Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[alchresearch 214]

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

Not all cyclists Planner 1, there are several on Sheffield Online slamming the scheme. 

 

Perhaps the best cyclist's comment is:

 

'As a cyclist I’m embarrassed as what you’ve done to Shalesmoor, and feel in more danger as you exit the cycle lane at the end of Shalesmoor with the potential of being knocked off as drivers cut across the red cycle lane to turn up the duel carriageway. We had plenty of space before you introduced this. And I’ll be find a different route home now. Well done SCC'

I'd be ashamed to use it.  You'd get all sorts of hate and abuse from motorists stuck in traffic because they'd took a lane away.

[Brooker11 10]

7 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

I'd be ashamed to use it.  You'd get all sorts of hate and abuse from motorists stuck in traffic because they'd took a lane away.

I don't condone the abuse but it's to be expected when your causing delays on what's supposed to be a ring road to cater for a very small minority of cyclists that don't cut through Kelham Island.

[onewheeldave 22]

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

 

 

Cycling is a personal choice, a choice that it is clear that most people choose not to entertain, for whatever reason. 

 

 

 

 

The main reason is that the roads are dangerous and unpleasant for cyclists due to the excessive numbers of cars/vans/lorries on them. Aportion of those motorists are abusive to cyclists, consider them a nusience and endanger them by passing way too close. Said vehicles pollute the air with toxic chemicals, which is the last thing you want when pushing yourself on a bike.

 

When we get more proper cycle lanes like this one [most of the current strips of red paint showed at the edge of busy roads are rubbish and not fit for purpose] along with reduced motor vehicles on the roads] we will be a position to see how many cyclists choose to cycle on them.

1 hour ago, Weredoomed said:

Oh really? Would you care to take a wild guess at how many cyclists I saw using this "fantastic" facility this morning as I crawled past it? Let me give you a clue - it wasn't even in single figures.

 

 

It's very new, most people do not know about it- it will get used because it's currently one of the very few decent cycle lanes in Sheffileld. It'll get used even more if it becomes part of a network of proper cycle routes.

 

[onewheeldave 22]

17 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

I'd be ashamed to use it.  You'd get all sorts of hate and abuse from motorists stuck in traffic because they'd took a lane away.

That's not shame; it's allowing bullies to bully.

 

9 minutes ago, Brooker11 said:

I don't condone the abuse but it's to be expected when your causing delays on what's supposed to be a ring road to cater for a very small minority of cyclists that don't cut through Kelham Island.

That is kind of condoning the abuse . Abuse is never 'to be expected', it is to be 'condemned'.

 

It's sad, but typical, that motorists direct their abuse to cyclists who are 100% not responsible for the council decision. Similarly they blame cyclists for all kinds of stuff such as 'slowing down the traffic' when the reality is that all the traffic delays are a result of to many motor vehicles on the roads.

Edited July 8, 2020 by onewheeldave

[Planner1 437]

1 hour ago, Weredoomed said:

A complete woke waste of taxpayers money brought to you by anti-car SCC. Clueless muppetry at it's finest. 

Well, it's actually brought to you by the government, who are telling local councils to implement measures like this and giving them them money to do it.

22 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

I'd be ashamed to use it.  You'd get all sorts of hate and abuse from motorists stuck in traffic because they'd took a lane away.

Cyclists get abuse from motorists all the time, irrespective of traffic conditions, so just more of the same really. 

[Brooker11 10]

1 minute ago, onewheeldave said:

That's not shame; it's allowing bullies to bully.

 

That is kind of condoning the abuse

 

It's sad, but typical, that motorists direct their abuse to cyclists who are 100% not responsible for the council decision. Similarly they blame cyclists for all kinds of stuff such as 'slowing down the traffic' when the reality is that all the traffic delays are a result of to many motor vehicles on the roads.

There are too many motor vehicles on the roads because successive Governments have not attempted to use rail as a major means of freight (as the French do), they've allowed private companies to monopolise public transport making it expensive and unreliable and in the past encouraged people to travel further to work, they were very happy to pick up the vehicle excise duty on all these vehicles and not re-invest it into better schemes, before you alienate motor vehicles further you need to have an infrastructure in place that is a viable replacement, I travelled for work in Holland for a while and public transport there was excellent.

 

I assume they've deliberately strangled this stretch of road to justify some form of congestion charge which will kill an already struggling city stone dead.

[Planner1 437]

1 hour ago, Weredoomed said:

So you're admitting SCC didn't have a clue when they put the current cycle lane in? But surely they consulted with the cycling fraternity. Didn't they? Or did they just have a clueless stab at it and hope for the best? 

I'm just repeating what some cyclists said on here. It's a game of opinions, what is fine for some, isn't for others.

 

At the time they were put in, the facilities that are there will have been the best that could be delivered in the prevailing circumstances.

 

Times change, standards change, funding opportunities change, opinions change, political appetites change. These all influence what can be provided.

 

For your information, there are people at the council who work on cycling projects who are keen cyclists themselves and understand what is needed. They also consult with cycling organisations and groups.

 

The existing cycle facilities are very similar to those you'd see in other places around the country. The cycle superhighway arrangements we are now starting to see implemented are a fairly recent development in the UK and the ones that have been put in have been constructed with specific government funding which had to be bid for in a competitive process. SCC bid but weren't successful. 

 

Its easy to sit back and be critical when you don't fully understand the circumstances and constraints. Its much less easy to actually go out there and deliver something.  

[Planner1 437]

22 minutes ago, Brooker11 said:

I assume they've deliberately strangled this stretch of road to justify some form of congestion charge which will kill an already struggling city stone dead.

Why do people always come up with this conspiracy theory nonsense?

 

If you took the trouble to read this thread properly and understand what you are commenting on, you'd know that "pop-up" schemes like this, to encourage more walking and cycling are being put in because the government wants it and are giving councils funding to implement it.

 

Nothing whatsoever to do with introducing a congestion charge, which SCC have stated repeatedly that they are not planning to do.

[Brooker11 10]

7 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I'm just repeating what some cyclists said on here. It's a game of opinions, what is fine for some, isn't for others.

 

At the time they were put in, the facilities that are there will have been the best that could be delivered in the prevailing circumstances.

 

Times change, standards change, funding opportunities change, opinions change, political appetites change. These all influence what can be provided.

 

For your information, there are people at the council who work on cycling projects who are keen cyclists themselves and understand what is needed. They also consult with cycling organisations and groups.

 

The existing cycle facilities are very similar to those you'd see in other places around the country. The cycle superhighway arrangements we are now starting to see implemented are a fairly recent development in the UK and the ones that have been put in have been constructed with specific government funding which had to be bid for in a competitive process. SCC bid but weren't successful. 

 

Its easy to sit back and be critical when you don't fully understand the circumstances and constraints. Its much less easy to actually go out there and deliver something.  

There's a vast difference between being a keen cyclist and having to cycle to your place of employment, they are totally the wrong people that should have been consulted and probably answers why its a shocking decision.

[nightrider 13]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

I'd be ashamed to use it.  You'd get all sorts of hate and abuse from motorists stuck in traffic because they'd took a lane away.

This is one reason I don't like cycling. Have had abuse hurled at me from cars speeding past far too close and even things thrown at me from car windows in the past! There are many car users who should not be allowed on the road.

[Guest makapaka]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

I'm just repeating what some cyclists said on here. It's a game of opinions, what is fine for some, isn't for others.

 

At the time they were put in, the facilities that are there will have been the best that could be delivered in the prevailing circumstances.

 

Times change, standards change, funding opportunities change, opinions change, political appetites change. These all influence what can be provided.

 

For your information, there are people at the council who work on cycling projects who are keen cyclists themselves and understand what is needed. They also consult with cycling organisations and groups.

 

The existing cycle facilities are very similar to those you'd see in other places around the country. The cycle superhighway arrangements we are now starting to see implemented are a fairly recent development in the UK and the ones that have been put in have been constructed with specific government funding which had to be bid for in a competitive process. SCC bid but weren't successful. 

 

Its easy to sit back and be critical when you don't fully understand the circumstances and constraints. Its much less easy to actually go out there and deliver something.  

Sorry this is rubbish.

 

we aren’t taking about a stretch of road built in the 60s that needs adapting to cater for cyclists. 
 

this is a new ring road of which one of the main sections under discussion has literally just been completed to improve traffic for cars and cycles.

 

all that research, design, implementation has been completely changed overnight and apparently is no longer adequate.

 

what studies have been done as to whether this current arrangement is effective or if it is even needed?

 

Edited July 8, 2020 by makapaka

[RJRB 688]

Can we look forward to a similar loss of carriageways on Netherthorpe Road,continuing along Hanover Way .

That would effectively totally clog up traffic on that side of the city and be an absolute boon to students travelling from Kelham Island direction towards the many university buildings.

Just what on earth is our council creating by implementing stupid and unsuitable schemes based on a very general government desire to encourage the population to exercise more and pollute less.

The emphasis should be to enable traffic to flow around the city centre,and the city centre is the area that should be available to pedestrians and service vehicles.