Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Parkside 0]

39 minutes ago, nightrider said:

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.

A cyclist near us was wiped out by a van driver  who turned right while the cyclist was coming down hill just a few days ago. The van driver gave the classic statement , "I never saw him " turned out the driver had been drinking and taking drugs .

On  a daily basis I have near misses while riding to work by van drivers on mobiles , no one seems to take any notice of this problem that leads to so many deaths  on a daily basis ..

 

 

[RJRB 688]

7 minutes ago, Parkside said:

A cyclist near us was wiped out by a van driver  who turned right while the cyclist was coming down hill just a few days ago. The van driver gave the classic statement , "I never saw him " turned out the driver had been drinking and taking drugs .

On  a daily basis I have near misses while riding to work by van drivers on mobiles , no one seems to take any notice of this problem that leads to so many deaths  on a daily basis ..

 

 

I’m not sure what you are arguing here.

Careless and drink or drug fuelled driving is illegal.

Hand held mobile  phone usage is illegal.

Cycles and motor cycles are more likely to get in a drivers blind spot and as a result they should also have a responsibility to exercise care.(As should pedestrians who step into the road oblivious to traffic or to walk behind a vehicle which is already in the process of reversing).

We should all be aware road users,but this doesn’t require an ill thought out scheme such as this.

[nightrider 13]

5 minutes ago, RJRB said:

I’m not sure what you are arguing here.

Careless and drink or drug fuelled driving is illegal.

Hand held mobile  phone usage is illegal.

Cycles and motor cycles are more likely to get in a drivers blind spot and as a result they should also have a responsibility to exercise care.(As should pedestrians who step into the road oblivious to traffic or to walk behind a vehicle which is already in the process of reversing).

We should all be aware road users,but this doesn’t require an ill thought out scheme such as this.

If the van driver was turning right either the cyclist was overtaking the van or the cyclist was not in fact in his blindspot, but rather the van turned across the other lane and hit the cyclist.

[RJRB 688]

4 minutes ago, nightrider said:

If the van driver was turning right either the cyclist was overtaking the van or the cyclist was not in fact in his blindspot, but rather the van turned across the other lane and hit the cyclist.

Just making the point that you cannot eliminate all risk on the roads with schemes such as the one under discussion.

[Brooker11 10]

The road is gridlocked again today and this is with current traffic at about a 1/3 of normal levels, if it can't cope with that were going to need a hell of a lot of cyclists to lessen it in future, the whole thing is indefensible. Whats also very annoying is its stated that it's temporary and could be removed - so they've spent all that money and time (it took forever) to create something that a 5 year old could have pointed out that it wouldn't work only to scrap it later, incredible.

[alchresearch 213]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

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

SCC could say the sky is blue and I'd have to check to see if they're lying first.

 

Quote

Amey and Sheffield City Council “deliberately” misled the public over its tree felling programme

 

[RJRB 688]

Some of the money could have been better spent on increasing the speed limit on Penistone Road to the sensible limit of 40 mph.

Planner did say at one time the cost of new signage would be an issue.

They have now effectively reduce it to an intermittent crawl.

[Brooker11 10]

2 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Some of the money could have been better spent on increasing the speed limit on Penistone Road to the sensible limit of 40 mph.

Planner did say at one time the cost of new signage would be an issue.

They have now effectively reduce it to an intermittent crawl.

Whilst we are on the subject of waste, Planner stated a while ago that to fit a set of traffic lights as in excess of a million pounds, about four sets were fitted on the roundabout on the A57 at the turning to Wales Bar, I use that stretch of road everyday and these lights were used once (and caused gridlock) were then bagged and never used again and have now been removed as part of the road widening scheme for Gulliver's Valley, I'm sure Gulliver's didn't just appear from nowhere to build the theme park so how much was wasted on these lights, there is a far more dangerous junction at the top just before the motorway that would have seen the benefit of traffic control.

[onewheeldave 22]

29 minutes ago, RJRB said:

I’m not sure what you are arguing here.

Careless and drink or drug fuelled driving is illegal.

Hand held mobile  phone usage is illegal.

 

Yes, illegal, and very common. As is motorists passing cyclists way too close and endangering their lives.

Hence the need for proper cycling lanes where motor vehicles are completely excluded.

17 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Just making the point that you cannot eliminate all risk on the roads with schemes such as the one under discussion.

Cycle lanes with no motor vehicles allowed take the risk as low as it can go.

 

[Guest makapaka]

20 minutes ago, Brooker11 said:

The road is gridlocked again today and this is with current traffic at about a 1/3 of normal levels, if it can't cope with that were going to need a hell of a lot of cyclists to lessen it in future, the whole thing is indefensible. Whats also very annoying is its stated that it's temporary and could be removed - so they've spent all that money and time (it took forever) to create something that a 5 year old could have pointed out that it wouldn't work only to scrap it later, incredible.

Maybe we could reconfigure the whole layout again and make it 4 lanes. 1 for cyclists 3 for cars.

 

then in 24 months the day after  it’s finished at a cost of millions we can plonk some red and whites down the middle and make it 2 lanes each cos well....cycling is better.

[forgeman 18]

2 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Yes, illegal, and very common. As is motorists passing cyclists way too close and endangering their lives.

Hence the need for proper cycling lanes where motor vehicles are completely excluded.

Cycle lanes with no motor vehicles allowed take the risk as low as it can go.

 

I would have thought the pavement width on the stretch of road in question is wide enough for dedicated cycle lane. There would probably be more cyclists than pedestrians on there.

[Brooker11 10]

1 minute ago, forgeman said:

I would have thought the pavement width on the stretch of road in question is wide enough for dedicated cycle lane. There would probably be more cyclists than pedestrians on there.

There are very few pedestrians on that stretch.