Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Tony 10]

32 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.

 

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??

That can be answered easily.  Here is a rough graph of cycle use in various cities reasonably comparable to Sheffield.

 

You're plenty clever enough to have been paying attention to posts in this thread so you know that Amsterdam used to be a car focussed city just like Sheffield up to the 1970s'. 

 

Today, after years of effort and the cumulative effects of an extra three or four minutes out of motorist's lives  there are more bikes in Amsterdam than people so it looks like this. http://sustainableamsterdam.com/2015/12/livable-cities-campaign/

 

 

and this

 

and this

 

and this 

 

and this

 

and this

 

 

 

I'm not here to try to tell you that Shalesmoor is great or prefect or even that it should stay like that, but it's part of the journey to make Sheffield and other places, better, nicer, more livable, human spaces that you feel proud of and don't kill you. 

 

Bring me solutions, not problems.  

[RJRB 688]

2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

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.

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.

Im sure that many will be delighted that you have used this carriageway for your enjoyment over the last 2 weeks.

It makes it seem so worthwhile.

Perhaps you can campaign for it to be extended along The Parkway.

However when the barriers are removed I hope you will find the many byways more suited for your leisure pursuits.

 

2 hours ago, Tony said:

 

 

and 

 

Bring me solutions, not problems.  

Message to planners and councillors from the general public?

[darylslinn 10]

On 16/07/2020 at 21:36, onewheeldave said:

The manufacturer development and distribution of a cycle does not have as much impact on the environment as that of a motor vehicle. 

They are a feasible alternative to a lot/some of them. As car journeys continue to become more problematic, they'll be a feasible alternative for more of them, for at least some of their journeys.

No, in places like Amsterdam with a good cycling infrastructure cycles are used a lot for non leisure activities like getting to and from work.

And the last time I was in Amsterdam (or the rest of the Netherlands for that matter) it wasn't built on seven hills !

[Baron99 794]

13 hours ago, Tony said:

That can be answered easily.  Here is a rough graph of cycle use in various cities reasonably comparable to Sheffield.

 

You're plenty clever enough to have been paying attention to posts in this thread so you know that Amsterdam used to be a car focussed city just like Sheffield up to the 1970s'. 

 

Today, after years of effort and the cumulative effects of an extra three or four minutes out of motorist's lives  there are more bikes in Amsterdam than people so it looks like this. http://sustainableamsterdam.com/2015/12/livable-cities-campaign/

 

 

and this

 

and this

 

and this 

 

and this

 

and this

 

 

 

I'm not here to try to tell you that Shalesmoor is great or prefect or even that it should stay like that, but it's part of the journey to make Sheffield and other places, better, nicer, more livable, human spaces that you feel proud of and don't kill you. 

 

Bring me solutions, not problems.  

Looking at the photos, I can see a number of the areas have been pedestrianised or totally grassed over.  In a couple of photos I see where much of the carriageway has been transferred to pedestrian pavements & in another the width of the pavement has been enlarged on the left hand side of what was & still is a one way street for cars.  Now you have a narrower street for vehicles with cyclists coming in the opposite direction with no physical barrier separating them?  Presumably the vehicles are obliged to travel at a lower speed limit these days? 

 

Two things I don't notice.  Firstly, the roads in the photos don't appear to be a major arterial roads?  

 

Secondly, in none of the photos do I see cyclists, cycling down the pavements endangering pedestrians. 

 

If Sheffield cyclists adhered to the rules & regulations applied in Amsterdam, I think their would be a far less moans & groans from the rest of us, especially pedestrians, given the amount of money that is been thrown into providing cycle lanes. 

 

https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/plan-your-trip/getting-around/cycling/cycling-safely

 

Note from the above link when cycling in Amsterdam: 'Follow the rules of the road: adhere to all traffic lights and signs; don’t cycle on footpaths, shopping streets, pavements and motorways.' 

 

Of course in Sheffield, the get out clause appears to be 'I can't cycle on the road because I'm terrified of the traffic.' 

 

Strangely, despite people believing that places like Amsterdam is a kind of cycling idyll, the number of deaths is almost comparable in recent times between motorists & cyclists. 

 

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

 

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by Baron99

[Weredoomed 10]

On 16/07/2020 at 10:26, Planner1 said:

I think you are perhaps forgetting that it was a politician who decided to implement this scheme in this location.

 

The officers advise the politicians, present them with options and tell them what the likely impacts are.

 

The politicians make the decisions, because  nowadays, in many cases (like this one), you can't deliver an improvement for one type of road user without inconveniencing another. The politicians have to take difficult decisions in the best interest of the city and its people. They are accountable at the ballot box

 

If a politician has made a decision you don't like, you shouldn't  blame the officers or imply they are lacking in skill.

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?

Edited July 17, 2020 by Weredoomed
added text

[Weredoomed 10]

On 16/07/2020 at 21:36, onewheeldave said:

The manufacturer development and distribution of a cycle does not have as much impact on the environment as that of a motor vehicle. 

They are a feasible alternative to a lot/some of them. As car journeys continue to become more problematic, they'll be a feasible alternative for more of them, for at least some of their journeys.

No, in places like Amsterdam with a good cycling infrastructure cycles are used a lot for non leisure activities like getting to and from work.

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.

[covfeffe 0]

5 minutes 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.

Their answer to this is "bikes have gears" and "its not as hard as you imagine peddling uphill" etc etc.

 

It's easier said than done, believe me I've done it. I got fed up of arriving everywhere sweaty and knackered.

Edited July 17, 2020 by covfeffe

[Crissie 18]

1 hour ago, covfeffe said:

Their answer to this is "bikes have gears" and "its not as hard as you imagine peddling uphill" etc etc.

 

It's easier said than done, believe me I've done it. I got fed up of arriving everywhere sweaty and knackered.

Yet another reason why I'm happy to have got rid of my new bike and reverted to my  economic and safe Diesel  commute.

 

[onewheeldave 22]

 

4 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.

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.

 

 

[covfeffe 0]

A government subsidy scheme for E-bikes - proper ones, not those lame ones, would get lots of people commuting to work on bikes. Peddling away on normal bikes...nah, minority pursuit.

[Baron99 794]

5 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.

 

 

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/

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Baron99

[Guest busdriver1]

30 minutes 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/

 

 

 

I gave up on this thread a while ago, there are the usual cyclist mafia who believe everybody should follow their beliefs. 

They will not let go because we are all dying you know. 

Yes air pollution is an issue, it needs sorting and this is not how to do it. 

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

By coming up with irrelevant statistics and picking one or two they like ( A bit like cyclists use the rules of the road) they weaken their case.

The last but most important one is to just ignore anything you cant counter or the old favorite - evidence? 

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.