Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

[Guest busdriver1]

1 hour ago, Bargepole23 said:

 

Because they have direct, and very relevant experience of what that entails, how safe they feel doing it etc, which can clearly be fed into the provision of new routes and improving existing. With the end goal of increasing uptake.

 

Or is that too complicated?

Not complicated at all, just irrelevant when trying to get NEW cyclists on the road. The experience of current cyclists only pertains to the routes THEY take and the  Hazards THEY perceive on the cycles THEY ride. The problem with this is you may not get the answers you want so are obviously against asking them the questions.

Who knows, that could end up in cycle lanes that are useful. 

No lets not go there, there lies common sense.

I am out again now, you cant educate pork is the saying

[Planner1 428]

1 hour ago, busdriver1 said:

Not complicated at all, just irrelevant when trying to get NEW cyclists on the road. The experience of current cyclists only pertains to the routes THEY take and the  Hazards THEY perceive on the cycles THEY ride. The problem with this is you may not get the answers you want so are obviously against asking them the questions.

Who knows, that could end up in cycle lanes that are useful. 

No lets not go there, there lies common sense.

I am out again now, you cant educate pork is the saying

When you resort to petty insults, you’ve lost the argument.

 

Do you seriously think that council transport planners ( and cycling / active travel interest groups )  don’t understand these points?

[RJRB 682]

3 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

A permanent, segregated, route from Ecclesall to town, as part of Ecclesall Rd. Similarly from Meadowhead to town, along chesterfield rd. Similarly along abbeydale road from Totley, from oughtibridge along middlwood and infirmary rd. In fact, provide every arterial route with a parallel, segregated route.

 

Remove parking bays as required.

Because they have direct, and very relevant experience of what that entails, how safe they feel doing it etc, which can clearly be fed into the provision of new routes and improving existing. With the end goal of increasing uptake.

 

Or is that too complicated?

Well,you have managed to actually name the routes where you would like to see permanent cycleways.

Now sit back and consider the practicality of closing what are frequently single carriageways to private vehicles.

Perhaps Planner 1 could add his views.

 

[Guest busdriver1]

24 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

 

Do you seriously think that council transport planners ( and cycling / active travel interest groups )  don’t understand these points?

Your defence of the indefensible proves that at least the council dont and the use of groups with little to offer a real consultation backs it up. 

My other comments remain as validated by the above.

[RJRB 682]

2 hours ago, Planner1 said:

When you resort to petty insults, you’ve lost the argument.

 

Do you seriously think that council transport planners ( and cycling / active travel interest groups )  don’t understand these points?

The argument as far as Shalesmoor is concerned is far from lost.

It remains a complete white elephant.

It does get frustrating that certain self evident truths are evaded and the major issues are dodged .

 

[NewBiz 10]

On 26/07/2020 at 17:12, Planner1 said:

No, the government had set very short timescales for spending the money, so there was no time to consult properly, so they didn't consult. Because the scheme has been done on a temporary basis, people would get the opportunity to have their say if it were proposed to be made permanent.

Oh good phew so it's only temporary! So when the ensuing mayhem finally permeates through to the masterminds who dreamt this scheme up, they will remove it, and allow the city to get back to work. That's the best news I heard in a while

[alchemist 35]

So, having asked this question many times with no answer I suppose its pointless asking again.  But here goes. 

 

How many more cyclists are using this route now its "safe"?  Hundreds, tens, a couple?  Or has it actually gone down??

[NewBiz 10]

4 minutes ago, alchemist said:

So, having asked this question many times with no answer I suppose its pointless asking again.  But here goes. 

 

How many more cyclists are using this route now its "safe"?  Hundreds, tens, a couple?  Or has it actually gone down??

I saw literally one 7 days ago when I used the road. Exactly the same as the number of bearded vultures I've seen this summer. I had plenty of time to try to spot them as well, being as I was stuck in standing traffic  on Shalesmoor for quite some time, and this in mid morning, during the school holidays, with half the world working from home. What it would be like in a normal rush hour I can't imagine (it's my route to work normally, and is a snarled up horrible stretch of road that crawls at a snails pace in rush hour when it's 2 lane). 

[Bargepole23 337]

4 hours ago, RJRB said:

Well,you have managed to actually name the routes where you would like to see permanent cycleways.

Now sit back and consider the practicality of closing what are frequently single carriageways to private vehicles.

Perhaps Planner 1 could add his views.

 

So the argument is that cycle routes are only permissible where there will be no impact on traffic flows.

 

Sorry, don't agree. 

Edited August 10, 2020 by Bargepole23

[RJRB 682]

2 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

So the argument is that cycle routes are only permissible where there will be no impact on traffic flows.

 

Sorry, don't agree. 

Airy fairy rubbish.

Take it to the extreme.

Close Ecclesall Road to all vehicles because there is insufficient carriageway width to accommodate 2 way traffic including buses plus an acceptably wide  2 way cycle lane.Similarly London Road and most other arterial roads.

Of course it impacts,but the Shalesmoor alteration achieves very little as opposed to the problem created.

[RJRB 682]

1 hour ago, NewBiz said:

Oh good phew so it's only temporary! So when the ensuing mayhem finally permeates through to the masterminds who dreamt this scheme up, they will remove it, and allow the city to get back to work. That's the best news I heard in a while

I think that it has been condemned by several councillors whilst other have conceded that it was a failing experiment.

However it appears that the exercise must run its course for face saving reasons

[Bargepole23 337]

8 hours ago, busdriver1 said:

Not complicated at all, just irrelevant when trying to get NEW cyclists on the road. The experience of current cyclists only pertains to the routes THEY take and the  Hazards THEY perceive on the cycles THEY ride. The problem with this is you may not get the answers you want so are obviously against asking them the questions.

Who knows, that could end up in cycle lanes that are useful. 

No lets not go there, there lies common sense.

I am out again now, you cant educate pork is the saying

What a bizarre suggestion. Clearly, the experiences of current cyclists can inform what might be perceived by others as a safe route. 

 

Why would anyone ever read and act upon, for example, a restaurant review if that were not the case? Because we use the experience and  opinion of others to steer our decisions for the better.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Bargepole23