It has to be said - compared to a town like Barnstaple in Devon, Sheffields vain attempt at preventing congestion, pollution and promoting fitness is a farce.

Has anyone seen the cycle paths on Abbey Lane? Three 20 foot patches spaced up the road? What's that all about when the pavements on either side are huge and almost always completely empty.

Meanwhile the roads are back to back traffic and every available spot of land is readily turned into a Gym. Is this city bent or something? What happened to free recreational exercise combined with pollution free transport?

Has anyone seen the cycle paths on Abbey Lane? Three 20 foot patches spaced up the road? What's that all about when the pavements on either side are huge and almost always completely empty.

Maybe because theres peoples driveways other side roads and the cemetry, funeral direcors and bus stops??

Couldn't agree more, the cycle paths available in Sheffield are indeed a joke. I would love to use my bike to get to work and back, but I fear I would be taking my life in my hands. I use the tram but it takes longer than going by car these days because it gets bogged down in all the congestion from Shalesmoor to Hillsborough on the return journey, plus the fares are a bit pricey these days. I am tempted to give the bike a try though. If anyone knows of a safe route from Hillsbrough to Devonshire Green area I would be grateful to hear it. I am particularly worried by the big roundabout near the University as it's bad enough in a car never mind on a bike.

I can think of a couple of back roads that have signs on them indicating that they are cycle ways, the only trouble is they are also rat runs for all the car drivers and so aren't safe for cyclists. Over the years they seem to of been installing short sections of cycle ways following the river Sheaf from Millhousess to wards town but it's very haphazard and they don't seem to be really on the ball as far as connecting the dvarious bits. The best bit has to be at Broadfield road where they put a new footbridge/cycle way over the river and there's a plaque to show it was opened by seb. Coe? or some-one like that when they were trumpeting that they were going to make a safe cycle friendly system across the city, I'm still waiting.

andy wild at sheffield city council sends out a sheffield cycle plan - worth getting one sent to you as ud be surprised at how many cycle tracks there are around the city.

andy.wild@sheffield.gov.uk (0114 2734286) Transport Planning Team

as far as millhouses to town goes - cyclists can use the bus lanes cant they? (check on the map if you get one)

A cycle way as far as I'm concerned should be a route for cyclista and pedestrians ONLY not just quiet back roads which become scary rat runs at rush hour, take a look at Little london road as an example.
Bus lanes are okay when they're not being used for parking as a lot of them tend to be outside rush hour so a cyclist is forever having to move out into the main traffic flow whilst watching out for the clots who think it's perfectly acceptable to open their car door without checking. Also one or two friends have had narrow squeaks with buses so putting buses and cyclists on the same bit of road isn'tr really a good idea.
I know it's far to expensive but I think cyclists and motor vehicles should be kept seperate as much as possible.

anything positive to say at all WallBuilder?

Originally posted by wearetherobots

Has anyone seen the cycle paths on Abbey Lane? Three 20 foot patches spaced up the road? What's that all about when the pavements on either side are huge and almost always completely empty.


The reason for this is they are where they have installed pinch point where the road narrows these are in my view dangerous for cyclists as cars/lorries try to overtake cyclists where there is limited room.

The lanes try to encorage motorists to give bikes more room

btw I have been driving arounnd Woodseats and abbeydale road today not in the rush hour and the traffic is ridiculous

I think we really do have to think about stopping the increase of traffic on the road or large parts of the city will simply grind to a holt

i think its fairly positive to say cyclists and motor vehicles should be kept separate :)

i'm sure the 9 stitches in my elbow would agree!

Anything positive about cycle ways you mean?
....................Hang on I'm thinking...........
I suppose that the council are trying but I really think they could do an awful lot better if they were really serious about winkling people out of their cars and either on to public transport or cycles.
A recent boo boo they did was on that bridge at broadfield road crossing the river, there is red tarmac for the cycle and black tarmac for the pedestrian but on the right angled bend this disappears and so poor old cyclist gets a pedestrian suddenly right in front of them..

Lets be honest Sheffield is never going to be a cycling city no matter how many cycling facilities are put in by the Council........it's too hilly.

Personally i think far too much money is spent on cycle facilities in Sheffield for the above reason.

Wrong Rudeboy, the average cyclist isn't at all put off by the hills, it's the damn traffic.

Maybe the cyclists should start paying road tax like us motorists and then that can pay for lots of cycle lanes wherever they are needed.

I agree that cycles need their own routes (if only to keep them out of the way of motorists so as to keep us motorists moving and the cyclists safe), but don't see why the council-at-large should pay for it.

I also admire a lot of the cyclists who dash around in rush hour - I wouldn't have the guts to with traffic as it is.

Roads for cars etc. are generally (supposed to be) paid for from road tax, so why not a similar system for cycles?

Originally posted by Magneteer
Wrong Rudeboy, the average cyclist isn't at all put off by the hills, it's the damn traffic.

Maybe we should have a poll on this. Its not the traffic that puts me off.

roads are not paid for through what you call road tax but through your council tax which is also paid by cyclists, the excise licence you pay goes directly to the government and it is a fee paid to enable you to use a powered vehicle on the public roads, the roads otherwise are free for anyone to use.
if the council promoted more cycle lanes then they would get more people cycling and free space up on the roads, also you would probably get around much more quickly.

Yup, couldn't agree more that cars and cycles should be kept separate............preferably Guantanamo Bay for the cyclists................. :clap: :clap: :clap:

cycling witout hills unthinkable :)

You would be suprised how easy it is with a mountain bike gears.

We all know how quiet the roads have been during the School holidays,well why not make safe cycle routes and get students and kids to cycle to school instead of clogging up the roads in 4*4's

Originally posted by keithmdw
Roads for cars etc. are generally (supposed to be) paid for from road tax, so why not a similar system for cycles?

Cycles only use the roads because they're built on what cyclist could've used for free anyway.

Originally posted by cloudybay
Yup, couldn't agree more that cars and cycles should be kept separate............preferably Guantanamo Bay for the cyclists................. :clap: :clap: :clap:
yup, most cyclists in their lycra shorts and funny hats are quite rude when you cut them up,tell them to pay up or shut up.

Originally posted by the_rudeboy
Maybe we should have a poll on this. Its not the traffic that puts me off.

I cycle to work regularly. This involve a great big massive hill in both directions, and despite me being more Dawn French than Lance Armstrong this doesn't put me off.

However, I usually travel outside rush hour times (I'm a nurse), but when I recently had to do a week that involved going in during the rush hour I had several near misses, was terrified and gave it up to go on the bus on the fourth day.

What I often wonder is why so many (not all, so please don't leap on me for this) cyclists seem to think that a red light only means stop if you are a motor vehicle, and carry on through the crossing/junction regardless.

Originally posted by keithmdw
What I often wonder is why so many (not all, so please don't leap on me for this) cyclists seem to think that a red light only means stop if you are a motor vehicle, and carry on through the crossing/junction regardless.

One of my points precisely!

Originally posted by Magneteer
Wrong Rudeboy, the average cyclist isn't at all put off by the hills, it's the damn traffic.

What do you call an average cyclist ?

I think he was trying to say that you are simply not going to get the bulk of sheffields population flocking to bicycles in their masses in sheffield, how many every day joe public is prepared to cycle up East Bank Road, which incidently has a cycle track.

Originally posted by mega_monty
What do you call an average cyclist ?

I think he was trying to say that you are simply not going to get the bulk of sheffields population flocking to bicycles in their masses in sheffield, how many every day joe public is prepared to cycle up East Bank Road, which incidently has a cycle track.

You are of course right.

However what we have to look at is the future.

I suspect most people accept that currently our roads are too conjested.

So if future transport plans do not try to stem the increase in trafffic conjestion what will happen?

on the road i tend to swerve around a bit,hopping on and of of the pavement,that way car drivers pay more attention to you as theyre never quite sure what youre going to do.
if its really busy i just use the footpaths as they are hallowed ground to most motorists.
i'm absolutely polite when doing this and regularly stop and push if its busy.
i'll never risk my body when simply trying to get from a-2-b.
i drive aswell,but like a sheep,like most everyone else,
safely.
as for paying tax,i can set the speed camera off on barnsley road,so tax is out of the question.
lol

As someone who's just started commuting to the city centre a couple of days a week from Killamarsh I could pick some faults with the cycle paths I've experienced, but I'm grateful to all those whose efforts got us this far and probably get little or no recognition. Maybe I'm too easily pleased, or the honeymoon effect has yet to wear off (not Winter yet eh?), but I jacked in biking and took up cycling and its still a joy overall. Too many endophins maybe.

Enjoy!

Originally posted by mega_monty
What do you call an average cyclist ?

I think he was trying to say that you are simply not going to get the bulk of sheffields population flocking to bicycles in their masses in sheffield, how many every day joe public is prepared to cycle up East Bank Road, which incidently has a cycle track.

Thank you....i think we are saying he same thing......it's too hilly.:clap:

Originally posted by the_rudeboy
Thank you....i think we are saying he same thing......it's too hilly.:clap:

Shame !:clap:

Originally posted by keithmdw
What I often wonder is why so many (not all, so please don't leap on me for this) cyclists seem to think that a red light only means stop if you are a motor vehicle, and carry on through the crossing/junction regardless.

Probably for the same reason as some motorists (but not all) go through red lights, or drive above the speed limit, or drive when thy're drunk. Some people stick to the rules, some don't, that includes everyone, drivers, cyclists, vicars and nuns.

Who will pay for the cycle paths?
The cylclists?
You get what you pay for.

Why does everyone get so wound up about cyclists not paying road tax (which many do anyway as they are also car users but just happen to be using their bike that day).

You could say the same about pedestrians, should they be stopped from crossing the road? Does it make them fair game for poor drivers. "Well, she wasn't paying road tax, she shouldn't be on the road, so I ran her over."

they filter fast on the left even when the traffics moving very slow or stopped car drivers are known for not looking in there left mirror i would be abit nervous doing this.

I think that if cycling is to encouraged more then clyclists should be registered, made to meet some minimum road safety standard and have insurance.

After all, at the moment, anyone can buy a bike with no experience at all, drive on a public road and injure another motorist or pedestrian by action or inaction.

There is no way of identifying them if they pedal away from the scene, and no way of injured or damaged parties being able to recoup losses through insurance as with motoring accidents.

Also, by ensuring some minimum safety standard, we'd at least know that the people cycling on the roads were competant and safe.

Should cyclists have insurance cover? I know they don't have to, i'm asking if forummers think they should.

Insurance?
Where would the line be drawn to describe those who must be insured and those who don't.
Everyone is responsible for their actions; some actions can have expensive results, which is why drivers must have insurance.
Could cyclists cause so much damage they would need insurance?
Perhaps a good whack by a cyclist could cause serious head injury to the victim.
I'd don't know of any such accidents.

Originally posted by mrchinnery
Insurance?
Where would the line be drawn to describe those who must be insured and those who don't.
Everyone is responsible for their actions; some actions can have expensive results, which is why drivers must have insurance.
Could cyclists cause so much damage they would need insurance?
Perhaps a good whack by a cyclist could cause serious head injury to the victim.
I'd don't know of any such accidents.


in response to a couple of posts on her. my wife & i cycle (part time) for fun.i am planning to cycle from killamasrh to norton b4 i take part in sports,should be fun.
the hills do put us off cycling,i used to cycle to Firth Browns 5 days a week at age 16 and it was hard work on the old 5 gear model.
cyclist should have 3rd party, just in case they do run the pedals down the side of your car, i have anumber of dents from where the handlebars have been rested against the car.

i also strongly support cycle profficiency or similar.my wife was & is sometimes an appalling/nervous cyclist who knows very little about cycling do's & dont's.

Originally posted by mrchinnery
Insurance?
Where would the line be drawn to describe those who must be insured and those who don't.
Everyone is responsible for their actions; some actions can have expensive results, which is why drivers must have insurance.
Could cyclists cause so much damage they would need insurance?
Perhaps a good whack by a cyclist could cause serious head injury to the victim.
I'd don't know of any such accidents.

It's not just them hitting a pedestrian (which is very possible with those cyclists that jump red lights and go through crossings when cars have stopped).

Nor is it to cover large damage claims. Picture this, a cyclist accidentally rides into my car, or whilst forcing their way past in a row of traffic breaks my mirror and scratches my door. Damage not huge, maybe a few hundred pounds, but as it is currently, they could cycle off and I would be left to pay the bill for their actions. Even if they stopped and admitted it, they have no insurance so it would be very difficult to get any money off them. I dont even want to pay for £5 worth of damage to my car if a cyclist caused it - they should have to.

We need to be able to identify them (registration plate kind of thing but obviously thought out better for cycles) and compulsory insurance and proficiency tests.

Originally posted by mrchinnery

Could cyclists cause so much damage they would need insurance?


A cycle travelling at 25 mph could do quite a lot of damage to a cars bodywork.......let alone a small child.

Originally posted by keithmdw
Maybe the cyclists should start paying road tax like us motorists and then that can pay for lots of cycle lanes wherever they are needed.

Roads for cars etc. are generally (supposed to be) paid for from road tax, so why not a similar system for cycles?

so should i pay two lots of road tax as I drive my car when the trip warrants a trip in the car but commute to work on my bike because I'm not lugging 30kg worth of kit or shopping?

in reply to another post
additionally I have insurance for my bike for theft and third party damage, my friend managed to write-off a bmw after a collision after it pulled out on him so know that we (cyclists) can cause as much damage as vehilces can do to us.

People to seem to think that all cyclists are car hating eco warriors who have no respect anyone else out in a public space... this is simply not the case.

Originally posted by tamarindl
so should i pay two lots of road tax as I drive my car when the trip warrants a trip in the car but commute to work on my bike because I'm not lugging 30kg worth of kit or shopping?

Yes, to be blunt I'm afraid.

A cycle lane is not a road, so a "clycle lane tax" should be paid on top of a road tax if you own and use both in my opinion.

Or maybe there could be a spacial dual-use road tax that cyclists who own cars could buy, maybe with some discouunts/incentives to promote cycle use.

there are no cycle paths on my route (which i appricate is slightly off topic) only on road cycle lanes and bus lanes... how does this fit into the debate?
I cycle from Walkley to Rotherham.

Clycles (I think) are allowed to use all bus lanes, so these would surely count as cycle lanes also for the purposes of the debate?

For the purpopes of taxation, then I still think that the cyclist should pay for the right to use them.

of course a cyclist can cause an accident but when was the last time you remember that happening?

Far more likely they will injur themselves.

I don't remember the last time I had an accident in my car, I still have to pay for insurance 'just in case'.

Originally posted by keithmdw
Clycles (I think) are allowed to use all bus lanes, so these would surely count as cycle lanes also for the purposes of the debate?

For the purpopes of taxation, then I still think that the cyclist should pay for the right to use them.

cyclists are allowed to use bus lanes aswell as taxi's. buses don't have to pay a tax for the regular open to all sections of road and another for the bus lanes. it's all road, therefore covered in the road tax I pay for my car.

cycle paths (on pavements) are part of the pavements, so do other users have to pay a tax too... wheelchair users, people with prams etc, they all put proporation (sp?) amount of wear on the surface as well as requiring acess to cross obsticals ie curbs.

Bus lanes are not part of the road - they might be 'on' the road, but they are not part of it - otherwise I, as a tax paying driver, should be allowed to drive in them which I am not.

so should i look out for the post/poll about how buses and taxis pay an tax for the privledge... then another post about how the fares have gone up to pay this tax. ;) lol

LOL

I won't digress into bus lanes, as I don't know how much, if anything busses pay in taxes etc., although I assume that taxis pay road tax at the very least.

My original point though was that if motorists want a new road built, it is done with road tax money (although this has been questioned earlier and I don't know which is correct yet), therefore if cyclists want new cycles lanes (which I agree are necessary) then they should expect to pay for them.

i will admit that i'm not sure on what road tax pays for or who exactly pays for new and maintainence to existing roads.
but am looking into it further....

found this, heavily biased in it's tone but offers food for thought.

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/thebikezone/campaigning/tax.html