Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dave_the_m

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. By "long time" I mean decades. Another way of looking at it is that, supposing that mature tree roots do indeed grow and damage the tarmac over time, why wouldn't the replacement saplings also damage the tarmac as they grow into full-sized trees? So replacing the trees with saplings doesn't protect the pavement.
  2. For a long time. The mature trees don't grow nearly as fast as saplings, and once the ground above the root has been uncompacted a bit (e.g. with a bit of sand), there is enough "give" for the root to grow further without cracking the tarmac above. The main reason the fellings have been opposed has always been that streets with mature trees make a pleasant environment to live in/near, rather than how much CO2 they absorb or not. While there are millions of trees in places like Ecclesall Woods and further out, there are a very limited number of street trees (approx 18,000), and they take many decades to become fully mature.
  3. Roots are the most common misconception about Sheffield street trees. When people see a raised/cracked pavement tarmac, they assume the roots are at or above surface level. In fact, the roots are usually 6" or more below the surface level and what you are seeing is in fact layer upon layer of tarmac built-up over the decades of repeated temporary repairs to cracked tarmac. When Amey finally remove all the tarmac, they've found that sometimes the layers are foot thick. Uncompacting the soil above the root and putting down new tarmac usually results in a smooth, level pavement. This has turned out to be the case for nearly every tree which Amey wanted to fell because it was "damaging" the pavement. You'll find exactly the same once MPR's pavements are repaired and resurfaced.
  4. Residents not liking trees was not an official grounds for removal even during they heyday of SCC's chainsaw massacre.
  5. Yeah, but unless you're going to keep everyone committing any crime in prison for the rest of their lives, you have to release them at some point. At which point you will want them to be reformed and able to integrate back into society so they don't commit further crimes. Prison is spectacularly bad at those outcomes. Liechtenstein has one twentieth of the population of Sheffield, so can be reasonably ignored for the purposes of this discussion. One fairly common definition of Western vs Eastern Europe is the Iron Curtain.
  6. The UK already has the highest incarceration rate of any western European country. Increasing it isn't likely to have any great beneficial effect. Or we could go for the US approach: per capita, they lock up over 4 times as many as the UK. It costs the US a small fortune, and they still seem to have lots of crime.
  7. My recollection of the 80s/90s is that the Tory government allowed people to buy their own council houses at a knock down price, then effectively forbade councils from building any more council housing to replace them. Whatever social housing was to be built from then onwards could only be built by housing associations.
  8. It really doesn't work like that. A simplified example: assume (on average) that cars are more fuel efficient going at 60mph rather than 70mph. Assume also (as a gross simplification) that the amount of pollutants produced by a car is directly proportional to the amount of petrol consumed. Then a car travelling between any two points A and B at 60mph will consume less petrol, and thus emit less pollutants along that stretch between A and B, than one going at 70mph - even though the faster car spends less actual time between A and B.
  9. The cyclist was coming in the other direction, with cars overtaking him/her. By giving the oncoming cars a wide berth, I allowed those cars to also give the cyclist a wider berth. Basic civility. There were no other vehicles or bikes near me travelling in my direction, otherwise obviously I wouldn't have moved into the bus lane. (This is Bolsover road, with 1 lane in each direction plus a bus lane into town.) The camera faced in the opposite direction to travel - i.e. it picked up the front of my car, but couldn't show what was happening ahead of me - cyclist etc. SCC's position was that since no one could be sure what what was happening ahead of me (although there was one witness - me - who could tell tell them), they could, on balance of probabilities, assume that there was no cyclist etc. I also had evidence that I had turned right at the roundabout a few hundred yards later, so on a mostly empty road (in my direction), there was no other reason for me to have entered the bus lane. The adjudicator's position was that legally I wasn't allowed to move into the bus lane, even though was the sensible thing to do. Please re-read your second paragraph which I have quoted above. You appear to be saying that the burden of proof is on the defendant : i.e. you are guilty unless you have hard evidence of your innocence. Do see anything wrong with that? Again, this is SCC enforcing every technical breach of the TRO, which doesn't happen in other aspect of law enforcement. Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, I would technically be guilty of an offence if, outside of my dwelling (but with no-one else in earshot), I muttered to to my wife that I [expletive] hated her and wanted a divorce. Fortunately the police (except sometimes when it suits them) don't prosecute every technical breach of Section 5.
  10. Because the whole point about a that bus lane was give buses etc priority - effectively to queue jump. When I briefly partially entered the bus lane to give more space for a cyclist coming in the other direction, I was not impeding buses, nor obtaining unfair advantage over fellow motorists. I was just making the road slightly safer for cyclists. However, SCC are operating a strict liability policy - if you don't have a legal reason to enter the bus lane, pay up. If all other laws were enforced as literally, every single one of us would be arrested and fined several times per day.
  11. I attended a tribunal over a bus lane penalty a few years ago, where the assessor said that technically she couldn't find in my favour, but since it was clear I hadn't done anything wrong, she recommended to the SCC rep that they waive the penalty. The rep refused. So she then suggested that they reinstate the early payment discount. Again the rep refused. At this point it was pretty clear to me that it is all about the money.
  12. Averages don't really give the full picture though. It could be (for example) that most houses built in the 1930's were of a similar size, while houses now might divide into two distinct groups: "luxury" - much bigger than most 1930's houses, and "pokey" - much smaller than most 1930's houses. Without seeing the distributions you can't really draw many conclusions.
  13. That depends of course whether the public highway extends all the way to the shop fronts. Sometimes the pavement is partly council-owned, while the strip nearest the shops is privately owned. It's possible the parade overhang indicates the boundary.
  14. Be very wary of private car parks - most of them have ANPR enforcement now, and the private parking companies who operate them are completely ruthless: if you in any way violate the T&Cs on the signs which you are deemed to have accepted by using the car park, then you'll likely get an invoice for £100. These invoices are often held as being valid by the county court. Reasonableness doesn't come into it: the fact that the car park was nearly empty and outside of shopping hours doesn't matter within the narrow focus of contract law..
  15. Would you prefer that they employ someone who has a track record of leaving their current employment after giving zero notice when something better turns up?
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.