Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[tinfoilhat 11]

5 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

Yes it is and yes they do. But will they in future as petrol/diesel vehicles are replaced by more environmentally friendly vehicles?

 

As to whether climate change is a good or bad thing, well the Earth's climate is constantly changing. It's very different now to what is was 10,000 years ago and 1,000,000 years ago and will be different again 10,000 years hence no doubt. The Earth has never had a stable climate as such, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Yes, human activity is a factor but that will always be the case. Some areas will get wetter, some drier. Twas ever thus.

Climate change is a bad thing that's really not in doubt. Its man that is speeding it up. 

 

Cycling will reduce emissions. Covid did give us an opportunity to reset but thats not going to happen.

 

[onewheeldave 22]

 

 

45 minutes ago, dutch said:

In my many years in sheffield I have always looked immediately if a bicycle has any splashguards when they pass by.

It is a joke, most of them don't have any.

 

Don't point your fingers at splashing lorries when most cyclists here do not even know how to make their own bicycle splashfree.

 

If your bicycle does have it own splashguards, all my respect, most people here do not understand their importance in UK climate.

 

Specially with the improvement of electrical assist cycles will this become more pleasant in hilly areas.

 

Unto now I have watched all bicycles passing me here and I think only 25% of them are properly equipped.

When it comes to road bikes a lot of the riders who are serious about them don't use mudguards as it is seen as detreimental to the aesthetics of the bike, plus, those riders wear lycra and so dn't mind getting water/mud splashes as they just bung it in the washing machine afterwards.

 

Others aren't into it in that way, but bought a full on road bike because they liked the look of it, and then on realising that they don't like getting wet, learnt that those types of bikes tend to have inadequate clearance so fitting proper mudguards is either impossible or very difficult. I wish bike sellers would point out to people in advance that road bikes are not good for general purpose cycling- they have very narrow tyres and inadequate clearance/fittings for mudguards, panniers etc.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

End human civilisation.

You're funny.

 

Care to put a date as to when the end will be?

To the nearest decade will suffice.

This tactic again? 

 

Reminds me of the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow-

 

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."

 

10 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

Yes it is and yes they do. But will they in future as petrol/diesel vehicles are replaced by more environmentally friendly vehicles?

 

As to whether climate change is a good or bad thing, well the Earth's climate is constantly changing. It's very different now to what is was 10,000 years ago and 1,000,000 years ago and will be different again 10,000 years hence no doubt. The Earth has never had a stable climate as such, to pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Yes, human activity is a factor but that will always be the case. Some areas will get wetter, some drier. Twas ever thus.

Another climate change [as in caused by humanity] denier then. And that's OK, you're entitled to your opinion. But, on a thread like this, when you're offering 'arguments' that basically are justifying increasing car numbers and condemning increasing cyclist numbers, it would be good if you could be open about the fact that you are a climate change denier.

[Weredoomed 10]

8 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Totally agree with this post

Presumably you're a climate change denier? If not, you need to rethink what you've put above. In what perspective is cash useful when the atmosphere is unbreathable and entire ecosystems have collapsed?

It requires nothing of the sort, stop trying to stall progress by calling for unecessary evidence, especially in a location where an absence of accidents is mainly due to an absence of cyclists as the path is clearly very dangerous.

 

'Cycle paths' chucked at the edge of the road as an afterthought are not fit for purpose- too narrow, full of glass and crap, avoided by many cyclists as it's not safe to cycle in that position on the road as cars tend not to pass at a safe distance, etc.

 

More so on that stretch as it has lots of cars/vans/lorries bombing past at high speeds.

You can't maintain those paths to make them safe for cyclists- they are inherently badly designed- cycling right at the edge of the road IS NOT SAFE. Paths at the edge of the road will always accumulate debris. They never were any more than a box-ticking exercise- a low budget effort to fulfill an obligation to provide for cycling- it's clear from the lack of cyclists that they haven't worked. It's time to provide proper, safe, dedicated cycle routes, devoid of cars/vans/lorries.

Safe for who? Zero mention of cyclists on that page. 

I'm sorry but there must be evidence before public money can be spent on an improvement scheme. This has always been the case. What evidence is there that there is a safety problem with the cycle lanes in Sheffield? Show me the accident statistics - because without them separate cycle routes on safety grounds cannot be justified. 

 

Look at signalised pedestrian crossings. As I'm certain planner1 will confirm, there are numerous requests each year by concerned residents to SCC that their road needs one "because it's dangerous". Yet figures show few to no injuries at almost all of these sites and thus the (then disgruntled) residents don't get their crossing. They perceive it to be dangerous when hard facts prove it actually isn't. It may seem heartless but without blood on the road, nothing gets done. Near misses don't count, even if they happen every 10 minutes.

 

Why should it be different for cyclists, they are just another type of public highway user.

 

As I've said upthread, there is an argument to widen the IRR to 3 or 4 lanes in each direction. It will never happen but one could argue on the grounds of reducing congestion that it should. But no sufficient record of injuries = t'ain't gonna happen.

 

[Weredoomed 10]

5 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

 

When it comes to road bikes a lot of the riders who are serious about them don't use mudguards as it is seen as detreimental to the aesthetics of the bike, plus, those riders wear lycra and so dn't mind getting water/mud splashes as they just bung it in the washing machine afterwards.

 

Others aren't into it in that way, but bought a full on road bike because they liked the look of it, and then on realising that they don't like getting wet, learnt that those types of bikes tend to have inadequate clearance so fitting proper mudguards is either impossible or very difficult. I wish bike sellers would point out to people in advance that road bikes are not good for general purpose cycling- they have very narrow tyres and inadequate clearance/fittings for mudguards, panniers etc.

 

 

This tactic again? 

 

Reminds me of the Buddhist parable of the poisoned arrow-

 

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him."

 

Another climate change [as in caused by humanity] denier then. And that's OK, you're entitled to your opinion. But, on a thread like this, when you're offering 'arguments' that basically are justifying increasing car numbers and condemning increasing cyclist numbers, it would be good if you could be open about the fact that you are a climate change denier.

You are wrong, I am not a climate change denier and throwing such an accusation at me, though fashionable and woke, is totally inaccurate - please retract it immediately.

 

I am not justifying increasing car numbers either. Another error on your part which I request you retract immediately. Further, I have witnessed no increase in the number of cyclists in the vicinity. Quite the reverse in fact, as along with other traffic, the number of cyclists on the cities roads has gone down due to the lockdown, people being furloughed or working from home.

 

I'm questioning the sense and justification for the mess at Shalesmoor, which as far as I can see is not a justifiable expenditure of the public purse and an overall disbenefit to the people who use the area.

[onewheeldave 22]

7 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

I'm sorry but there must be evidence before public money can be spent on an improvement scheme. 

 

 

 

Clearly not, as the lanes have been put in place.

[Weredoomed 10]

Just now, onewheeldave said:

Clearly not, as the lanes have been put in place.

Which is thus not justified.

[onewheeldave 22]

8 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

I'm sorry but there must be evidence before public money can be spent on an improvement scheme. This has always been the case. What evidence is there that there is a safety problem with the cycle lanes in Sheffield? Show me the accident statistics - because without them separate cycle routes on safety grounds cannot be justified. 

 

 

 

There are many types of evidence as well. Look at the death/injury statistics for cyclists, they are not good.

 

Also, as I previously mentioned, absence of accidents in specific places could just as well be becasue cyclists avoid those areas as they consdier them unsafe for cycling.

[Weredoomed 10]

Just now, onewheeldave said:

There are many types of evidence as well. Look at the death/injury statistics for cyclists, they are not good.

 

Also, as I previously mentioned, absence of accidents in specific places could just as well be becasue cyclists avoid those areas as they consdier them unsafe for cycling.

Well what are the death injury statistics for cyclists at Shalesmoor then? Presumably you must know what they are to assert how dangerous it is. Can you prove it is actually dangerous rather than perceived as being so?

 

And if cyclists choose to avoid the area and go another way, there isn't a problem for them at Shalesmoor because they aren't there in the first place.

[onewheeldave 22]

6 minutes ago, Weredoomed said:

You are wrong, I am not a climate change denier and throwing such an accusation at me, though fashionable and woke, is totally inaccurate - please retract it immediately.

 

 

I didn't say you were a climate change denier, I said you were a denier of human caused climate change. Do you believe that the current change in climate is caused by human activity [pollution etc]?

[Parkside 0]

Take the Walkley  turn off from Brook hill traffic Island then do a right on the roads just up the hill near Western Park , Follow  any road down hill , job done ,the tail back avoided , easy that isn't it .

[onewheeldave 22]

1 minute ago, Weredoomed said:

Well what are the death injury statistics for cyclists at Shalesmoor then? Presumably you must know what they are to assert how dangerous it is. Can you prove it is actually dangerous rather than perceived as being so?

 

And if cyclists choose to avoid the area and go another way, there isn't a problem for them at Shalesmoor because they aren't there in the first place.

I'm talking about general cycling death/injury statistics. I've explained why I don't get sucked into demands for evidence that doesn't exist and is not needed, and consider such demands to be stalling tactics [albeit maybe, in your case, unintentional ones].

[Weredoomed 10]

17 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

I'm talking about general cycling death/injury statistics. I've explained why I don't get sucked into demands for evidence that doesn't exist and is not needed, and consider such demands to be stalling tactics [albeit maybe, in your case, unintentional ones].

No, that's not how it works. For an improvement to be implemented the statistics at the discrete site must justify the work. How do you think SCC decides where  to install a new signalised crossing - based on who shouts loud enough?  Although I suspect officers appeasing gobby politicians may be a factor occasionally!

 

The evidence does exist and it is needed, otherwise how do local authorities prioritise their spending?

 

Saying that X number of cyclists are killed/injured nationally each year is not justification to install a cycle lane at Shalesmoor, where one already exists by the way, with no evidence that I know of that it is in any way inadequate. Nor is the number of annual fatalities/injuries necessarily justification to install a discrete cycle network.

 

On a separate but related issue, you may not realise that across the UK it is estimated that there could be up to 74,000 deer-related motor vehicle accidents annually, resulting in 400 to 700 human injuries and 20 deaths. I am deafened by the uproar that causes from both environmentalists/naturalists and those concerned about human life, aren't you?

Edited July 9, 2020 by Weredoomed
added question