BoroB

And that seems to be the attitude that the 'planners' took when implementing the scheme. Road users? They're just people using a road we've just spent millions on improving, so that the infrastructure in a congested area works better, so lets spend ten of thousands of pounds to cut capacity without telling them or asking for their input. And then they wonder why Shalesmoor is bumper to bumper for several hours a day more than it was before. Councils don't admit when they got it wrong and definitely don't like u turns. With this scheme the workmen who carried out the work to implement it barely had time to unload their wagons before they were back out reversing the work. Yeah it's just a road, but one that runs a lot better than it did when the changes were put in place.

If the council want to remove 'less necessary car use', maybe they should not belittle the citys road users by reducing a main ring road's capacity by 50%, a road they had recently spent millions of pounds on, with little notice and no consultation? A decision they then performed the mother of all u turns on after they had created weeks of chaos in the area.

Good to know the cyclist is ok. As you allude to in post 1131 the left turn was blocked off as part of a temporary scheme. The scheme was never intended to be permanant, never intended to block ambulances in, never intended to bring that part of the city frequently to gridlock at a time when the volume of traffic was severely reduced due to covid lockdown. The scheme was removed because it was ill thought out, poorly communicated to highway users , poorly used by cyclists and also because it was temporary.

Not encourage more cycling but responsible cycling. Some practice it, some don't. The movement towards zero emission cars is taking place and will probably be the norm in the next generation or so, Can we say the same for cyclists being registered, insured and accountable?

Not draconian measures, just equal measures. So with a highway being made up of a road and a footpath, isn't it usual for vehicles to use the road element and pedestrians to use the part specifically allocated to them, called the footpath or pavement, to ensure safety for both different parties? I would think that its not a very good idea for a pedestrian to use the road element of a highway and likewise not sensible, if not illegal, for a motorised vehicle to drive on the pavement/footpath element. With regards to number plates and insurance, I believe they help make motorists behave in a responsible manner. Not all motorists but a vast majority. That's what laws and regulations are there for. Without them behaviour on the roads would be worse. So lets expand the scheme to all road users, treat everyone the same. Equal measures. Not really bothered what happens worldwide, just with what happens in the UK.

If you travel on the road then surely the same rules should be applicable to everyone. Number plates and insurance may not stop some motorists busting red lights but number plates make them identifiable and the insurance will give recompense to any innocent parties affected by said actions. If you are a responsible motorist or cyclist then you should not have nothing to fear.

Where did I mention pedestrians Planner1? Pedestrians may cross roads but do not travel along them. That's why we have footpaths. Make your mind up as your statement says 'Nowhere in the world has it' but then you say 'As far as you know'. Which is it? Watch the BBC click program from last weekend with regards to the electric bikes that you are advocating people to use. Given the speeds that these bikes generate the program states that several countries in the EU require registration and insurance. I believe that the click program is still available on catchback.

You may think its unfair and unfounded, I think cyclists should be subject to the same rules as other road users who have to pass a test, be insured and have a number plate to identify them.

And we wonder why a lot of cyclists seem to be against a number plate type system and insurance. Seems like cyclists don't want to be identifiable or accountable.

So a scheme that was several years in the planning has been sacrificed barely 6 months after completion, removing road capacity that was (and still is) clearly needed. There was an interesting section on the BBC's click show at the weekend regarding electric bikes, apparently in many EU countries cyclists using these need to be registered and insured. Bring it on.

Build it and they will come - in time . Thats part of the problem with the Shalesmoor scheme, the council has just completed a multi million road improvement scheme to cope with the volume of traffic. So its been a case of build, ignore and impede the improvement that they felt were needed in that area.

Correct me if I'm wrong Tony but Shalemoor is not one of the main shopping areas of the city, it's an arterial road used by many vehicles, some of whom will probably visit the Moor or Fargate for either delivery or shopping purposes. Should we not convince them to make regular use of the cycle lanes that are there first, like the one on Penistone Road?

'Gazillions' of cars? Its pointless spending millions on a road system and then reduce capacity on a whim.

Given the posts on this thread, the hundreds of adverse comments on Sheffield Online and the local media coverage, there would seem to be lots of parties more than remotely interested in whether the reason causing all the disruption is being used. Secondly I'm sure the council would take a passing interest in footage showing their white elephant being ignored by those it is supposed to be helping.

The footage would show that despite cycle lanes being put in place some cyclists will still not use them and use pavements instead.