Jump to content


Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

There’s no need for such a system. Nowhere else in the world has it, so why should we?

Do you also think pedestrians should have insurance and carry an identification plate?

 

You’re entitled to your opinion, but as far as I know there is nowhere in the world that requires this of cyclists. So are you right and everybody in the world is wrong?

Where did I mention pedestrians Planner1?

 

Pedestrians may cross roads but do not travel along them. That's why we have footpaths.

 

Make your mind up as your statement says  'Nowhere in the world has it' but then you say 'As far as you know'. Which is it?

 

Watch the BBC click program from last weekend with regards to the electric bikes that you are advocating people to use.

 

Given the speeds that these bikes  generate the program states that several countries in the EU require registration and insurance. 

 

I believe that the click program is still available on catchback.

Edited by BoroB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BoroB said:

And we wonder why a lot of cyclists seem to be against a number plate type  system and insurance.

 

Seems like cyclists don't want to be identifiable or accountable.

Number plates and insurance have never stopped motorists busting red lights. Let's not do that argument shall we - it's silly and you already lost . ;)

 

  

27 minutes ago, alchemist said:

So you reckon that by 2080 cycling in Sheffield will be normal and we should just accept chaos for 60 years because cyclists "might" start using the oversized cycle lanes??  Seems reasonable!!

If you're pushing for a timeline, I reckon that cycling will be normal by 2030. By 2040 you'll be enjoying a  bike ride to the pub instead of a ride in an ambulance to the hospital with a heart attack.  :thumbsup:

 

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

Same response as to others.

Cycling is good.

BUT this scheme is ill conceived and does nothing whatsoever to encourage cycling for the vast majority.

It is primarily a part of the route on and off the Parkway for vehicles.

It is not a suitable place to encourage leisure cycling or indeed a pleasant area to cycle.

The money has been wasted when it could have been used sensibly.

Just to  add I have had cycles since my Junior school days and enjoyed them on the roads in and around Sheffield.

Even at my fittest,public transport or a private vehicle was the choice for work for numerous reasons which should be obvious to anyone especially planners.

Whisper it but I might agree with a lot of what you wrote there. ;) All I will say is that these schemes need to be about more than instant impact. They need to be highly visible - even disruptive - to show that there are viable alternatives to the same old motor cars for journeys that can be done on a bike. Give it time, get it improved with the next round of cash, maybe absorb the wide footway, or make the lanes part time.  It was put together almost overnight with the best of intentions so let's think about how ways to make it work instead of just binning it because it took an extra three minutes to get home.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BoroB said:

Where did I mention pedestrians Planner1?

 

Pedestrians may cross roads but do not travel along them. That's why we have footpaths.

 

Make your mind up as your statement says  'Nowhere in the world has it' but then you say 'As far as you know'. Which is it?

 

Watch the BBC click program from last weekend with regards to the electric bikes that you are advocating people to use.

 

Given the speeds that these bikes  generate the program states that several countries in the EU require registration and insurance. 

 

I believe that the click program is still available on catchback.

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BoroB said:

Given the speeds that these bikes  generate the program states that several countries in the EU require registration and insurance.

The EU country registration and insurance thing, where applied, is only if the bikes go over a certain speed. We had a thread on electric cycles recently and similar rules apply in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tony said:

Number plates and insurance have never stopped motorists busting red lights. Let's not do that argument shall we - it's silly and you already lost . ;)

 

  

If you're pushing for a timeline, I reckon that cycling will be normal by 2030. By 2040 you'll be enjoying a  bike ride to the pub instead of a ride in an ambulance to the hospital with a heart attack.  :thumbsup:

 

Whisper it but I might agree with a lot of what you wrote there. ;) All I will say is that these schemes need to be about more than instant impact. They need to be highly visible - even disruptive - to show that there are viable alternatives to the same old motor cars for journeys that can be done on a bike. Give it time, get it improved with the next round of cash, maybe absorb the wide footway, or make the lanes part time.  It was put together almost overnight with the best of intentions so let's think about how ways to make it work instead of just binning it because it took an extra three minutes to get home.

 

 

If you travel on the road then surely the same rules should be applicable to everyone.

 

Number plates and insurance may not  stop some  motorists busting red lights but number plates make them identifiable and the insurance will give recompense to any innocent parties affected by said actions. 

 

If you are a responsible motorist or cyclist then you should not have nothing to fear. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BoroB said:

Given the speeds that these bikes  generate the program states that several countries in the EU require registration and insurance. 

 

Electric bikes (pedelecs) don't require licencing or registration in any member states or the UK if they are less than 250 Watts, assistance is limited to 20 km/h (higher in some countries, 25 km/h in the UK), and the motor assists but doesn't replace pedalling. Regulation 168/2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

There’s no need for such a system. Nowhere else in the world has it, so why should we?

Do you also think pedestrians should have insurance and carry an identification plate?

 

 

Ahh, the good old chestnut whenever this is suggested, thanks for being so predictable :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

Sorry but to get back to the origin of this scheme, it is NOT an environmental scheme, it is a scheme to facilitate easier public movement when the public are being discouraged from using public transport. That is the reason the money was given to the council. Not to save the planet. That is for another day. Ideally when the aircraft industry is brought to book. 

No one has said it is an environmental scheme. But obviously more cycles and less cars on the roads are very good for the environment. Aircraft are also bad for the environment but is would be very silly to insist on eradicating aircraft before we're allowed to discuss the environmental issues of cars and the environmental positives of cycles. 

1 hour ago, creweblade said:

Agree with rjrb - the issue here is that this particular additional cycle lane is inappropriate on the cities arterial ring road especially as the route in question already had a cycle lane and one of the widest footpaths around - bob Jackson and the rest of the council need to have the guts to realise they messed up and reverse this particular change

The cycle lane is rubbish- a strip of paint in the gutter, with cars/vans/lorries whipping by at high speed, often way too close.

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

So a scheme that was several years in the planning has been sacrificed barely 6 months after completion, removing road capacity that was (and still is) clearly needed.

There was an interesting section on the BBC's click show at the weekend regarding electric bikes, apparently in many EU countries cyclists using these need to be registered and insured.  Bring it on.

Registration and insurance- fantastic way to encourage more cycling :)

1 hour ago, BoroB said:

And we wonder why a lot of cyclists seem to be against a number plate type  system and insurance.

 

Seems like cyclists don't want to be identifiable or accountable.

No, they just don't want unecessary and pointless bureaucracy and expense for something so simple, pleasant and environmentally friendly as riding a bike without being killed.

1 hour ago, Crissie said:

I've just returned to cycling after 20-odd years.  I'm in my 60s, overweight and unfit.  I've now lost weight, feel fitter and better, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.  You're right, cycling won't suit everyone, nor all lifestyles, but negativity won't encourage anyone.

Excellent :)

44 minutes ago, BoroB said:

You may think its unfair and unfounded, I think cyclists should be subject to the same rules as other road users who have to pass a test, be insured and have a number plate to identify them.

If you're so into equality, shall we insist that motorists all drive cars with the same zero emmisions as bicycles :)

20 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

 

 

An adult cyclist who feels the need to have the security of the pedestrian pavement, shouldn't be on a bicycle in the first place. 

Any cyclist with a brain and sense of self preservation would be on the pavement on that stretch prior to the recent installation of a proper cycle path [not the old strip of paint in the gutter, the new one with barriers so cars can't get into it].

 

Anyway what's the deal with the anti-new path brigade- 1/2 of them are complaining when cyclists use a footpath, but in this thread they're saying we don't need the new cycle path as the pavement is so wide and lovely for cyclists? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

And you continually fail to address the subject or recognise that this scheme is a wasted opportunity.

Pedestrians do not have to slavishly follow a particular route.

If you are walking somewhere particular then you follow roads,cross roads and basically go as the crow flies.

Bicycles have many similar options.

Cars have to go as dictated.

Returning to the subject,a quick glance at a map will show you that Shalesmoor to the Parkway loops away from the centre ,as required by previous planning decisions to take traffic away from the city.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

 

33 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

You seem to be into draconian measures, so I wondered whether you felt that all vulnerable road users should be registered and regulated. Pedestrians don’t travel along roads only across them? Really? For your information, the footway is part of the same highway that cars use, so of course pedestrians go along roads.

 

The amount of assistance which an electric bike provides in this country is regulated ( max 250 watts output and only assist pedalling up to 15.5mph)  if that amount is exceeded, it’s essentially classed as a moped or electric motorcycle which needs to be registered and insured on the public highway. Other countries have differing requirements. 15.5mph isn’t exactly fast and most cyclists can go a lot faster than that on a conventional bike. 
 

Nitpick all you like. Clearly you can’t name anywhere that requires cycles to be registered and insured and I can’t find any mention of such a requirement anywhere either, so you are asking for the UK to introduce draconian measures that simply are not seen as necessary worldwide.

Not draconian measures, just equal measures. 

 

So  with a highway being  made up of a road and a footpath,  isn't it usual for vehicles to use the road element and pedestrians to use the part specifically  allocated to them, called the footpath or pavement, to ensure safety for both different parties?

 

I would think that its not a very good idea for a pedestrian to use the road element of a highway and likewise not sensible, if not illegal, for a motorised vehicle to drive on the pavement/footpath element.

 

With regards to number plates and insurance, I believe they help make motorists behave in a responsible manner.  Not all motorists but a vast majority. That's what laws and regulations are there for. Without them behaviour on the roads would be worse.

 

So lets expand the scheme to all road users, treat everyone the same. Equal measures.

 

Not really bothered what happens  worldwide, just with what happens  in the UK.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, onewheeldave said:

No one has said it is an environmental scheme. But obviously more cycles and less cars on the roads are very good for the environment. Aircraft are also bad for the environment but is would be very silly to insist on eradicating aircraft before we're allowed to discuss the environmental issues of cars and the environmental positives of cycles. 

The cycle lane is rubbish- a strip of paint in the gutter, with cars/vans/lorries whipping by at high speed, often way too close.

Registration and insurance- fantastic way to encourage more cycling :)

No, they just don't want unecessary and pointless bureaucracy and expense for something so simple, pleasant and environmentally friendly as riding a bike without being killed.

Excellent :)

If you're so into equality, shall we insist that motorists all drive cars with the same zero emmisions as bicycles :)

Any cyclist with a brain and sense of self preservation would be on the pavement on that stretch prior to the recent installation of a proper cycle path [not the old strip of paint in the gutter, the new one with barriers so cars can't get into it].

 

Anyway what's the deal with the anti-new path brigade- 1/2 of them are complaining when cyclists use a footpath, but in this thread they're saying we don't need the new cycle path as the pavement is so wide and lovely for cyclists? :)

Their  brains don't stretch to learning or abiding by the Highway Code then? 

Rule 64

You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. 

 

Not a shared pavement of course, just the single pavement, reserved solely for pedestrians not scared adult cyclists, who's 'self preservation' puts those entitled to be there at risk. 

Edited by Baron99

Share this post


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

 

Registration and insurance- fantastic way to encourage more cycling :)

 

If you're so into equality, shall we insist that motorists all drive cars with the same zero emmisions as bicycles :)

 

Not encourage more cycling but responsible cycling. Some practice it, some don't.

 

The movement towards zero emission cars is taking place and will probably be the norm in the next generation or so,

 

Can we say the same for cyclists being registered,  insured and accountable?

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.

X