£94 Million funding for cycling projects in UK - Well done Sheffield

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Why waste obscene amounts of money on those silly cycle lanes when the two wheeled warriors dont use them. ? They totally ignore their "Road space " and instead cause obstructions on the main part of the road. If this money must be wasted on this stupidity , then the law must be changed to make it an offence for cyclists to ride outside of these cycle lanes ,and a fine must issued for this offence. If cyclists want this money invested for them , they must be forced to ride only in their little lanes. They cant have it both ways.

 

You're meant to give a cyclist the same room overtaking you would when overtaking a car.

[onewheeldave 22]

Why waste obscene amounts of money on those silly cycle lanes when the two wheeled warriors dont use them. ? They totally ignore their "Road space " and instead cause obstructions on the main part of the road. If this money must be wasted on this stupidity , then the law must be changed to make it an offence for cyclists to ride outside of these cycle lanes ,and a fine must issued for this offence. If cyclists want this money invested for them , they must be forced to ride only in their little lanes. They cant have it both ways.

 

 

When an experienced cyclist refuses to use a stretch of cycle lane, it's because that cycle lane is dangerous to ride on. Many of Sheffield's 'cycle lanes' are incredibly badly designed and only an inexperienced cyclist would actually ride on them.

 

As you well know, in many circumstances the recommended and appropriate position for a cyclist is in the middle of the lane- not in the gutter where most cycle lanes are.

 

In any situation where it would be unsafe to be passed by a car, it is important that the cyclist takes up a position in the center where they cannot be passed, becasue, sadly, there are car/van/lorry drivers out there who will happily attempt to pass a cyclist in circumstances where it is not safe to do so.

 

I'd suggest if you are going to continue offering your opinion on cyclists, that it would be a good idea for you to get out on Sheffield roads on a bicycle for several days- that would give you a really good idea of what cycling in Sheffield is like.

 

After all, most cyclists also own and drive a car- they can see a situation from the perspective of a cyclist, and the perspective of a car driver.

Edited August 14, 2013 by onewheeldave

[Penistone999 10]

When an experienced cyclist refuses to use a stretch of cycle lane, it's because that cycle lane is dangerous to ride on. Many of Sheffield's 'cycle lanes' are incredibly badly designed and only an inexperienced cyclist would actually ride on them.

 

As you well know, in many circumstances the recommended and appropriate position for a cyclist is in the middle of the lane- not in the gutter where most cycle lanes are.

In any situation where it would be unsafe to be passed by a car, it is important that the cyclist takes up a position in the center where they cannot be passed, becasue, sadly, there are car/van/lorry drivers out there who will happily attempt to pass a cyclist in circumstances where it is not safe to do so.

 

I'd suggest if you are going to continue offering your opinion on cyclists, that it would be a really good idea for you to get out on Sheffield roads on a bicycle for several days- that would give you a really good idea of what cycling in Sheffield is like.

 

After all, most cyclists also own and drive a car- they can see a situation from the perspective of a cyclist, and the perspective of a car driver.

 

 

If the cyclist should take up a position in the center of the road ,then it begs the obvious question............... why squander a fortune on cycle lanes in the first place ?

 

Also, believe it or not im not against all cycling...... living where i do i have access to lovely countryside and i take my mountain bike out in the woods and on the Trans Pennine Trail with the dogs up here on a regular basis and enjoy the countryside , but i will never change my view that cyclists should NOT be on public roads.

[Squiggs 11]

If the cyclist should take up a position in the center of the road ,then it begs the obvious question............... why squander a fortune on cycle lanes in the first place ?

 

Now this bit above, I agree with, as per my previous post. A waste of money and can make a stretch of road more hazardous, Same with the one heading south on Queens Road - it's narrower than a handlebar! So it's like trying to widen the M1 into 7 lanes by making each lane 4 feet wide.

 

Also, believe it or not im not against all cycling...... living where i do i have access to lovely countryside and i take my mountain bike out in the woods and on the Trans Pennine Trail with the dogs up here on a regular basis and enjoy the countryside , but i will never change my view that cyclists should NOT be on public roads.

 

Parmesan

[SportsTrophy 10]

.... i will never change my view that cyclists should NOT be on public roads.

 

Public roads are for the public, easy that one. You are not the public with your very private point of view so maybe YOU shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

 

All drivers should be made to pass a cycling test before being given a driving licence. If you can't cycle you should not be allowed to drive either as you have no idea what's going on.

 

If you can't allow 5 minutes on a journey for being caught behind a tractor or a bike then you shouldn't be on the road.

 

From an anger management perspective all "should's" could be replaced with could.

Edited August 14, 2013 by SportsTrophy

[babyblueeyes 10]

Public roads are for the public, easy that one. You are not the public with your very private point of view so maybe YOU shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

 

All drivers should be made to pass a cycling test before being given a driving licence. If you can't cycle you should not be allowed to drive either as you have no idea what's going on.

 

If you can't allow 5 minutes on a journey for being caught behind a tractor or a bike then you shouldn't be on the road.

 

From an anger management perspective all "should's" could be replaced with could.

 

and what do you know about shoulds and coulds?

[MattTurner 10]

In January 2013 Norman Baker launched the Cycle City Ambition Grants, £30 million of funding for cities that showed the ambition to “make cycling easier and safer for people throughout England”

Sheffield was the only large city that failed to submit a bid.

 

This is not correct. They did put in a bid, it was a Sheffield City Region bid (that's how they tend to bid to these funds), but it was in the National Parks category. The bid was successful and the bit of it in Sheffield is the Wharncliffe Woods to Dunford Bridge route.

 

Hi Planner 1,

 

Sheffield did not bid for the Cycle City Ambition Grant. Full stop, end of, no arguments. I am the author of the blog post linked to in this thread.

 

Please see linked letter I received from the Department for Transport confirming this.

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B84mpgL4eqfuQ1djS3piTHR3ZVE

 

Perhaps the Department of Transport are mistaken?

 

I think you're referring to the Linking Communities Grants to Support Cycling in National Parks grant of which Sheffield is supporting the Derbyshire County Council project to create a leisure route to get people to and from the Peak District (http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/transport_roads/transport_plans/transport_funding_bids/pedal_peaks_phase_2/default.asp)

 

The West of England area (Bristol and Bath) has a population similar to Sheffield, half a million, they were awarded £7.8 million from the DfTs Cycle City Ambition Grant.

 

Newcastle has a population half the size of Sheffield, they were awarded £5.7 million.

 

Sheffield was awarded nothing, we didn't even apply.

 

I hope this helps to clear things up

[Cyclone 10]

They didn't have nothing, they had one project, for which they were awarded funding as part of the Peak Park bid.

 

The ones they had prepared previously developed were taken up by the LSTF funding they won. As I said, Leeds bid for LSTF funding failed, but South Yorks got £25m in LSTF funding, so Leeds would probably have put the same schemes forward for this funding pot.

 

Cities don't have unlimited amounts of major projects fully developed and ready to go. SCC have won a lot of funding in the last couple of years and are very busy delivering the projects.

 

Large projects of any type take a lot of time and effort to develop and they are looking at what to develop over the next couple of years while the current funding streams are being utilised.

 

What schemes for cyclists are currently being delivered?

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2013 at 18:32 ----------

 

If the cyclist should take up a position in the center of the road ,then it begs the obvious question............... why squander a fortune on cycle lanes in the first place ?

 

Also, believe it or not im not against all cycling...... living where i do i have access to lovely countryside and i take my mountain bike out in the woods and on the Trans Pennine Trail with the dogs up here on a regular basis and enjoy the countryside , but i will never change my view that cyclists should NOT be on public roads.

 

You're entitled to an opinion, but you're clearly wrong. Cyclists have always been and will always be entitled to be on the public road.

You however, could have your license revoked, and then you wouldn't be entitled to drive on the road... A day we can all hope for.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Public roads are for the public, easy that one. You are not the public with your very private point of view so maybe YOU shouldn't be allowed on the roads.

 

All drivers should be made to pass a cycling test before being given a driving licence. If you can't cycle you should not be allowed to drive either as you have no idea what's going on.

 

If you can't allow 5 minutes on a journey for being caught behind a tractor or a bike then you shouldn't be on the road.

 

From an anger management perspective all "should's" could be replaced with could.

 

Please note this isn't an anti cycle rant BUT

 

It's ok being held up for 5 minutes. What about 10? What if you've already been held up half an hour, which if you drive long distances its easy to get jammed up repeatedly. I was traveling as a passenger on the outskirts of Nottingham. The m1 was very slow so we came off and ended up after a spell on a duel carriageway. We over took a cyclist just before the duel carriageway was reduced to one lane because of non-existent road works. Sadly for the lorry behind us he couldn't overtake. You now have the situation of a cyclist holding up traffic for a really long stretch. Said lorry was held up longer than 5 minutes. If he goes over his drive time, then what?

 

I'm happy for lots more cycle lanes to appear so these situations don't occur. You don't want dangerous overtaking and dead cyclists either, but neither do you want the speed on roads to be reduced to a crawl.

[Cyclone 10]

How do you know it was held up for 5 minutes, you were in front, right? So what did you do, slow down so that you could watch? I'm genuinely intrigued, could you see 5 minutes worth of driving back down the road (that's 2.5 miles btw, or was the cyclist actually keeping up with you (presumably not, because if he was then there was no hold up at all)...

 

What road was this on? It's not that I think you're exaggerating for all you're worth, it's just such a tall tale...

 

The cyclist was cycling on a dual carriageway (reduced to 1 lane) and the lorry couldn't find space to pass? Were the lanes narrowed? I only ask because dual carriageways have wider lanes than your average Derbyshire lane, making passing a lot easier.

 

And imagine now that a cycle lane was painted onto that road. How would it have helped the lorry to pass?

[altus 534]

Please note this isn't an anti cycle rant BUT

 

It's ok being held up for 5 minutes. What about 10? What if you've already been held up half an hour, which if you drive long distances its easy to get jammed up repeatedly. I was traveling as a passenger on the outskirts of Nottingham. The m1 was very slow so we came off and ended up after a spell on a duel carriageway. We over took a cyclist just before the duel carriageway was reduced to one lane because of non-existent road works. Sadly for the lorry behind us he couldn't overtake. You now have the situation of a cyclist holding up traffic for a really long stretch. Said lorry was held up longer than 5 minutes. If he goes over his drive time, then what?

 

I'm happy for lots more cycle lanes to appear so these situations don't occur. You don't want dangerous overtaking and dead cyclists either, but neither do you want the speed on roads to be reduced to a crawl.

 

You say you had left the M1 because the traffic was very slow, i.e. you were held up by vehicles, do you think the lorry driver might have been similarly held up by traffic? How much do you get held up by cyclists over a month? How much when queuing behind other vehicles? (Traffic lights don't count if you get past when they next turn green but if they go through a whole cycle without you getting through you're held up.)

 

Drivers who get upset at being held up by a cyclist a bit seem to just accept being held up by other vehicles many times longer as just one of those things that you have to accept. It seems strange logic as it's not focussing on the thing that is causing them the most delay.

[Penistone999 10]

 

All drivers should be made to pass a cycling test before being given a driving licence. If you can't cycle you should not be allowed to drive either as you have no idea what's going on.

 

 

The same could be said for cyclists.............they should ALL be forced to pass their driving test before being allowed on the road on a cycle ( yes, i know some do drive as well as cycle, but a lot have never sat behing the wheel of a car in their lives ).