IMPORTANT NEWS...

As previously warned, Sheffield Forum is changing to new software - view the preview here

This is scheduled for Sunday 18th Nov. The forum will be closed and unavailable an extended period of time (24-36 hours) to allow for this major transition.

Please note that some private messages will not be transferred. Therefore we strongly urge you to take manual back-ups of any important messages now.
Sheffield Forum
Your message here

Cycle Lane past station

Home > Sheffield > Sheffield News & Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
29-06-2018, 21:32   #41
nikki-red
Pyjama addict
nikki-red's Avatar
 
Moderator
Joined: Jul 2008
Location: Left off Last Laugh Lane...
Total Posts: 55,067
Posts consisting of personal comments and digs have been removed.

If you cant have a discussion without resorting to that then please dont post.

Thank you.
_______
“It's practically impossible to look at a penguin and feel angry.” - Joe Moore
  Reply With Quote
30-06-2018, 01:38   #42
SHFS6
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2015
Location: Hillsborough
Total Posts: 33
Problem is it's not well signposted for pedestrians and doesn't make much sense in the way it's designed.

If anyone is wondering it's opposite the Sheffield tap up to the showroom far side from the station. The path has two colours of brick red that is intended for cycling, and the cream stone for walking.

I didn't know it was a cycling lane, can see from Google maps that if you follow the path towards ponds forge there are some blue circular signs that show the use. But they lack conspicuity.

I say it's badly designed because there are two junctions where the cyclist would naturally need to stop, those being where the footpath links to the crossing. Clearly where there is a pedestrian crossing, they have right of way.

I think the original gripe was that people weren't observing it all the way up the hill. And that may be so, but I don't think that they can be blamed. It looks nothing like any other cycle lane I've come across in the city.
  Reply With Quote
30-06-2018, 11:45   #43
RootsBooster
Registered User
RootsBooster's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Location: Something, something, danger zone?
Total Posts: 11,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHFS6 View Post
I think the original gripe was that people weren't observing it all the way up the hill. And that may be so, but I don't think that they can be blamed. It looks nothing like any other cycle lane I've come across in the city.
The one in front of Decathlon, also the one that goes up the side of Office World (toward Moorfoot), are both similarly ambiguous
_______
I tried getting blood out of a stone once, it was like trying to get a straight answer from a theist.

"No shoe can steal my secrets. They were just shoes" -Pilot
  Reply With Quote
09-07-2018, 00:15   #44
fill
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Location: Sheffield
Total Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig View Post

I just ride with a bit more care as I weave through the pedestrians who are walking in both the cycle lane and the foot path. its not difficult.
Well at least you admit riding illegally on the footpath ... I wonder.. do you also ride illegally on pedestrian precincts?

"Footways are paths alongside roads set aside for pedestrians and it is an offence to cycle along them."

And at last a victory for commonsense
"Cyclist fined £351 for riding in pedestrian precinct - Cycling Weekly"

There is it seems some attempt to protect pedestrians from these irresponsible, selfish and doubtless uninsured riders on their pedal bikes where they are not wanted, and not allowed.
_______
If you don't ask you will never know. But having asked do not always expect either sense or the truth in all responses.
  Reply With Quote
09-07-2018, 01:45   #45
WalkleyIan
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Walkley
Total Posts: 1,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by fill View Post
Well at least you admit riding illegally on the footpath ... I wonder.. do you also ride illegally on pedestrian precincts?

"Footways are paths alongside roads set aside for pedestrians and it is an offence to cycle along them."

And at last a victory for commonsense
"Cyclist fined £351 for riding in pedestrian precinct - Cycling Weekly"

There is it seems some attempt to protect pedestrians from these irresponsible, selfish and doubtless uninsured riders on their pedal bikes where they are not wanted, and not allowed.
If only the Law was a simple as that. Barkers Pool for example? The route up the pavement in front of the Bankers Draft? Both entirely legal to cycle on.

If you're going to quote bits of the highway code

Under the Highways Act 1835, s.72, it is an offence willfully to ride or drive on the footway, even though the driving may last only for a few seconds (McArthur v Jack 1950 S.C.(J.) 29). The offence will also apply to pedal and motorcyclists.

Section 72 of the Highways Act 1835 is used in the current Highway Code.

Rule 145. You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency.

So you have to ask how did all those cars parked on the pavement manage to get there without breaking rule 145? Giant crane lift them on maybe?
  Reply With Quote
09-07-2018, 05:03   #46
WarPig
Registered User
WarPig's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Total Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig View Post
I just ride with a bit more care as I weave through the pedestrians who are walking in both the cycle lane and the foot path. its not difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fill View Post
Well at least you admit riding illegally on the footpath ... I wonder.. do you also ride illegally on pedestrian precincts?
How am I riding illegally when I'm cycling in a cycle lane, and avoiding the pedestrians who are walking in it? I don't understand you.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 03:34   #47
fill
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Location: Sheffield
Total Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig View Post
How am I riding illegally when I'm cycling in a cycle lane, and avoiding the pedestrians who are walking in it? I don't understand you.
"Rule 145. You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

it is not that difficult to understand.
_______
If you don't ask you will never know. But having asked do not always expect either sense or the truth in all responses.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 07:51   #48
SHFS6
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2015
Location: Hillsborough
Total Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by fill View Post
"Rule 145. You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

it is not that difficult to understand.
That's not quite correct:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 08:05   #49
Annie Bynnol
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Total Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHFS6 View Post
That's not quite correct:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.
In this case Rule 145 is a legal requirement as it is identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'.
In this case the annotations to this "...MUST NOT..." refer to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (34),
"(1)
Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—
(a)
on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b)on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
.
he is guilty of an offence.

Section (19) refers to the offence of HGVs illegally parked on paths,verges etc.

Last edited by Annie Bynnol; 08-08-2018 at 08:21.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 08:16   #50
TimmyR
Registered User
TimmyR's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Worrall
Total Posts: 2,849
there's a lot of talk of blame in this thread. I don't think that helps. The issue is the design of the bike lanes. You ride on some parts of the cycle lanes in central london and you can see how things should be done. The bikes lanes in sheffield are a joke and I don't really blame pedestrians for walking in them because its not really obvious that they aren't supposed to. personally I tend to stick to roads although I do use the cycle lanes when it allows me to circumnavigate a red light in an entirely legal fashion and in a way that is respectful to other pavement users.
_______
Unless...

Last edited by TimmyR; 08-08-2018 at 08:20.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 08:43   #51
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 72,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Bynnol View Post
In this case Rule 145 is a legal requirement as it is identified by the words 'must' or 'must not'.
In this case the annotations to this "...MUST NOT..." refer to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (34),
"(1)
Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a motor vehicle—
(a)
on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b)on any road being a footpath or bridleway,
.
he is guilty of an offence.

Section (19) refers to the offence of HGVs illegally parked on paths,verges etc.
Are bicycles classed as motor vehicles?
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 09:14   #52
chakademus
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2018
Total Posts: 228
To answer question, it's badly designed. But there's too much traffic on the road. Cyclists (who ride erractly much of time) should be banned from stretches of road & forced to have insurance / test like other road users. Absurd that they don't.

It's also confusing for pedestrians to have lanes of traffic coming either way. One way bike lanes & two way roads.

Last edited by chakademus; 08-08-2018 at 09:18. Reason: Confusing
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 09:15   #53
Annie Bynnol
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Total Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
Are bicycles classed as motor vehicles?
No, because bicycles do not have motors/large enough motors.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 09:26   #54
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 72,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie Bynnol View Post
No, because bicycles do not have motors/large enough motors.
That's what I thought... So that bit of legislation isn't relevant to the cycles under discussion. Other legislation is though.

---------- Post added 08-08-2018 at 09:31 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by chakademus View Post
To answer question, it's badly designed. But there's too much traffic on the road. Cyclists (who ride erractly much of time) should be banned from stretches of road & forced to have insurance / test like other road users. Absurd that they don't.

It's also confusing for pedestrians to have lanes of traffic coming either way. One way bike lanes & two way roads.
Perhaps motorists (who drive erratically much of the time) should be banned from stretches of road instead.

Children are quite reasonably allowed to cycle, at what age do you propose that they require a license? How are they supposed to learn?
What requirements are there to hold a provisional license and to ride a moped?

Insurance exists because cars when misused cause huge amounts of damage. Cycles on the other hand rarely cause anything except trivial damage. There is simply no argument for compulsory insurance.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 09:53   #55
WarPig
Registered User
WarPig's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Total Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by fill View Post
"Rule 145. You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."

it is not that difficult to understand.
You are missing the obvious by a country mile. I’m riding in a cycle lane. The pedestrians are walking in the cycle lane. I’m taking care to weave around the pedestrians whilst remaining in the cycle lane.

There is clearly some part of that which you can’t understand. Could you explain which part it is please?
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 09:57   #56
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 72,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig View Post
I just ride with a bit more care as I weave through the pedestrians who are walking in both the cycle lane and the foot path. its not difficult.
The bit in bold could be read to say that you cycle on the footpath where it isn't a cycle lane.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 10:06   #57
chakademus
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2018
Total Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post

[/COLOR]

Perhaps motorists (who drive erratically much of the time) should be banned from stretches of road instead.
Get insurance & an objectively measured road test then you can make demands.
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 10:10   #58
Cyclone
Registered User
Cyclone's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Wadlsey
Total Posts: 72,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by chakademus View Post
Get insurance & an objectively measured road test then you can make demands.
I have insurance and a full driving license. I'm not making any demands though, you are.
_______
Ask yourself, what would Chuck Norris do?
Youtube videos, snowboarding, climbing, bad drivers.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmn...qpXEZMGnJHf3Wg
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 10:20   #59
chakademus
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2018
Total Posts: 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclone View Post
I have insurance and a full driving license. I'm not making any demands though, you are.
To ride a bicycle you dont.

---------- Post added 08-08-2018 at 10:21 ----------

"Perhaps motorists (who drive erratically much of the time) should be banned from stretches of road instead."
  Reply With Quote
08-08-2018, 10:38   #60
TimmyR
Registered User
TimmyR's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Worrall
Total Posts: 2,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by chakademus View Post
To ride a bicycle you dont. [have an objectively measured road test]
because you are very unlikely to kill anyone riding a bike. The same is not true of a car. You don't need a licence/test/insurance for any of the following for exactly the same reason:

mobility scooter
wheelchair
lawnmower
scooter
skateboard
roller skates
walking
running
unicycling


Stop being ridiculous.
_______
Unless...

Last edited by TimmyR; 08-08-2018 at 10:41.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:28.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2018