Do Sheffield City Council Have Something Against Roundabouts ?

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, ads36 said:

It happens all the time.

we're not allowed to smoke inside public buildings anymore - my freedom to smoke is somewhat less important than someone else's health.

Sadly we are being restricted more and more "for our own good", to keep us safe, and unfortunately those restrictions are getting more and more disproportionate.

I was never comfortable with that trend to the state telling us how to live our lives and what activities we were even allowed to do, but since the Pandemic over reaction I am diametrically opposed to it.

Smoking is a good example, I used to be sympathetic to the idea of banning it, but I have changed my mind. This is as a result of virtue signalling false empathisers telling me I was "selfish" for being bloody angry that I was stopped from swimming for 8 months during the madness. They could say that at no cost to themselves because they were not swimmers, and certainly not as serious as I am. So, similarly, who are we non smokers to tell smokers they should not be smoking ?

 

In the same vein, as regards this thread, I have little time for non drivers, or people who are not as that dependent on their cars, telling others they should have their car use made more difficult and/or expensive.

 

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

>>Chekhov said:  in ... Sheff ...(cyclists)... are never going to make up more than a small proportion of road users so their needs should not disproportionally affect the vast majority.<<

 

Bikes have gears and there are electric bikes nowadays that don’t require as much effort and will propel most people up any hill quite easily.

Sheffield has rain approximately 1 in 3 days and there are weather forecasts if you don’t want to get wet. Modern activity clothing can be very water resistant but breathable too, so weather and hills are no real excuse.

Your comparisons are frankly ridiculous.

>>Your comparisons are frankly ridiculous.<<

 

Really ?

Is that why, compared to cars, there are hardly any bikes on the roads of Sheff ?

Edited September 6, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, ads36 said:

I think the latest numbers put cycling at around 2% of all journeys in Sheffield.

 

There are something-over a thousand miles of road in Sheffield.

A proportional response would obviously suggest that there should be (2%) 20 miles of cycle route. Which would be 20miles more than we have now. It would certainly be enough to create the backbone of a coherent, joined-up network. A central circular hub, and 4x 4mile radial routes (NESW).

And that would of course see the numbers rise - dramatically.

Oslo - Norway : hilly, and famously terrible weather - is working towards a target of 20% cycling. It seems reasonable then to suggest that Sheffield could easily achieve 10%. And that would mean 100miles of cycle route.

It's our current car-first approach that's entirely disproportional.

>>And that would of course see the numbers rise - dramatically.<<

 

How dramatically ?

And can I quote you on that ?

 

>>It's our current car-first approach that's entirely disproportional.<<

 

What !

Using your own figures 50X more journeys are made by car than by bike. But, of course, bearing in mind that many cars have more than one person in them the real figure is likely to be 100X.

I am not anti bike BTW, I just think road planning should be proportionate and value the time of drivers, and their passengers.... Much of what happens on the roads proves their wasted time is of very little consequence.

 

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Introducing a low traffic neighbourhood is nothing like chopping off body parts. When going from A to B, generally, drivers have several routes they can use.

If part of one route is made less convenient or not really viable by being in an LTN, many drivers will not just go around the roads on its periphery to avoid it. They will use another route, ie the one that suits them best on that day, at that time, for the reasons they are travelling and bearing in mind all the prevailing conditions.  That’s why surveys in places that have introduced LTNs are showing no increase in traffic on the peripheral roads.

The example I gave earlier of stopping Hammerton Rd being a through route and thus, in peak hours, blocking the junction of Ripley St and Langsett Rd, proves your argument to be flawed. As would basic logic, if you shut roads how can the other roads possibly not be busier, unless, of course, what you have actually done is put people off travelling. But is that  good thing ? We are supposed to live in a free country after all. Authoritarians (who believe in telling people how they should live their lives and in fact forcing them to do so) would say it is a good thing....

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by Chekhov

[ads36]

53 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

How dramatically ?

And can I quote you on that ?

 

Assuming a 20mile joined-up network?

 

10% would be a robust estimate.

 

(Which, using your own request for proportionality, would justify a 100mile network)

53 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

 

What !

Using your own figures 50X more journeys are made by car than by bike.

No, that's your figure. I'll let you work out why it's wrong.

53 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

But, of course, bearing in mind that many cars have more than one person in them

...and many cars are effectively empty.

Edited September 6, 2023 by ads36

[Planner1]

3 hours ago, Chekhov said:

You are making a strawman argument here.

You appear to be saying that because some roads have been shut in the past we should be shutting even more.

Nope, I’m asking you to name any places where they do it the way you appear to think it should be done.

 

You can’t, because there aren’t any. It isn’t a practical approach.

 

 

[Chekhov]

On 06/09/2023 at 18:19, ads36 said:

Assuming a 20mile joined-up network?

10% would be a robust estimate.

So using your own figures (10% v 90%) 9X more journeys would be made by cars. And, on average, cars have more than one person in them, so the imbalance would be even greater.

 

On 06/09/2023 at 18:19, ads36 said:

...and many cars are effectively empty.

How could an empty car be making a journey.....

 

On 06/09/2023 at 22:03, Planner1 said:

Nope, I’m asking you to name any places where they do it the way you appear to think it should be done.

You can’t, because there aren’t any. It isn’t a practical approach.

I don't think many roads at all should be shut, other than relatively rare examples like the end of Hatton road which would have minimal effect on road capacity / journey times.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

On 06/09/2023 at 14:05, HeHasRisen said:

A new motorway opens between Point A and Point B, which is 50km long and bypasses a number of towns, this replaces an old trunk road which was 40km but went through the centre of a few towns and cities and was single carriageway only.

Is using the longer motorway more inconvenient than having to stop/start constantly on the old through road?

It is interesting to note that three people up voted a post which makes no sense at all :

 

With all due respect you are talking about apples and pears.

In fact, as regards this particular point in this thread, it is totally irrelevant because there's almost no chance they'll be building any more roads, esp within a city area where they are busy restricting through routes..... So, when they force people to go on a route 10km longer it'll be on roads that drivers chose not to take before because their original route was quicker. And the "new" route will be even slower now as loads of other drivers will also be forced to use it.....

[HeHasRisen]

35 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

It is interesting to note that three people up voted a post which makes no sense at all :

How "interesting"? 

Very? 

Quite? 

Mildly? 

[Martin C]

 

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

It is interesting to note that three people up voted a post which makes no sense at all :

 

I was one of the three.  64 years  old, never had the remotest inclination or need to learn to drive.  Never been a fan of cars. Appreciate they're essential to some people for work etc. but overall the cult of the (very much) "entitled" private car driver is not one that I support.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Martin C
Quoting error

[Chekhov]

On 06/09/2023 at 15:33, ads36 said:

It's our current car-first approach that's entirely disproportional.

I'll tell you something which is ENTIRELY disproportionate......

We came back from Leeds Bradford airport today (BTW, it's, err, in the wrong place....) and part of the reason it took an hour just to get to the motorway was because much of one lane on the bypass was taken up by the longest bus lane I have ever personally seen. And in all that time we were crawling along in a huge queue (caused partly be said bus lane) we never even saw a bus on it !

Don't get me wrong I am in favour of encouraging (NOT forcing....) people to use public transport, but we need some proportionality here. On that road, in fact most roads, the great majority of people are driving, so why do they reserve half the road for just buses ?

[MJ01]

53 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I'll tell you something which is ENTIRELY disproportionate......

We came back from Leeds Bradford airport today (BTW, it's, err, in the wrong place....) and part of the reason it took an hour just to get to the motorway was because much of one lane on the bypass was taken up by the longest bus lane I have ever personally seen. And in all that time we were crawling along in a huge queue (caused partly be said bus lane) we never even saw a bus on it !

Don't get me wrong I am in favour of encouraging (NOT forcing....) people to use public transport, but we need some proportionality here. On that road, in fact most roads, the great majority of people are driving, so why do they reserve half the road for just buses ?

Our thoughts are with the unfortunate people who were in the vehicle with you