Do Sheffield City Council Have Something Against Roundabouts ?

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

You may find it difficult to believe, but many people won’t walk and cycle, even for local trips, because they don’t feel safe doing it, because of traffic.

I can understand why heavy traffic puts off cyclists, but in such a hilly wet city as Sheff they are never going to make up more than a small proportion of road users so their needs should not disproportionally affect the vast majority.

I cannot see why traffic should put off pedestrians, well actually I can because we live in a world that's scared of everything, except, ironically, the most dangerous thing we all do : driving.

 

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

People follow particular routes for a variety of reasons and they choose whichever route suits them best on each occasion.

If one of someone’s route is no longer viable because it goes through an LTN, it is by no means certain they will just vary the same route by just going around the edge of the LTN. They may choose a different route altogether as that route now suits them better. 

You're at it again !

That's like saying if you chop off three fingers on someone's right hand they'll start using their left hand "because it suits them better"....

Oh, so that's alright then.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

that's an interesting question...

i would suggest it depends on the overall journey. if i'm driving 100Km, an additional 10 would be a 'minor inconvenience' - often i will choose the longer route, because it's more interesting.

if i'm driving 1km or so (or less!), an additional 500metres would be a minor inconvenience.

worth mentioning : if i'm driving 1km or so (or less!), i really *should* first consider walking/cycling.

You speak for yourself, an additional 10km is not "a minor inconvenience" under any circumstances.

 

>> i really *should* first consider walking/cycling.<<

 

Personally I probably would walk, in fact, if I can (my car is sometimes needed at work) I park the other side of the tram gates and walk the last half a mile to my shop as it avoids loads of traffic.

BUT, we live in a free country, so as far as is humanly possible, we should not be telling anyone how they should be living their lives....

 

[HeHasRisen]

1 minute ago, Chekhov said:

You speak for yourself, an additional 10km is not "a minor inconvenience" under any circumstances.

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

[Planner1]

45 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

BUT, we live in a free country, so as far as is humanly possible, we should not be telling anyone how they should be living their lives....

Can you advise where in the civilised world they apply this to roads, and all roads are completely without restriction and available to all traffic at all times?

[HeHasRisen]

Placeholder for him to mention the German autobahns.

[ads36]

44 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

BUT, we live in a free country, so as far as is humanly possible, we should not be telling anyone how they should be living their lives....

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.

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, Chekhov said:

I can understand why heavy traffic puts off cyclists, but in such a hilly wet city as Sheff they are never going to make up more than a small proportion of road users so their needs should not disproportionally affect the vast majority.

I cannot see why traffic should put off pedestrians, well actually I can because we live in a world that's scared of everything, except, ironically, the most dangerous thing we all do : driving.

 

You're at it again !

That's like saying if you chop off three fingers on someone's right hand they'll start using their left hand "because it suits them better"....

Oh, so that's alright then.

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.

 

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.

14 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Placeholder for him to mention the German autobahns.

But they aren’t all de restricted and not every road in Germany is an autobahn.

[HeHasRisen]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

But they aren’t all de restricted

Indeed. I was still half expecting him to mention them though.

[ads36]

1 hour ago, 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.

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.

Edited September 6, 2023 by ads36

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, 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?

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.....

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Can you advise where in the civilised world they apply this to roads, and all roads are completely without restriction and available to all traffic at all times?

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.