Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Planner1 428]

2 minutes ago, RJRB said:

So you swap one road vehicle for another and pay a premium.

Your arguments get stranger by the day

Yeah, true, but it was just countering the "show me where I can get public transport at that time" argument.

[Guest busdriver1]

2 minutes ago, Resident said:

No such thing as a zero emission battery electric car. A truer term is displaced emissions.

 

If everyone were to suddenly go electric overnight, taking away the fact that the current grid would collapse, all of the UK's current power stations would need to output 3 times their current maximum. Since 40% of the UK's energy is derived from renewable sources and in all likelihood would not be able to produce such levels sustainably with current technologies we would have to fall back on the methods used to generate the other 60%, fossil fuels.

 

Battery powered cars are NOT the future, we have seen the future and one manufacturer had a viable, production ready vehicle as far back as 2006. The fuel was clean with zero harmful emissions , the vehicle could be refuelled in less than 5 mins and operated as a normal car. It was an ICE car with a clean fuel. 

The issue was fuel production it took more to produce than the energy gained. The company asked the world to help develop the fuel tech and all efforts mysteriously were mothballed and the vehicles put in storage. 

Presumably the oil industry had a hand in that. 

There is one true zero emissions vehicle power source. Fuel Cells CAN be zero emissions and as such are the only real option. Buses are being built now  using this technology. Cars are further off

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Yeah, true, but it was just countering the "show me where I can get public transport at that time" argument.

Meanwhile in the real world

[Planner1 428]

1 minute ago, busdriver1 said:

So Instead of using my car at 3 in the morning I use a cab? 

Apart from putting money into a cab companies coffers what would that gain me? Given that if I was to do so the cab would then make a return trip doubling the amount of emmisions for my journey?

 

Classic council thinking.

You asked where you could get public transport from at that time in the morning and I told you.

 

The cab might get another fare in the area you are going to, so might be more efficient overall in terms of emissions.

[Resident 1,185]

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

Yeah, true, but it was just countering the "show me where I can get public transport at that time" argument.

But taxis aren't classed as public transport therefore your counter-arguement is totally invalid. 

[Planner1 428]

1 minute ago, Resident said:

But taxis aren't classed as public transport therefore your counter-arguement is totally invalid. 

Not sure everyone would agree with you there

[Crissie 18]

13 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

So you have passed 3 then IAM are not proper tests and some would say are a hindrance to other road users. If you read my post correctly you will see that I am happy to take further tests and it sounds like you should do so as well.

 

What other test is there?  I'm reverting to car driving, I've passed a test and also the IAM - you're the only person I've ever heard criticise it, certainly the police were very supportive at the time.  There's RoSPA I guess, but that's probably a hindrance too.

 

[Guest busdriver1]

Just now, Planner1 said:

You asked where you could get public transport from at that time in the morning and I told you.

 

The cab might get another fare in the area you are going to, so might be more efficient overall in terms of emissions.

More efficient than my car thats sitting there emitting nothing?  

Also try finding me a fare for a 35 mile taxi journey, if I could afford that twice a day 5 days a week I would have a fleet of electric cars.

1 minute ago, Planner1 said:

Not sure everyone would agree with you there

I would actually agree, in real terms taxis should be classed a public transport

[Fudbeer 12]

6 minutes ago, RJRB said:

There is little wonder that the general public have difficulty negotiating their way through red tape.

In a time of bubbles,the civil service are in one of their own where they are trying to follow the dictats of their political masters.

This emergency funding was a misguided policy supposedly to capitalise on the great opportunities created during the lockdown.

A totally political gesture and a pie in the sky idea.

And we have seen the result in this misguided project

Exactly I don't care where the money comes from there are so many other traffic/cycle schemes they could have spent it on with proper consultation with all the relevant groups and careful analysis of the consequences/ benefits.

 

This just sums up the arrogance of the council to me infact it reminds me of the way they  removed the trees near Endcliffe park again without proper consultation.

[Planner1 428]

2 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

More efficient than my car thats sitting there emitting nothing?  

Also try finding me a fare for a 35 mile taxi journey, if I could afford that twice a day 5 days a week I would have a fleet of electric cars.

Like I said, if something is really important to you, you'd adjust your spending priorities. so, if minimising your emissions from travel to work was important, you'd live nearer work or travel sustainably.

 

The point I'm making is that when drivers get inconvenienced or delayed nowadays, they wave the pollution "card" around, when actually, it's not really that important to them and they just bring it out to argue against any delays that affect them.

[Resident 1,185]

2 minutes ago, Fudbeer said:

Exactly I don't care where the money comes from there are so many other traffic/cycle schemes they could have spent it on with proper consultation with all the relevant groups and careful analysis of the consequences/ benefits.

 

This just sums up the arrogance of the council to me infact it reminds me of the way they  removed the trees near Endcliffe park again without proper consultation.

You'll probably find that there were "consultations & committee" meetings, held behind closed doors and attendees paid handsomely from the funds. 

Labour council's favorite bait and switch scam. Claim they're not taking a wage from public money yet be on as many committees as possbile to rake in the cash from funds. 

No doubt in the coming months, the same people who decided the Shalesmoor sham will be on another committee to 'find out why it went wrong' and taking more from the pot.

 

People go on and on about the evil Conservatives yet completely ignore the massively corrupt Labour party. 

[Planner1 428]

6 minutes ago, Fudbeer said:

Exactly I don't care where the money comes from there are so many other traffic/cycle schemes they could have spent it on with proper consultation with all the relevant groups and careful analysis of the consequences/ benefits.

 

This just sums up the arrogance of the council to me infact it reminds me of the way they  removed the trees near Endcliffe park again without proper consultation.

I think you have to look at it from the Council's  point of view.

 

The Government offers them a couple of million to go out and do something, but it has to be done at really short notice and they won't have time to do the usual public engagement. If they turn it down, they will be criticised, if they go ahead with minimal consultation, they will be criticised. They can't win really.

[Guest busdriver1]

6 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Like I said, if something is really important to you, you'd adjust your spending priorities. so, if minimising your emissions from travel to work was important, you'd live nearer work or travel sustainably.

 

The point I'm making is that when drivers get inconvenienced or delayed nowadays, they wave the pollution "card" around, when actually, it's not really that important to them and they just bring it out to argue against any delays that affect them.

So I will take on your advice, Which bills do I not pay then? Electricity? Rent? Council tax* good case for that, water, gas. Or should I stop eating.  I could get a job nearer home but in my industry that would involve working in Sheffield so thats not going to happen.

I wish like you I lived in a total bubble where everything was perfect and just how the council want it to be but sadly i live in the real world and live accordingly. 

My choices are governed by the career i am in and the remuneration I gain for it, I love my job and whilst it is not the best paid job it is rewarding and I can get by on it.

I do not wish to live in the city where I work, it is not a nice city and even makes Shefield look attractive ( but not that attractive). I am happy living where I do in Beautiful Rotherham. Interestingly a town that has not felt the need to introduce any crazy cycling schemes to use up government ( our ) money just because its there. 

To say that I and many others contributing to this thread are using the pollution card is nothing short of patronising, as I have come to expect.

14 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I think you have to look at it from the Council's  point of view.

 

The Government offers them a couple of million to go out and do something, but it has to be done at really short notice and they won't have time to do the usual public engagement. If they turn it down, they will be criticised, if they go ahead with minimal consultation, they will be criticised. They can't win really.

Well they could have said, we dont have anything urgent that would work for the benefit of cyclists without causing major problems to others so we will give it a miss this time.

Oh sorry how silly of me, we are talking about Sheffield Council.