Jump to content
Fancy running a forum? Sheffield Forum is for sale! Learn more


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About onewheeldave

  • Rank
    Autistic User

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Good, it was the traffic, glad to see people telling it the way it is. If the roads were not jammed with ridiculous numbers of cars emergency vehicles would never have problems.
  2. No-one has said it would. No-one. In isolation it is a meaningless statistic. How many cyclists used the road in that period? How many didn't use it because they judged it to be dangerous? How many injuries/deaths would have occurred if all those cyclists who didn't use it as they judged it to be too dangerous, had done?
  3. That wouldn't help with congestion according to the established science [induced demand]. How is averting ecological collapse caused [in large part] by car congestion, a strawman in a thread addressing congestion and the cycling solution to polution?
  4. I'm prioritising the things I consider really important- getting more cycles on the roads, getting a lot less cars/vans/lorries, saving the planets ecology, helping public health, trying to prevent the next generations of children growing up in a dying environment etc. I appreciate what you're saying here "which is never going to be used by commuting or leisure cyclists in any number." however, I've addressed it several times. That road is not safe for cyclists, and it's not perceived as safe for cyclists, and that, IMO, accounts for there not being many cyclists using it. IMO, it is a fantastic route for cyclists now it has a proper, car free path. Is this the best road for this path/experiment? I don't know- I suspect that whichever road had been chosen we'd have a similar amount of motor drivers up in arms for different reasons. Why don't you suggest some options where you think a dedicated car-free cycle path could have been put? That area has had snarled up traffic as long as I can remember, caused entirely by really excessive numbers of cars on the roads. As previously mentioned, making roads inconvenient for motor vehicles seems to be the only scientifically known way to cut vehicle numbers- I posted the links earlier [induced demand and car diet].
  5. You'd have to define what you in particular mean by "proportionately beneficial to commuting cyclists". And remind me why the focus on commuting cycles? I use the route a lot when cycling, although I steadfastly avoided the actual road as it is not safe for cyclists [it is now, of course, as they have a dedicated car-free path]. This is also why you're not seeing many cyclists there at the moment- they will have been on it and decided that being passed by fast moving articulated lorries at 6 inch distance is not safe and found routes that aviod it. I use it a lot [when I cycle, which was a lot during the lockdown, less now as Sheffield is not a pleasant or safe place to cycle due to the car congestion] it connects town to the Penistone road [off road] cycle path which links to the excellent [off road] cycle path to Oughtibridge and has lots of options for scenic routes and options for avoiding or seeking out good steep hills. As a direct result of having access to a proper cycle path with a guarantee that I will not be passed at 6" by a lethal metal box, or rammed by a driver pre-occupied with their illegal use of a phone, I will certainly be doing more cycling.
  6. To be fair, if Planner1 does sample the route, he should also do it on a cycle to get a real perspective. In fact, to all the motorists slating this scheme, to be fair I think you also do it on a cycle, and then find a similar road during rush hour and compare how it feels when you're using the more traditional 'cycle paths' in the form of a narrow strip of paint full of grit at the edge of a busy road being passed by vans at a distance of 6 inches.
  7. Actually that's another reason why we don't require specific cycle accident stats at each specific location. Perception is key here. If potential cyclists perceive cycling in Sheffield as too dangerous then they won't get bikes and cycle. And the priority is to get more people cycling. Dedicated cycling routes with motor vehicles excluded is the best way to make cyclists feel safe, as it is impossible for them to be passed innapropriately or run into by cars, if there are no cars able to access the lane. It's really the only way to ensure safety.
  8. Then you appear to be contradicting yourself. You are aware the work has been done- 2 cycle lanes put in place with barriers to keep cars out. Then you say work CAN'T be done without "statistics at the discrete site". Then you ask me for those stats, implying that you don't have them as that don't exist. So clearly the work can be done without specific site stats- the fact that it HAS been done proves that. Here is my exact quote See the bit in brackets? Some are climate change deniers- they deny climate change is happening full stop. Some are climate change [as in caused by humanity] deniers- they acknowledge that climate changes but deny it is caused by human pollution. I called you a "climate change [as in caused by humanity] denier" not a climate change denier. It's a very important distinction, otherwise confusion arises. Maybe that's what is in mind long term? Maybe this quicker and cheaper fix is simply the first stage?
  9. I'm talking about general cycling death/injury statistics. I've explained why I don't get sucked into demands for evidence that doesn't exist and is not needed, and consider such demands to be stalling tactics [albeit maybe, in your case, unintentional ones].
  10. I didn't say you were a climate change denier, I said you were a denier of human caused climate change. Do you believe that the current change in climate is caused by human activity [pollution etc]?
  11. There are many types of evidence as well. Look at the death/injury statistics for cyclists, they are not good. Also, as I previously mentioned, absence of accidents in specific places could just as well be becasue cyclists avoid those areas as they consdier them unsafe for cycling.
  12. When it comes to road bikes a lot of the riders who are serious about them don't use mudguards as it is seen as detreimental to the aesthetics of the bike, plus, those riders wear lycra and so dn't mind getting water/mud splashes as they just bung it in the washing machine afterwards. Others aren't into it in that way, but bought a full on road bike because they liked the look of it, and then on realising that they don't like getting wet, learnt that those types of bikes tend to have inadequate clearance so fitting proper mudguards is either impossible or very difficult. I wish bike sellers would point out to people in advance that road bikes are not good for general purpose cycling- they have very narrow tyres and inadequate clearance/fittings for mudguards, panniers etc. This tactic again? Reminds me of the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow- "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him." Another climate change [as in caused by humanity] denier then. And that's OK, you're entitled to your opinion. But, on a thread like this, when you're offering 'arguments' that basically are justifying increasing car numbers and condemning increasing cyclist numbers, it would be good if you could be open about the fact that you are a climate change denier.
  13. Totally agree with this post Presumably you're a climate change denier? If not, you need to rethink what you've put above. In what perspective is cash useful when the atmosphere is unbreathable and entire ecosystems have collapsed? It requires nothing of the sort, stop trying to stall progress by calling for unecessary evidence, especially in a location where an absence of accidents is mainly due to an absence of cyclists as the path is clearly very dangerous. 'Cycle paths' chucked at the edge of the road as an afterthought are not fit for purpose- too narrow, full of glass and crap, avoided by many cyclists as it's not safe to cycle in that position on the road as cars tend not to pass at a safe distance, etc. More so on that stretch as it has lots of cars/vans/lorries bombing past at high speeds. You can't maintain those paths to make them safe for cyclists- they are inherently badly designed- cycling right at the edge of the road IS NOT SAFE. Paths at the edge of the road will always accumulate debris. They never were any more than a box-ticking exercise- a low budget effort to fulfill an obligation to provide for cycling- it's clear from the lack of cyclists that they haven't worked. It's time to provide proper, safe, dedicated cycle routes, devoid of cars/vans/lorries. Safe for who? Zero mention of cyclists on that page.
  14. The science is clear, motor vehicle pollution is already a major killer and is a main factor in climate destruction.
  • 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.