Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Baron99 794]

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

Cyclists are just as accountable as motorists for observing the rules of the road. They can and do get tickets for jumping a red light just like car drivers.

 

Almost every time I go out on the roads I see poor driver behaviour, which is often downright dangerous in my view. It is in my experience very rare to see a cyclist do something that I see as downright dangerous.
 

I wonder why there appears to be a highly disproportionate amount of anger / ire directed at cyclists?

So cycling along pavements ONLY designated for pedestrians is ok then is it? 

 

Despite being illegal & some of the cyclists believing they're taking part in the Tour de France, based on the speed some travel at. 

 

I wonder why it's actually illegal?  Oh yes, because it's bloody dangerous to have someone weave in & out of pedestrians at speed. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Baron99

[RJRB 688]

1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

When a council deliberately sabotages a ring road, a road they built to remove traffic from a congested and polluted city centre in favour of non existent cyclists who may come or may not come we see that council as what it is. Incompetent, misguided, delusional or just pig ignorant. Take your choice. Cycling has its place like any other form of transport.

 

Historically roads in general grew rather than got planned. They grew through use of tracks developing into roads  and in that case were where they were needed to be and were functional. Then came councils, they decide that they knew better despite evidence to the contrary and decide to fiddle with OUR roads. 

 

 Yes, they are OUR roads, we own them and trust the council to manage them. 

 

We have a situation now where I am sure businesses are being damaged by the inability to get goods to and from their premises in a timely manner because the council want to have a crusade, we have people experiencing difficulty getting to and from their places of work or the shops and all because a council know what we want. 

There are a great amount of people who for one reason or another can not cycle and are unable to use public transport, ( we are constantly being told to avid it) they now have no option in many cases than to sit in the man made congestion that is causing a severe pollution hot spot just where the council want people to cycle  because of inadequacy by our dear council. 

If we vote them out what will happen? I will tell you now. Nothing, because the same incompetents that are advising these counsellors will be advising the next ones and their jobs are as safe as any in any industry but without the accountability that goes with jobs in the real world.

The local government system is broken and has been for many years. 

This is just one more piece of evidence that local government needs a root and branch overhaul and the sooner the better.

Please note Sarah Storey,Bob Johnson and whoever allowed this scheme to go through.

It should have been strangled at birth.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by RJRB

[onewheeldave 22]

6 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

So cycling along pavements ONLY designated for pedestrians is ok then is it? 

 

Despite being illegal & some of the cyclists believing they're taking part in the Tour de France, they're travelling that 

 

I wonder why it's actually illegal?  Oh yes, because it's bloody dangerous to have someone weave in & out of pedestrians at speed. 

I'd say cycling on pavements is fine if the cyclist is doing so with due care and attention and I believe some years back the govt did issue instructions to police forces that this was the case.

 

Riding on pavements at speed is not OK.

 

One reason that cyclists do ride on pavements is because the road alongside is not safe, due to reckless driving by motorists, many of whom break the highway code by passing cyclists with insufficient space- this is very common and very dangerous.

 

On the stretch of road in question [Shalesmoor] the road is not safe for cyclists, so of course many would use the pavement. 

[RJRB 688]

2 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

I'd say cycling on pavements is fine if the cyclist is doing so with due care and attention and I believe some years back the govt did issue instructions to police forces that this was the case.

 

Riding on pavements at speed is not OK.

 

One reason that cyclists do ride on pavements is because the road alongside is not safe, due to reckless driving by motorists, many of whom break the highway code by passing cyclists with insufficient space- this is very common and very dangerous.

 

On the stretch of road in question [Shalesmoor] the road is not safe for cyclists, so of course many would use the pavement. 

Many cyclists  do not use either the road or the pavement on this section of road but thousands of vehicles do.

Wrong place for this scheme and a total waste of money.

 

[cytine 40]

1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

When a council deliberately sabotages a ring road, a road they built to remove traffic from a congested and polluted city centre in favour of non existent cyclists who may come or may not come we see that council as what it is. Incompetent, misguided, delusional or just pig ignorant. Take your choice. Cycling has its place like any other form of transport.

 

Historically roads in general grew rather than got planned. They grew through use of tracks developing into roads  and in that case were where they were needed to be and were functional. Then came councils, they decide that they knew better despite evidence to the contrary and decide to fiddle with OUR roads. 

 

 Yes, they are OUR roads, we own them and trust the council to manage them. 

 

We have a situation now where I am sure businesses are being damaged by the inability to get goods to and from their premises in a timely manner because the council want to have a crusade, we have people experiencing difficulty getting to and from their places of work or the shops and all because a council know what we want. 

There are a great amount of people who for one reason or another can not cycle and are unable to use public transport, ( we are constantly being told to avid it) they now have no option in many cases than to sit in the man made congestion that is causing a severe pollution hot spot just where the council want people to cycle  because of inadequacy by our dear council. 

If we vote them out what will happen? I will tell you now. Nothing, because the same incompetents that are advising these counsellors will be advising the next ones and their jobs are as safe as any in any industry but without the accountability that goes with jobs in the real world.

The local government system is broken and has been for many years. 

This is just one more piece of evidence that local government needs a root and branch overhaul and the sooner the better.

WELL SAID, Busdriver. I've said it for years that civil servants (clue is in the name) are there to run the city on behalf of the people not to rule and dictate. They should be listening and acting on the overall wishes of the people not the tiny minorities who shout the loudest. Our roads and access to the city center is a disgrace.  The effort of finding your way round the road changes, risking fines for making a mistake add to that the cost of parking, if you can find a place. I have no interest in cycling even if I could and buses are out of the question as I can't walk far. The city center shops, restaurants and the theatres are no go areas for me.

Edited July 15, 2020 by cytine

[Jen17 10]

Maybe a good idea to remind cyclists that red traffic lights also apply to them as well as motorists.

[MJ01 439]

Maybe a good idea to remind drivers not to use their mobiles when driving

 

That's why drivers are up  in arms about the road works at Shalesmoor - it requires them to concentrate on the road conditions rather than texting their mates to tell them that they are stuck in traffic as they weren't concentrating on the road conditions

[Parkside 0]

1 hour ago, Jen17 said:

Maybe a good idea to remind cyclists that red traffic lights also apply to them as well as motorists.

And amber gamblers are a thing of the past , now its two or even three cars  speeding through at earl y red .

 

29 minutes ago, MJ01 said:

Maybe a good idea to remind drivers not to use their mobiles when driving

 

That's why drivers are up  in arms about the road works at Shalesmoor - it requires them to concentrate on the road conditions rather than texting their mates to tell them that they are stuck in traffic as they weren't concentrating on the road conditions

The big give-away on phone use in cars ( who takes notice of the law on that ) is the person in front of you continuously glancing down to their lap or passenger seat its obvious , I even saw a van driver texting while holding his phone on top of his steering wheel the other day , no wonder cyclists need protecting . mind you I bet no one on here does it do they !!!.

[ECCOnoob 1,032]

27 minutes ago, Parkside said:

And amber gamblers are a thing of the past , now its two or even three cars  speeding through at earl y red .

I'm not surprised.  Maybe they are trying to catch up with all the lost time sat in stupid and pointless traffic schemes like this. 

 

It might be an alien concept to some people but most commuters in out of city centres are not pootling around for a nice leisurely drive or to get a bit of fresh air.  They have stuff to do. Places to go. Schedules to meet. Appointments to get to.  People to transport around. Items that need purchasing. Its the very same reason why hardcore commuter cyclists very often take shortcuts that they know they shouldn't or go wizzing down fargate, the moor or around sheaf Square at full speed causing hazard to pedestrians.   Finger pointing and nitpicking can work both ways you know.  

 

Now, can we actually get back on the topic at hand as to what specifically we are talking about here.   This is not some twee country village with little children desperately trying to cross the road.  This is not some pedestrianised shopping precinct surrounded by people sat at payment cafes choking on car fumes.  This is not some protected national park whereby disgusting evil car drivers are killing off the wildlife.

 

This is the pointless and unwanted disruption caused to a major arterial route AROUND the city centre which was purposely designed to keep traffic flowing.   A vast majority of that said traffic that is supposed to be kept flowing is people who need to be there and have a requirement to be there in their cars.  

 

It's about time the overpaid bureaucrats and arrogant leadership hidden away behind closed doors at town hall realise that simple fact.  This silly stunt is nothing more than an ego trip by certain counsellors and wholly unnecessary glamorous title holders (I.e. these made up commissioner positions that nobody asked for).  

 

Its a disgrace and I really hope it hurts them hard come election time. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[Resident 1,185]

10 minutes ago, Parkside said:

The big give-away on phone use in cars ( who takes notice of the law on that ) is the person in front of you continuously glancing down to their lap or passenger seat its obvious , I even saw a van driver texting while holding his phone on top of his steering wheel the other day , no wonder cyclists need protecting . mind you I bet no one on here does it do they !!!.

I have never text and drove. Well not by physically touching my phone anyway.

My phone goes into a powered cradle, auto-connects to the car's on-board systems and forms part of the car's 'infotainment'. The phone then becomes just a screen & functions are voice controlled except for some functions such as answer/end call, volume, track selector (Prev/next) etc which are all physical buttons on my steering wheel. 

 

Some of us are tech-orientated and know how to use it. In fairness it took less that 2 mins to setup and was practically idiot proof so anyone who has such functionality within their vehicle and is caught using a mobile handheld should face a harsher penalty in my opinion. 

[ECCOnoob 1,032]

1 minute ago, Resident said:

I have never text and drove. Well not by physically touching my phone anyway.

My phone goes into a powered cradle, auto-connects to the car's on-board systems and forms part of the car's 'infotainment'. The phone then becomes just a screen & functions are voice controlled except for some functions such as answer/end call, volume, track selector (Prev/next) etc which are all physical buttons on my steering wheel. 

 

Some of us are tech-orientated and know how to use it. In fairness it took less that 2 mins to setup and was practically idiot proof so anyone who has such functionality within their vehicle and is caught using a mobile handheld should face a harsher penalty in my opinion. 

I would agree.  My last two cars -neither of which were premium have all had connectivity with mobile phones. 

 

I would have thought it common place for most vehicles nowadays.

[RJRB 688]

44 minutes ago, MJ01 said:

Maybe a good idea to remind drivers not to use their mobiles when driving

 

That's why drivers are up  in arms about the road works at Shalesmoor - it requires them to concentrate on the road conditions rather than texting their mates to tell them that they are stuck in traffic as they weren't concentrating on the road conditions

Does this make any sense or have any relevance to anybody?

Yipppee.

The Star reports that it may well be removed by Mid September.

Sanity may have won the day.