Jump to content

Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Increasingly children are seeing what is really going on here- for example Greta Thunberg. Many are very, very stressed, to the point of mental illness as they look to the future and see blind adults who think 'business as usual' is possible. 

 

Business as usual is not possible; where our children are concerned, either we adapt, or, they die. It is that simple.

 

 

 

 

Stress and mental illness is being caused because our children are being brainwashed in schools. My 7 year old granddaughter was sobbing and almost hysterical because we removed a few overhanging branches

from a tree.  She was crying that we would die because trees make us breathe. I can't believe that people are so gullible that they believe the rantings of a silly Swedish teenager who I believe is still at school.

The problem is there is no genuine debate on this because anyone who opposes  the current trendy view is not heard or is howled down, As I expect to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, cytine said:

 

 

I can't believe that people are so gullible that they believe the rantings of a silly Swedish teenager who I believe is still at school.

The problem is there is no genuine debate on this because anyone who opposes  the current trendy view is not heard or is howled down, As I expect to be.

What you're calling the 'current trendy view' is actually the scientific communty consensus. 

 

Referring to Greta Thunberg as a 'silly Swedish teenager' is known as an ad hominim attack i.e. instead of engaging with their arguments, you call them a name instead. It is against forum rules and I suspect it's a main reason you're finding it difficult to get the rational debate you seem to be longing for.

 

As for her being 'still at school', how is that relevant? It's clear to me that on issues like this many school children are considerably less blinkered, and, more intelligent than, much of the adult population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

What you're calling the 'current trendy view' is actually the scientific communty consensus. 

 

Referring to Greta Thunberg as a 'silly Swedish teenager' is known as an ad hominim attack i.e. instead of engaging with their arguments, you call them a name instead. It is against forum rules and I suspect it's a main reason you're finding it difficult to get the rational debate you seem to be longing for.

 

As for her being 'still at school', how is that relevant? It's clear to me that on issues like this many school children are considerably less blinkered, and, more intelligent than, much of the adult population.

I expected this. As she is still at school what experience does she have in the real world, all she knows is what the people with an agenda are feeding her. What solutions has she come up with?

 

Schoolchildren are not less blinkered, they are being brainwashed by teachers who have no experience or qualifications in this very complex subject. They are following the current trend and doing as they are told.

 

Children in the future will want cars and want to travel the world . They will expect to use modern technology and future technology.  That is the reality of modern living.

.

Edited by cytine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to think that all these words of wisdom stem from a discredited traffic scheme.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RJRB said:

And to think that all these words of wisdom stem from a discredited traffic scheme.

 

Agreed, ridiculous isn't it?

It's a discussion that is never going to be agreed on. So I'll bid you all goodnight.

Edited by cytine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The governments’ enthusiasm for cycling and walking is all well and good but when they are encouraging us all to go out and spend, drink and enjoy subsidised meals out they cannot demonise public transport. Being told to avoid, social distance and wear masks is understandable but deters the travelling public and results in a cycle of lack of confidence-reduced revenue-service cuts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

Most cyclists avoid the area- it's an unsafe and unpleasant road. Until now of course.

I suspect that the REAL reason that "most cyclists" avoid the area is that they dont NEED to use that road and that there isnt the number of likely cyclists even if the road was made into a purely cycle only road.

 

I keep asking, what ARE the number of cyclists in the north of Sheffield that would use that road all year long if it was traffic free.  Just a ball park figure?  Thousands?  Hundreds? A dozen??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MJ01 said:

ECCOnobb, if Poundland closes but we all live longer is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I suppose you could ask the Poundland ex-employees that would lose their jobs  Its always useful to have that type of opinion when its not likely to affect you.  Unless of course you work for Poundland and are offering to give up your job??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cytine said:

 

 

Schoolchildren are not less blinkered, they are being brainwashed by teachers who have no experience or qualifications in this very complex subject. They are following the current trend and doing as they are told.

 

 

.

School children are less blinkered- blinkering takes time to happen and a child has experienced considerably less of that process than adults who have been through the system.

 

Teachers need no qualifications in this very complex subject as their job is to pass on the scientific consensus i.e. pass on to the child what the experts who do have experience and qualifications in this very complex subject. Which I'm sure you can see clearly in any other subject, yet on this one [environment] you seem to demand that any teacher must themselves have studied the subject to expert level?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cytine said:

 

 

Children in the future will want cars and want to travel the world . They will expect to use modern technology and future technology.  That is the reality of modern living.

.

Some will, some won't. As increasing numbers seem to be taking the expert scientific opinion very seriously, I expect that a lot, maybe even most, won't want to use cars to anywhere the extent that is the norm today.

 

Please don't strawman by implying people who are environmentally concerned don't want or use modern technology- modern technology is key in solving this- they only oppose technology like carbon fueled vehicles which are responsible, along with planes and conventional animal agriculture, for the ongoing destruction of the world ecology.

 

Do note that Greta Thunberg, despite taking climate threat very seriously, has now done more travelling of the world than if she'd just put her head in the sand and stayed in school, and, she's done it in environmentally friendly ways, taking boats instead of planes, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, alchemist said:

I suspect that the REAL reason that "most cyclists" avoid the area is that they dont NEED to use that road and that there isnt the number of likely cyclists even if the road was made into a purely cycle only road.

 

 

Many don't use that road because it isn't safe. I never used it, except on maybe a nice quiet Sunday morning when there was a lot less cars. Other times I'd either avoid it, or go on the footpath, because, it isn't safe.

 

I've probably used that route more in the past 2 weeks then I have in the whole of the last 2 years, because it is now safe.

 

As the main block to cycling in Sheffield is the perception that cycling isn't safe on the roads full of vehicles, many of which put cyclists at risk by passing too close, it's a safe bet that a big reason they aviod this area is the same reason I did- it's not safe.

26 minutes ago, alchemist said:

 

 

I keep asking, what ARE the number of cyclists in the north of Sheffield that would use that road all year long if it was traffic free.  Just a ball park figure?  Thousands?  Hundreds? A dozen??

It's in the future, so we don't know.  I'd guess at thousands. Many cyclists use for bikes for the same reasons car drivers do- currently LOTS of cars use that route, cyclists don't as it's unsafe; once it's safe I'd expect lots of cyclists.

 

It is also good for leisure riding [once it's made safe] as, if extended it would connect to the off road cycle route all the way to Oughtibridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, alchemist said:

I suppose you could ask the Poundland ex-employees that would lose their jobs  Its always useful to have that type of opinion when its not likely to affect you.  Unless of course you work for Poundland and are offering to give up your job??

Equally, if we sell the ecosystem down the river to keep Poundland going, you could ask the employees if keeping their job was worth watching their children not being able to breathe?

Edited by onewheeldave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.