Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AndrewC

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/06/1985

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Interests
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Stealing a living. By most accounts not the nicest person either, certainly his reputation with fans of the clubs he has been manager of rarely seem to have a positive view of him. Human Rights abuses are the worst thing linked to this new Newcastle ownership, but a close second has to be the fact they have given Bruce a way to wriggle out of St James Park on a high horse, i.e. blaming his sacking/resignation on the new ownership, and not on the fact that he's been terrible for Newcastle United, and is largely disliked by the Geordies.
  2. Astonishing to think the law is on the side of the person who has driven their car and parked it on some one else's private land. Just to be absolutely clear, @martin1print, is there any indication (signage) that suggests the land is a car park? If not, I guess giving the car owners the benefit of the doubt it might be that they know the land owner and have an agreement. Otherwise, it's astonishing that they would simply see an accessible piece of land and assume it was a legitimate place to park, without knowing the owner. Some people are so tied to their cars that everything around them looks like a parking space.
  3. Oops; you're quite right, it was. Still though, like you say, it's never an overly busy street for cars any day of the week.
  4. Until a decision is made to pedestrianise Division Street (which I think is almost certainly coming in the next couple of years), then taking 5 hours on 1 Sunday every few months seems like a fair ask. It seems very popular (both this market and the idea of pedestrianisation) among shop owners on the road. I personally rarely use Division Street when it's open to traffic, whereas it tends to draw me in quite often when it's pedestrianised.
  5. Sheffield City Council have stated that they approved the road closure. No word from Amey yet.
  6. Unless they banned any students who didn't cycle from entering the school, I'm not sure how you think this impacts any students who either don't have a bike or were still taken/went to school in the same way they always have?... The more of those that did take up the chance to bike to school, the more space for everyone else - including motorists - who still took their kids to school in their usual way. Win-win? If you want to talk about discrimination in transport, please explain to me how building a car-centric world which forces even the poorest families in to costly cars + all the associated costs is non-discriminatory. Motorists are always quick to tell us how expensive it is drive - why would you wish that upon low-income families? Cuttsie was describing lots of examples of bad driving - doesn't bad driving infringe on every other road users business? When an idiot driver parks their car on the restricted zones outside school, forcing parents & kids out in to the road, or blocking the view when crossing - that's them getting in the way of other people's business, no?
  7. Does seem a bit of a non-story, that council parking one. Many businesses have parking spaces for their employees, I'm not sure the council are doing much worse there. On that subject though, I would like to see Sheffield think about a Workplace Parking Levy like the one they have in Nottingham. Without directly imposing a congestion charge on workers, they are useful for a) building up a pot of money for public transport investment and b) encouraging employers to put more effort in to travel plans etc. with their workers. I think I'm right in saying that most Nottingham employers who face the levy are fairly supportive of it still because that money goes back in to local transport links which of course reap their own benefits for those companies. Nottingham does have greater control over it's transport network though (buses for example) than Sheffield does, so might not have the same impact.
  8. Perhaps cycling and public transport improvements along the A61 aren't as much about getting you out of your car as they are about getting less necessary car use out of the way, so those who do need the roads (people working unsocial hours, travelling long distance, people with mobility issues, lorries with heavy loads etc) have less congestion to deal with? Perhaps it's not for you, personally, but you shouldn't belittle infrastructure which will help those who can make the shift to active travel & public transport - every person off the road who doesn't really need to use their car is leaving more space for those who really do.
  9. What if they've only built up to being the majority because decisions on transport infrastructure investment over the last 7 decades have favoured that mode of transport above all others? We've built for a motoring future for some 7 decades but we're starting to realise that you eventually reach a dead-end. There's only so much space in our cities - eventually everyone driving around in metal box not much smaller than a terraced house living room starts to become a tad unsustainable. A lot of that 'majority' aren't as tied to cars as many die-hard motorists would have you believe. Provide good public transport and active travel alternatives, and you soon see a lot people leave their cars at home. Yes, HGVs and cyclists, together in perfect harmony!
  10. Maybe the volume of cars, vans is so high because the infrastructure for bikes/cargo bikes is so ****e? It's tried and tested in places all over the world; give people decent, safe, convenient alternatives and they will start to leave their cars at home. People in urban areas will generally make transport decisions based on factors like ease, cost, speed etc. It's a politic decision as to what you as a local council etc. give them. The sticking point is that urban areas rarely have the space or money to allow 100% of people to travel by private car. I take it by the wording of your sentence that you don't believe any one on a bike could possibly be going to work?
  11. I don't know where half of what you're going on about there has come from?! EVs pay less tax because they impact air pollution less. Nothing to do with the wear & tear on the roads. In fact, you're right, they still create noise pollution and create particle pollution from brakes and tyre friction etc. More in fact, some people argue, because the batteries are so heavy so, like-for-like EVs tend to be heavier than petrol counterparts. I dare say you're right about revenues from fuel duty and tax. I suspect as CO2 emissions become less of an issue as more people use EVs, then Vehicle Tax may be changed to be based on vehicle weight and potentially dimensions, in order to 'tax' based on wear & tear of the roads. The only green car is no car at all. But all things considered, if we could snap our fingers and theoretically replace every petrol/diesel car overnight with electric, that would be a good thing to do. The pros just about outweigh the cons. I'd still try to encourage people to try and leave their electric cars at home though because of all the other impacts on society that they still have, and the production of battery technology and of course the source power from power stations is still questionable. No one said EVs had fewer crashes, or caused less damage when they crash?! I was talking about car crash damaged compared to the damage bikes, pedestrians do, and fewer crash occurrences compared to those involving public transport vehicles.. The more people out of cars and on to bikes, buses and walking, then the fewer crashes and a massive reduction in money lost to damage on our roads. As a man in the industry, do you know how much money is spent each year in the UK on recovering cars & vans following crashes, compared to how much is spent on recovering bicycles?
  12. Well, the more people and deliveries that use bikes and cargo bikes the better for the road because the downward pressure of a vehicle is exponential depending on weight; the downforce of a person on a bike is a minute fraction of that of the same person in a car (and even though the cargo would be weighty, the cargo bikes themselves are much lighter than their van counterparts). You seem to be suggesting the extra buses and delivery vans would add up to the same amount of wear & tear as the cars they replace, but that doesn't seem to play out in reality in cities which have forged ahead with reducing car dependancy. Whatever the situation with wear & tear, it definitely would lead to fewer vehicles overall and of course bikes take up a fraction of the space cars do, both on the road and in terms of parking. Imagine the section of Ecclesall Road from Pomona Street to the ring-road, but with just buses and a few delivery vans & lots of cyclists using. You wouldn't need half the space it takes up now. And then start imaging the land you save by not needing half the parking space for cars.
  13. Hmm, maybe it was different timings this morning, but Google right now: Car - 4hr 18m Train - 4hr 28m 🤔 If I was going to the city centre in Glasgow, I'd be using the train for that time difference. If you're travelling to the countryside nearby or the suburbs, probably car. Either way, not sure what it has to do with excessive car use in a areas like Meadowhead & Woodseats (this thread)?
  14. You're making a very common mistake; thinking that because you spend a lot of money owning & operating a car (and I don't deny that you do) then that must mean you're paying more than you should have to. False. Whatever we pay to operate a car, we're usually paying less than the costs we're incurring on society. It's just the costs are surprisingly higher and more numerous than many people realise. The costs to society of car use are immense - far more than is often let on by the motoring industry and others, and far more than most motorists realise. The costs of building and maintaining road infrastructure is eye-watering, even compared to what we spending on national rail or public transport projects, let alone the peanuts that pedestrian & cycling infrastructure costs. There's no such thing as free parking. Air & noise pollution from car use causes massive costs for health services & councils. Etc. etc. As for the specifics you've listed; Permits; As above, on-street parking is paid for by everyone, but supply & demand dictates that pricing is used to manage things. Local parking permit schemes almost exclusively only exist in places where too many people are trying to park. Do you bemoan paying any parking costs? There is no Road Tax in this country. The last thing anything like a road tax - as I suspect you mean it - was abolished in the 30s I think it was?! Road maintenance comes out of council and Highways England budgets, and is funded through general taxation. We all pay for the upkeep of the roads (despite cars owners & other large vehicles doing all the damage). Car Tax is based on emissions, and is - in effect - a tax on pollution. Buy an electric car if you don't want to pay tax. Bigger cars/cost of fuel/fuel grades - If your car uses petrol/diesel then you are using a diminishing resource, not to mention polluting your local area, as well as contributing to global climate change. It's perfectly sensible that the bigger your car, the bigger the tax, and it's perfectly rational that fuel costs are high. We have to move towards phasing out the most polluting cars so that people move towards cleaner engines (even cleaner combustion engines) and electric vehicles, and/or reducing car-use completely. Insurance: Insurance companies and legal requirements for insurance are both based on where they are needed. Car insurance is high because accidents involving car causes a costly amount of damage! Even a modest car 'crash' will end up costing a few hundred quid. Cyclists don't require insurance because on they very rarely cause damage that would make it worthwhile. Bus lanes/gates, and other restrictions are there for a reason. Don't want to get fined, don't go in them. If you disagree with their reason for being, you should take that up with a councillor.
  15. You ask some good questions and make some good points - and I will reply! - but it will have to be later on 👍
  • 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.