Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Planner1 427]

10 hours ago, Weredoomed said:

One might muse that a responsible officer would not table an option that they should know, (being allegedly highly skilled), would definitely cause congestion. Particularly as it is frequently the case that a single incident in the city centre or on the IRR at peak periods cause near gridlock. God knows it's happened often enough with the odd broken down bus or collision in the past.

 

So removing a lane for motorised traffic, as at Shalesmoor, is effectively installing a permanent "incident". Then, surprise, surprise, congestion ensues. Who could have possibly seen that coming eh?

 

It would be highly unprofessional for them to propose such an option - indeed short of closing the road completely, it must be the worst option of however many they considered when one looks at overall traffic flow and disruption. There is no way that option can be in the best interest of the city and it's people.

 

Nice try at deflecting the blame from the officers but they are the ones responsible for suggesting this in the first place. It's like a doctor giving a patient the option of having their leg cut off to fix an in-growing toenail - a somewhat less than professional an option to table, don't you think?

You’re approaching this from a completely false premise, that road capacity for motorists is sacrosanct and nothing should be done to delay motorists. That isn’t the case.

 

The authorities are never going to achieve the step change in take-up of sustainable travel modes without inconveniencing motorists.

 

Roadspace reallocation is a perfectly legitimate measure in the modern transport planners toolkit, so it would be unprofessional of them not to explore this possibility with the decision makers.

[covfeffe 0]

There are many places around Sheffield that would be appropriate for a degree of pedestrianisation/cycling space I'm sure, but not a major arterial route like  Shalesmoor. I think the council and the uni have some big ideas about the university site, Shalesmoor and Kelham all being one hipster student pedestrian/cycling paradise.

[onewheeldave 22]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

You didn't see what I posted earlier then? 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/523310/netherlands-number-of-cyclist-road-fatalities/

 

Nearly as many cyclists killed on the Netherland's 'safe' roads as motorists. 

 

God knows how many have suffered serious or minor injuries?  With supposedly fewer cars on the roads in the Netherlands, maybe the cyclists are colliding with each other? 

 

Perhaps all the cycle ways in the Netherlands have given cyclists a false sense of security?  Surely if a cyclist is riding in normal everyday traffic conditions, alongside vehicles, they are more likely to keep their wits about them? 

 

As for Amsterdam?  Over a quarter of road fatalities between 2000 to 2013 were cyclists on Amsterdam's 'safe' roads.  

 

https://www.bikelaw.com/2019/05/amsterdam-not-cycling-paradise/

 

 

 

No I didn't see the link you posted earlier, I've seen it now, thanks for that.

 

28% of road deaths being cyclists does sound very bad, but it is in the context of a nation where there are a lot more cycles, and a lot less cars, than in the UK, so naturally when deaths happen, many of them will be cyclists, because cyclists make up so more more of the total.

 

This article-

 

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/04/25/more-cycling-fatalities-than-deaths-in-cars/?fbclid=IwAR2QVdDOr9WQGd4hnYAJUszlV-7wy3s6zmLOsz342WCXGR1AMbYNZjtbm-w

 

addresses why when the figures are put into context, they are not as alarming as they seem when not in context.

 

It also points out that a quarter of the deaths are on E-bikes, which are relatively new and clearly more dangerous than standard cycles. I'm no fan of E-bikes personally- obviously they are useful for [some] disabled cyclists and elderly people, but I think anything that increases the speed of a bicycle will clearly increase dangers. The article doesn't mention whether Dutch E-bikes are unrestricted or not, if they aren't, that will make things worse.

 

The article you link to mentions the vast amounts of tourists that Amsterdam attracts- many of the issues the American highlights are in fact due to the tourist problem- it sounds like Amsterdam is experiencing the same ridiculous congestion that we in the UK have with cars, only over there it is cyclists, bolstered by tourists and rental bikes. Still, it could be worse, if they didn't have such large amounts of cycles, imagine the same chaos and congestion, but with motor vehicles instead.

 

 

[darylslinn 10]

My argument is where was the  TRO advertised 7 days prior to the measures being put in place.
The local businesses and residents in this area knew nothing about, their were no street signs saying this was forthcoming, nothing in local papers or on the council's own website.

 

Traffic Management Act 2004: network management in response to COVID-19
 

Updated 23 May 2020

 

"Temporary: these can be in place for up to 18 months. There is a 7-day notice period prior to making the TRO and a 14-day notification requirement after it is made, plus publicity requirements. These are most suitable for putting in place temporary measures and road closures."

Is the lane closure legal ?

[onewheeldave 22]

49 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

 

To be quite honest, the cycling mafia have made me more determined than ever to come to Sheffield in my diesel car, (taking out the air filter first) and pollute the hell out of the place.

Some would see that as a public service.

?????!!!

Others would see that as what it is.

[RollingJ 1,974]

3 minutes ago, darylslinn said:

My argument is where was the  TRO advertised 7 days prior to the measures being put in place.
The local businesses and residents in this area knew nothing about, their were no street signs saying this was forthcoming, nothing in local papers or on the council's own website.

 

Traffic Management Act 2004: network management in response to COVID-19
 

Updated 23 May 2020

 

"Temporary: these can be in place for up to 18 months. There is a 7-day notice period prior to making the TRO and a 14-day notification requirement after it is made, plus publicity requirements. These are most suitable for putting in place temporary measures and road closures."

Is the lane closure legal ?

Based on that information, it is certainly questionable.

[onewheeldave 22]

56 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

 

By pressuring people into things you increase their resistance to it. 

 

Sometimes; other times it works really well.

 

Reminiscient of the smoking situation up till recently where millions were being killed by it and with every new generation producing new addicts due to the insiduous marketing of it, and its social status as being a 'normal' activity, a 'lifestyle choice'.

 

Everything was tried- scientific evidence, medical advice, education etc etc. Pleas made to smokers to voluntarily desist from inflicting their toxins on others, education campaigns on passive smoking etc, etc.

 

In the end, only bans on advertising tobacco and  increasing bans and restrictions on smoking in public places did the job.

 

And just as motorists are currently complacent that cars can't be dealt with in the same ways, so did smokers ridicule the suggestions of, for example, banning smoking in pubs.

 

Well, it got banned, in pubs, and now, after years of that being the norm, I think most people are very glad it happened, and look back in astonisment that smokers were ever allowed to inflict their poison on others in pubs and, at one point, on buses, schools and indeed, wherever they wanted.

 

So, that's an example where pressure on people worked really well.

 

 

 

 

[RJRB 682]

50 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You’re approaching this from a completely false premise, that road capacity for motorists is sacrosanct and nothing should be done to delay motorists. That isn’t the case.

 

The authorities are never going to achieve the step change in take-up of sustainable travel modes without inconveniencing motorists.

 

Roadspace reallocation is a perfectly legitimate measure in the modern transport planners toolkit, so it would be unprofessional of them not to explore this possibility with the decision makers.

Or just perhaps you are.

I think that most motorists do appreciate the tools available in the “modern transport planners tool kits.”

As you said earlier there is no grand plan for the future for when funds are made available so we have a series of uncoordinated schemes which solve few problems and create others.

Minimally restricted arterial roads may not be sacrosanct but they are and will remain essential for years to come.

 

 

[Resident 1,180]

49 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Based on that information, it is certainly questionable.

Also makes other road closures around the city questionable too, such as Pinstone St. Bus companies were only told 7 days before it happened. As I read above that should have been 21 days, Am I correct?

[darylslinn 10]

23 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Or just perhaps you are.

I think that most motorists do appreciate the tools available in the “modern transport planners tool kits.”

As you said earlier there is no grand plan for the future for when funds are made available so we have a series of uncoordinated schemes which solve few problems and create others.

Minimally restricted arterial roads may not be sacrosanct but they are and will remain essential for years to come.

 

 

I sometimes think that comments such as 'Modern Transport Planners Tool Kits' are condescending in so much as they know what they are doing is right and we mere users know nothing and are wrong.

Not only does the cycle lane not seem to work properly for either cycle users (no using it) or  motor vehicle users but it looks an absolute mess, visually.... I wouldn't want to invest to either live or conduct a business in that area now.

 

[alchemist 35]

12 hours ago, Weredoomed said:

And Amsterdam is flat. Please now try to convince me that Sheffield is equally flat. And don't try to deflect by saying some parts of the city are and some journeys can thus be flat. It's damned difficult to move around this city without coming across at least one steep hill. So to quote Amsterdam is a spurious example.

The cycle apologists keep telling us that hills dont matter as cycles have gears so hills are simple!!

8 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

 

Strawman time again

 

No-one is, or has, tried to convince you that Sheffield is flat.

 

Neither has anyone quoted Amsterdam because it is flat- Amsterdam has been mentioned because it has gone from being a city dangerous for cyclists [with a correspongingly low numner of cyclists] to a place with an outstanding network of cycle routes and a very high number of cyclists [including most motorists].

 

Sheffield hills are only a problem for those without appropriate gears- with a cycle with low gears they are easy to get up- I can manage any hill in Sheffield even when I am not fit, because I have a bike with low gears.

 

The reason for the low number of cyclists in Sheffield is that the roads are dangerous, due to the excessive motor traffic. As previously mentioned, surveys have been done and the main reason given by people who would like to cycle but don't, is that the roads are too dangerous, not issues with hills.

 

 

And as if by magic

 

Are all these frightened cyclists in the north of the city and desperate to ride down Shalesmoor ? The only thing stopping them is the traffic??  

 

Still wondering how many this is, the last figure was thousands, which quite frankly I find hard to believe!!!

Edited July 18, 2020 by alchemist

[RJRB 682]

1 minute ago, alchemist said:

The cycle apologists keep telling us that hills dont matter as cycles have gears so hills are simple!!

That is not my experience.

Somewhat easier and necessary,but the extra number of revolutions takes its toll on the legs.

A bit depressing as pedestrians overtake you.