Weredoomed

Nuclear powered coffee eh? It's the future 🤣🤣🤣

What about passenger capacity? Surely that can't be back to normal.

I read somewhere very recently that the US throwing the dummy out of the pram with China has seen large numbers of Chinese students opting not to study in the US. Apparently one of the main beneficiaries of this is the UK, as these students are now looking to come here instead. Time will tell I suppose.

Oh hush now, you're criticising SCC and we can't be having that. Regardless of the fact you're spot on. Never mind, someone will be along shortly to tell you you're wrong. Unlike SCC who never are. Allegedly.

The bottom photo is most informative Tony. I note it is no wider than the existing footways around Shalesmoor and also not a full traffic lane width. It also looks to be two way, with each cycle lane no wider than a typical UK one. There are also somewhere between 2 to 3 times the number of cyclists using it than the one at Shalesmoor. So why the farce at Shalesmoor has to take up a full lane is still an unanswered question. By SCC or their apologists. Where's the "Like" button? Or the "Hammer, nail, head" button.

Do you use the roads in question regularly? I do and can tell you that ambulances have no problem at all getting through there, even with two full lanes of standing traffic. Traffic simply moves apart to let them pass. They get through far quicker than having to stop to manually shift red/white blocks and cones out of the way. Fingers crossed no one dies due to a delayed ambulance whilst this nonsensical scheme is still in place, eh? Errm. Nope. Unless you consider 2 cyclists a bike-jam of course. Or are trolling to support this pointless scheme. I know YOU aren't trolling the site by the way alchemist.

Stop asking awkward questions. However extremely pertinent they are. Someone might think SCC didn't have a clue, or care, what they were doing, at both officer and elected member level.

But don't you realise RJRB, our never wrong Planner1 has just totally demolished my criticism of the council because, well, just because. You cannot seriously expect him to acknowledge his mates at SCC have dropped a major one at Shalesmoor, can you? Hush now and leave everything in the capable (or is it culpable?) hands of SCC. They know what is best for the city. Not the people who live and work in it. Any one fancy a side bet as to how long it will take for SCC to quietly remove the farce that is the Shalesmoor scheme? Will they remove it all in one go, or in phases? A phased removal could be a pathetic attempt to claim they were studying how it "improved" traffic flows on discrete sections of road. We ignorant peasants should tug our collective forelocks to our masters who obviously know better than us. As for "The Cabinet Member confirmed in a statement that they didn't do any stakeholder engagement due to the "emergency" nature of the project and the extremely limited time they had to implement it, due to the goverenment funding requirements.", that is the most pathetic excuse I've seen in a very long time. Emergency? Surely an emergency is something you would deal with in the first few days (at most) of a crisis. NOT several weeks into aforesaid crisis. Unless of course, SCC's response time to a genuine emergency (which this scheme most certainly was not) is actually measured in weeks. If their response time to a genuine emergency truly is several weeks, then god help us all if the city is ever hit by one. I would be pleased to know what "emergency" this scheme was actually meant to fix. How many lives did it save, given the extremely low numbers of cyclists visible on there at any one time. We are most certainly not talking about anything in double figures and I challenge planner1 to prove it saved a single life. As Jim Royle would say, "Emergency? Emergency my a..."

Doesn't tie up with Butler's post immediately above yours?

And what, pray tell, are these sustainable travel modes in hilly Sheffield with an aging population? Bike - non-starter for the majority of people. Bus - unreliable. Let's conveniently ignore social distancing, which is with us for the foreseeable future. Tram - limited to no access for the majority of the city's population, ditto on social distancing. Walking - depends how far you need to go, for what purpose and how hilly it might be along the way, see also reference to aging population above. Shall we conveniently ignore vulnerable females travelling around in the dark? What is this magical sustainable travel mode that will suit the majority of the population for the majority of the time? Like it or not, it's a car for all who can afford one. That's why there are so many of them, whether you like it or not. It will take users everywhere they want to go, (SCC road closures excepted), at whatever time of day they wish to travel and in virtually all weather conditions. Why should anyone switch to suit the politically correct aspirations of SCC's transport planners when the non-car options are not viable? Also what excuse for cutting car usage will be trotted out when, in few years time, cars are less or non-polluting? It would also be highly unprofessional to the point of gross incompetence to "explore a possibility" which it is obvious will increase congestion and thus pollution, because that's what these "experts" you leap to defend are charged with reducing. Whilst there may be a number of tools in the planners box, not all of them will be appropriate, so to suggest something inappropriate, as at Shalesmoor, displays either: Condescending arrogance ("We know what's best peasants") or Disinterested indifference ("We've been told to do something, we don't care if it works or not") or Incompetence ("We've no idea whether it will work, despite past knowledge of how quickly a loss of capacity causes mayhem in the city centre but, durrrr, let's do it anyway"). So which is it? If you expect anyone to believe that councillors are qualified to make the call as to which is the best solution, think again. Sadly the officers who advise them are not accountable - when was the last time one of them was disciplined for providing wrong advice? Where are the meeting minutes that show the officers who presented the options to councillors, (if any were presented in the first place, which I doubt), tried to steer councillors AWAY from an option that would cause increased congestion and pollution? Will any officer be censured over Shalesmoor - don't try to tell us someone will be having a standing interview without coffee and biscuits over this one. What stakeholder engagement occurred at Shalesmoor? What comments were received about the TTRO by SCC after they had posted it, as they are legally required to do? Having read the Shalesmoor TRO, I note that there seems to be no mention in it of the closure of a lane to motor vehicles. This is because lane closures do not require a TRO, even as part of a TTRO. So quite how any member of the public was supposed to be aware of this grossly negligent scheme prior to it being installed is a mystery to me. Little wonder then that it came as a surprise to the people of Sheffield. Well done SCC for doing things sneakily, in an attempt to achieve your agenda. To emphasise the last sentence above, SCC could legally reduce the IRR to a single lane in each direction for motor vehicles for the full length of the road and not need a TRO, temporary or otherwise, to do so. They could also do it with no notice whatsoever. Not that they would be so anti-car, now would they?

And Amsterdam is flat. Please now try to convince me that Sheffield is equally flat. And don't try to deflect by saying some parts of the city are and some journeys can thus be flat. It's damned difficult to move around this city without coming across at least one steep hill. So to quote Amsterdam is a spurious example.

One might muse that a responsible officer would not table an option that they should know, (being allegedly highly skilled), would definitely cause congestion. Particularly as it is frequently the case that a single incident in the city centre or on the IRR at peak periods cause near gridlock. God knows it's happened often enough with the odd broken down bus or collision in the past. So removing a lane for motorised traffic, as at Shalesmoor, is effectively installing a permanent "incident". Then, surprise, surprise, congestion ensues. Who could have possibly seen that coming eh? It would be highly unprofessional for them to propose such an option - indeed short of closing the road completely, it must be the worst option of however many they considered when one looks at overall traffic flow and disruption. There is no way that option can be in the best interest of the city and it's people. Nice try at deflecting the blame from the officers but they are the ones responsible for suggesting this in the first place. It's like a doctor giving a patient the option of having their leg cut off to fix an in-growing toenail - a somewhat less than professional an option to table, don't you think?

I think you'll find that's what we pay those allegedly highly-skilled* people SCC to do. Although they've got it mixed up and have brought us a problem at Shalesmoor, rather than a solution. *Evidence of their actual skill level seems to be somewhat adrift from "highly". Thank you for giving car drivers, busses, lorries, vans and motorbikers permission to drive along footways if they so choose to with due care and attention. Very generous of you. Presumably the cyclists who go the wrong way down one way streets also make it OK for motorised vehicles to do the same whenever they choose?

@Tony - there are so many practical, operational flaws in your argument, I have no idea where to begin. So I wont.

Went to a similar set up in Newcastle last year, where they'd used repurposed shipping containers. Good concept. There's something similar here on Shalesmoor: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.3883766,-1.4760966,3a,59.7y,105.82h,96.25t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snFTNlzvgaWc_bzutWB1v2w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en Not that you can get anywhere near it, thanks to SCC's brainless new cycle lane of course...

Meanwhile, in the real world of rip-off Britain...

Exactly the sort of thing the risk assessment should consider. £5 says it doesn't, on the grounds the RA doesn't exist? Surely SCC couldn't be so cavalier with safety legislation. Could they?

But one has to wonder how this stupidity actually made onto the road. What oversight was there to check that this was viable. The scheme designer is required by law (the CDM regulations) to do a risk assessment of the design, so where is it and what does it say? Or have SCC decided that statutory instruments don't apply to them? And god help them if there's an accident because the HSE will be all over them like a rash. That would tend to concentrate their minds I rather fancy.

Well you say that but that type of aircraft is used as a drone. Just not in the UK and definitely not over populated areas in the UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeronautics__Dominator

Exactly. When you consider how much pollution places such as China churn out into the atmosphere, making cycling "nice" in Sheffield for a tiny number of people will contribute towards saving the planet by the square root of chuff all. Enough of the woke virtue signalling, this scheme is wrong, not fit for purpose and is creating more congestion and thus pollution by it's mere existence. Overall it disbenefits both the community and the environment and should be removed immediately. THEN There should be an inquiry into which officers thought this was a good idea and they should be made to justify their actions. Along with the councillors who they managed to convince this was viable, when it clearly is no such thing.

It certainly would but that would require civil engineering works, which - as you say - are considerably more expensive than a bit of white thermoplastic and a few red/white plastic blocks. That's without even thinking about any statutory undertakers plant that might be in the footways that would need lowering or protecting/diverting and god alone knows how long it would all take to implement! Hammer, nail, head.

It is and I do it regularly. BUT. That's called rat-running and through residential areas into the bargain. Highly frowned upon by our betters at SCC, who would rather close off those roads, given half a chance, and force everyone onto a single route that is thus susceptible to gridlock in the event of an accident. But if everyone walked or got on a bike, everything would be sweetness and light. Apparently. To a large extent yes. And you DID call me a climate change denier. Please stop trying to mince words. Fixed that for you 🤣

No, that's not how it works. For an improvement to be implemented the statistics at the discrete site must justify the work. How do you think SCC decides where to install a new signalised crossing - based on who shouts loud enough? Although I suspect officers appeasing gobby politicians may be a factor occasionally! The evidence does exist and it is needed, otherwise how do local authorities prioritise their spending? Saying that X number of cyclists are killed/injured nationally each year is not justification to install a cycle lane at Shalesmoor, where one already exists by the way, with no evidence that I know of that it is in any way inadequate. Nor is the number of annual fatalities/injuries necessarily justification to install a discrete cycle network. On a separate but related issue, you may not realise that across the UK it is estimated that there could be up to 74,000 deer-related motor vehicle accidents annually, resulting in 400 to 700 human injuries and 20 deaths. I am deafened by the uproar that causes from both environmentalists/naturalists and those concerned about human life, aren't you?

Well what are the death injury statistics for cyclists at Shalesmoor then? Presumably you must know what they are to assert how dangerous it is. Can you prove it is actually dangerous rather than perceived as being so? And if cyclists choose to avoid the area and go another way, there isn't a problem for them at Shalesmoor because they aren't there in the first place.

Which is thus not justified.