but it is just as relevant in this one :

 

 

>>On 22/11/2023 at 15:56, @Delbow said:
What is it with right wingers and vehicle fumes? Why do they seem to want as much pollution as possible rather than making it go away?<<

 

The fact is city air has never been cleaner, it is a non problem, or, more accurately, ULEZ is a disproportionate answer to a minor problem.

We near the top of the law of diminishing returns as regards legislation designed to "keep us safe". In fact almost all that we are now introducing is disproportionate cobblers costing far more (in financial terms and/or restrictions on people's lives) than any possible benefit. 

 

And then :

 

The air in cities is cleaner than it has ever been, in the last few hundred years at any rate.

 

You are assuming the "standards" are "correct" and reasonable.

I know for a fact many of the road "standards" (e.g. about the requirement for temporary traffic lights when the site is no bigger/wider than a parked car) are just OTT cobblers dreamt up by some bureaucrat with an over developed risk aversion and a total lack of empathy for road users time.

Nope, just your opinion. Stop overstating the importance of your opinions by pretending they are proven facts.

[Chekhov]

32 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

Nope, just your opinion. Stop overstating the importance of your opinions by pretending they are proven facts.

It is NOT "just my opinion".

 

Here :

https://ourworldindata.org/london-air-pollution

 

and here (and countless other sources) :

 

70 years since the great London smog
1952 air quality in a modern context

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/70-years-great-london-smog

 

 

[Planner1]

On 24/11/2023 at 09:03, Chekhov said:

This post was originally in the thread about the London ULEZ, but it is just as relevant in this one :

 

 

>>On 22/11/2023 at 15:56, @Delbow said:
What is it with right wingers and vehicle fumes? Why do they seem to want as much pollution as possible rather than making it go away?<<

 

The fact is city air has never been cleaner, it is a non problem, or, more accurately, ULEZ is a disproportionate answer to a minor problem.

We near the top of the law of diminishing returns as regards legislation designed to "keep us safe". In fact almost all that we are now introducing is disproportionate cobblers costing far more (in financial terms and/or restrictions on people's lives) than any possible benefit. 

 

And then :

 

The air in cities is cleaner than it has ever been, in the last few hundred years at any rate.

 

You are assuming the "standards" are "correct" and reasonable.

I know for a fact many of the road "standards" (e.g. about the requirement for temporary traffic lights when the site is no bigger/wider than a parked car) are just OTT cobblers dreamt up by some bureaucrat with an over developed risk aversion and a total lack of empathy for road users' time.

The national design standards are what they are, whether you agree with them or not.

 

Just because you have a bee in your bonnet about temporary signals doesn’t mean that all national highway design standards are incorrect.

 

Standards improve over time and as we know more, we understand the impacts of how things have been done and what needs to be done to improve safety. It’s called progress. You may not like it, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

[Annie Bynnol]

   

On 24/11/2023 at 10:31, Chekhov said:

It is NOT "just my opinion".

Here :

https://ourworldindata.org/london-air-pollution

and here (and countless other sources) :

70 years since the great London smog
1952 air quality in a modern context

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-and-climate-change/environment-and-climate-change-publications/70-years-great-london-smog

 

   When you say "The fact is city air has never been cleaner, it is a non problem..." is either a deliberate attempt to mislead and misinform, in line with your "I am  obviously only going to publicise facts and figures which support my position and disparage stuff which does not" policy or a failure understand what you copy and paste.

    You can easily correct your 'mistake' you make by adding:

"Trends in UK sulphur dioxide emissions 1970-2020 (source: UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory (NAEI))" explained in the text:

"Total emissions of sulphur dioxide (kilotonnes per annum) have declined dramatically since 1970, principally from the Energy Industries sector (which have been largely located outside of London)" and "...associated with the shift from solid fuel combustion to gas."

       If you were not so "...very biased..." you could have  considered "Trends in Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions 1970-2020 (source: NAEI)".  Traffic controls introduced in the 90's have eliminated the "...several smog episodes, primarily associated with NOx emissions from road traffic, occurred in London during calm, winter days during the 1990s (and coinciding with the peak years in road transport emissions." The NOx levels are still very high.

      You could totally undermine your statement by reading the rest the report published by the office of the Mayor of London that you quote,

         

Edited November 25, 2023 by Annie Bynnol

[Irene Swaine]

I know of a tradesman who actively avoids work in the city centre because of the CAZ rubbish. He can't be the only one.

[HeHasRisen]

7 minutes ago, Irene Swaine said:

I know of a tradesman who actively avoids work in the city centre because of the CAZ rubbish. He can't be the only one.

He's an idiot then, he could just add a tenner onto any quote he gives for work in that area.