Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, RJRB said:

Does this make any sense or have any relevance to anybody?

Yipppee.

The Star reports that it may well be removed by Mid September.

Sanity may have won the day.

Why mid-September? From what I am reading here and elsewhere, it needs removing as quick as it was created.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/07/2020 at 22:35, Bargepole23 said:

Why would you need a car camera? Would the footage have been even remotely interesting?

Because it was so ridiculous i wouldn't have believed some one telling me and don't expect any one else to believe me without video evidence.

 

Some thing that had to be seen to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

I'd say cycling on pavements is fine if the cyclist is doing so with due care and attention and I believe some years back the govt did issue instructions to police forces that this was the case.

 

Riding on pavements at speed is not OK.

 

One reason that cyclists do ride on pavements is because the road alongside is not safe, due to reckless driving by motorists, many of whom break the highway code by passing cyclists with insufficient space- this is very common and very dangerous.

 

On the stretch of road in question [Shalesmoor] the road is not safe for cyclists, so of course many would use the pavement. 

Yes it is ok.... if you're 4 years old & with your mum or dad.   For adult cyclists it's ILLEGAL.  See the Highway Code. 

 

Why can't cyclists understand this?  Are their helmets on too tight? 

 

Oh the 'reckless driving' argument is wearing a bit thin. Even if it were slightly plausible, that still does not give cyclists the right to break the law & endanger pedestrians by riding on a pavement only designated solely for the use of pedestrians. 

 

Said it before; if an adult is not confident riding a bike in traffic, they shouldn't be on the road in the first place.  Maybe it's time to bring back an updated cycle proficiency course before they're allowed out on any road? 

Edited by Baron99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

Why mid-September? From what I am reading here and elsewhere, it needs removing as quick as it was created.

You know the council.  Quick to implement something.  Slow to admit defeat and back down.

 

Anyway, quite an interesting little nugget in the article....   "“If congestion passes the level that we have identified as critical, we will consider removing it early"

 

So there we go folks.  You know what to do.    Lets flood it. Cause mayhem.  Back up the queue all the way back to Rotherham  and they will prioritise its removal. Time to really stick two fingers up at the "Active Travel Commissioner" which nobody asked for. 

 

 

Edited by ECCOnoob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

You know the council.  Quick to implement something.  Slow to admit defeat and back down.

 

Anyway, quite an interesting little nugget in the article....   "“If congestion passes the level that we have identified as critical, we will consider removing it early"

 

So there we go folks.  You know what to do.    Lets flood it. Cause mayhem.  Back up the queue all the way back to Rotherham  and they will prioritise its removal.

Yes, I realise it was a silly question 😄. Act first, think later, then fail miserably to rectify the blunder - no doubt claiming 'elf & safety' or lack of cash/resources/time.

 

One problem with your excellent idea, though - I bet the 'critical level' increases to beyond Rotherham. probably as far as Doncaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pavements along that stretch of road are really wide and I see only a handful of pedestrians using them. If they have to widen the cycle lane, why on earth would they not have made the pavements slightly narrower on each side and left the new increased capacity for the vehicles that use this vital stretch! 

 

In the few weeks we had of using the extra lanes, the exhaust fumes will have decreased because the vehicles will have passed through quicker.

 

Now that we're down to single land traffic, more fumes will be increased immensely...which then will mean we have no chance of meeting the government's rules on gasses....that means the council will make the plans even tighter, ending up with the charges being enforced on every private vehicle.

 

Like many commuters, I have little choice but to use this road. I cannot possibly ride a bike to my workplace for reasons I choose not to share with strangers, and while I would dearly love an electric car, they are way out of my price range.

 

There is a place for both. It just needs sensible planning rather that shooting from the hip.

Share this post


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

Why mid-September? From what I am reading here and elsewhere, it needs removing as quick as it was created.

It should disappear as quickly as it popped up,but now it’s all about an honourable retreat and saving face.

Thats something that those who dreamt up the scheme and allowed it to happen do not deserve.

 

Share this post


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

It should disappear as quickly as it popped up,but now it’s all about an honourable retreat and saving face.

Thats something that those who dreamt up the scheme and allowed it to happen do not deserve.

 

'Honourable' and those who dreamt it up do not fit in the same sentence, but I see what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

48 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Yes it is ok.... if you're 4 years old & with your mum or dad.   For adult cyclists it's ILLEGAL.  See the Highway Code. 

 

Why can't cyclists understand this?  Are their helmets on too tight? 

 

Oh the 'reckless driving' argument is wearing a bit thin. Even if it were slightly plausible, that still does not give cyclists the right to break the law & endanger pedestrians by riding on a pavement only designated solely for the use of pedestrians. 

 

Said it before; if an adult is not confident riding a bike in traffic, they shouldn't be on the road in the first place.  Maybe it's time to bring back an updated cycle proficiency course before they're allowed out on any road? 

Two sets of Home Office guidance say otherwise-

 

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

 

"when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".
The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law "

 

Whether an adult feels safe in traffic very much depends on the traffic- many motorists pass way too close, this is against the highway code, would you care to address that?

27 minutes ago, Hayley1 said:

The pavements along that stretch of road are really wide and I see only a handful of pedestrians using them. If they have to widen the cycle lane, why on earth would they not have made the pavements slightly narrower on each side and left the new increased capacity for the vehicles that use this vital stretch! 

 

In the few weeks we had of using the extra lanes, the exhaust fumes will have decreased because the vehicles will have passed through quicker.

 

Now that we're down to single land traffic, more fumes will be increased immensely...which then will mean we have no chance of meeting the government's rules on gasses....that means the council will make the plans even tighter, ending up with the charges being enforced on every private vehicle.

 

 

With new increased capacity there would only be a short term reduction in congestion and therefore fumes; long term, increasing road capacity results in more cars than before, therefore more congestion and more fumes.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Two sets of Home Office guidance say otherwise-

 

https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/whats-legal-and-whats-not-your-bike

 

"when FPNs were introduced for pavement cycling in 1999, Home Office Minister Paul Boateng issued guidance saying that: "The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so. Chief Police Officers who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required".
The Home Office guidance was re-affirmed in 2014 by the then Cycling Minister Robert Goodwill, who agreed that the police should use discretion in enforcing the law "

 

 

So we're all agreed then riding on the pavement designated solely for pedestrians IS against the law, hence the FPN (Fixed Penalty Notices). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

So we're all agreed then riding on the pavement designated solely for pedestrians IS against the law, hence the FPN (Fixed Penalty Notices). 

Of course. But it's OK for cyclists to ride responsibly on pavements especially if the they judge the road to be too dangerous to cycle on, as stated in the Home Office guideance. 

 

Do you want to comment on motorists giving insufficient room when passing cyclists?- that's against the Highway code, you don't seem to be as concerned with that, even though it's a main reason cyclists end up on the pavements.

Share this post


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

Of course. But it's OK for cyclists to ride responsibly on pavements especially if the they judge the road to be too dangerous to cycle on, as stated in the Home Office guideance. 

 

Do you want to comment on motorists giving insufficient room when passing cyclists?- that's against the Highway code, you don't seem to be as concerned with that, even though it's a main reason cyclists end up on the pavements.

What’s the point of this tit for tat debate.

Some vehicle drivers are inconsiderate to all other road users and pedestrians and some cyclists are equally inconsiderate and in some cases not at all traffic savvy.

How this can be overcome I have no idea,but the Shalesmoor project was a total misjudgement.

I am not celebrating yet for who knows where the red and white barriers may reappear.

 

 

 

 

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.