Jump to content


Sheff Council - Shalesmoor Road Layout

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

 

Induced demand is fairly well and long established science. The fact that it is questioned by some in no way diminishes its validity,  just as denying the science of climate change doesn't diminish that science.

 

One thing is very clear, over 81 pages of online discussion where I've mentioned induced demand several times, none of the anti-shalesmoor bike path motorists have engaged in any discussion of it.

 

It is the established science, and it does indicate that the best way to reduce the over-use of motor vehicles is to refrain from adding more lanes and instead, to reduce the existing number.

 

The council would presumably be expected to consult with the actual science in making decisions? In conjunction with the fact that the government is encouraging them to address the climate catastrophe caused in large part by overproduction and overuse of motor vehicles, combined with the opportunity over lockdown of many more people taking advantage of the temporary existence of roads safe for cyclists [due to lack of cars]; it seems to make sense for them to try this out.

 

Maybe it is time for some of the anti-shalesmoor bike path motorists to cease the strawmaning and ad hominem attacks, and start to state their arguments against induced demand? Maybe the reason for the lack of engagement is that they don't have any?

 

 

 

 

 

I know that I am starting to sound like a broken record now but as none of the pro-cycle lane posters can be bothered to answer.  Just how many MORE cyclists have started to use this route??  Is the lack of answer simply because there has been NO increase, or even, god forbid, a DECREASE????

Share this post


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

 

 

Induced demand is fairly well and long established science. The fact that it is questioned by some in no way diminishes its validity,  just as denying the science of climate change doesn't diminish that science.

 

One thing is very clear, over 81 pages of online discussion where I've mentioned induced demand several times, none of the anti-shalesmoor bike path motorists have engaged in any discussion of it.

 

It is the established science, and it does indicate that the best way to reduce the over-use of motor vehicles is to refrain from adding more lanes and instead, to reduce the existing number.

 

The council would presumably be expected to consult with the actual science in making decisions? In conjunction with the fact that the government is encouraging them to address the climate catastrophe caused in large part by overproduction and overuse of motor vehicles, combined with the opportunity over lockdown of many more people taking advantage of the temporary existence of roads safe for cyclists [due to lack of cars]; it seems to make sense for them to try this out.

 

Maybe it is time for some of the anti-shalesmoor bike path motorists to cease the strawmaning and ad hominem attacks, and start to state their arguments against induced demand? Maybe the reason for the lack of engagement is that they don't have any?

 

 

 

 

 

Follow the science.

Similar to the governments comments on the current pandemic.

The only issue being that there are usually many and varied scientific viewpoints and you can adopt the one that suits.

Perhaps the lack of engagement on this thread is because it relates to a very specific section of road which had a specific purpose.

A purpose for an existing and real demand which has been negated.

If there is any induced demand evident here it is that there no existing pressure or requirement for a cycle route ,but the scheme is designed to induce one.

So if you wish to discuss induced demand I will be happy to debate with you on a dedicated thread.I might even agree with you on certain projects.

However this is not an issue as regards Shalesmoor

Strawmanning seems to be your province

Edited by RJRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alchemist said:

I know that I am starting to sound like a broken record now but as none of the pro-cycle lane posters can be bothered to answer.  Just how many MORE cyclists have started to use this route??  Is the lack of answer simply because there has been NO increase, or even, god forbid, a DECREASE????

How is anyone supposed to answer that?

 

Presumably, like me, most cyclists with sense and a feeling of self preservation would have routinely avoided the area as it was not safe to cycle on? That being the case, I and they would have no idea how many cyclists previously used it. 

 

I also gave several reasons many pages back as to why the number currently using is going to be diminshed by things like cyclists not knowing it exists and the fact that it's not that obvious that it is a cycle lane until you're actually on it.

 

Given that the question can't be answered, why not invest some effort into addressing something that can- what's your argument against induced demand, because according to that science, taking a lane from motorists and giving it to cyclists, is just plain good science.

Share this post


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

Go on, I know this is a troll, but I'll bite.  Increased number of people cycling?  So exactly how many MORE people are cycling on Shalesmoor now??  Will they still be doing it come December??

Not to troll, just a view not aligned with yours.

 

As of last week the number is 5% up on  pre-COVID levels, keep in mind the number of people not back in the offices...

 

More cycling = a smaller waistline and (thanks to a study by the American Association of Urology), a better sex life. It’s win/win really. 

Share this post


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

Follow the science.

Similar to the governments comments on the current pandemic.

The only issue being that there are usually many and varied scientific viewpoints and you can adopt the one that suits.

Perhaps the lack of engagement on this thread is because it relates to a very specific section of road which had a specific purpose.

A purpose for an existing and real demand which has been negated.

If there is any induced demand evident here it is that there no existing pressure or requirement for a cycle route ,but the scheme is designed to induce one.

So if you wish to discuss induced demand I will be happy to debate with you on a dedicated thread.

However this is not an issue as regards Shalesmoor

Given that a main argument against the path is claims that it is causing congestion, induced demand is very relevant.

 

Induced demand says that long term, removing lanes leads to less congestion. If you disagree with the science of induced demand, you need to refute it- pointing out that there are opposing viewpoints does not refute it, neither does trying to ban it from discussion by shunting it to it's own thread. You want to refute it? You'll have to actually discuss it, not ignore it.

Edited by onewheeldave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, S666666 said:

Not to troll, just a view not aligned with yours.

 

As of last week the number is 5% up on  pre-COVID levels, keep in mind the number of people not back in the offices...

 

More cycling = a smaller waistline and (thanks to a study by the American Association of Urology), a better sex life. It’s win/win really. 

I was going on your claim to be wheeling, still I will let that slide.  Up 5% eh. can you give the link to that report?

Share this post


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

How is anyone supposed to answer that?

 

Presumably, like me, most cyclists with sense and a feeling of self preservation would have routinely avoided the area as it was not safe to cycle on? That being the case, I and they would have no idea how many cyclists previously used it. 

 

I also gave several reasons many pages back as to why the number currently using is going to be diminshed by things like cyclists not knowing it exists and the fact that it's not that obvious that it is a cycle lane until you're actually on it.

 

Given that the question can't be answered, why not invest some effort into addressing something that can- what's your argument against induced demand, because according to that science, taking a lane from motorists and giving it to cyclists, is just plain good science.

To determine the success of the project some form of measurement of increased use by cyclists must be in place??  Or are they just using increased travel times as a basis of success??

Share this post


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

Given that a main argument against the path is claims that it is causing congestion, induced demand is very relevant.

 

Induced demand says that long term, removing lanes leads to less congestion. If you disagree with the science of induced demand, you need to refute it- pointing out that there are opposing viewpoints does not refute it, neither does trying to ban it from discussion by shunting it to it's own thread. You want to refute it? You'll have to actually discuss it, not ignore it.

I’ll stick to my views as far as this scheme is concerned.

You will continue to avoid the specific issue .

The very definition of a strawman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, alchemist said:

To determine the success of the project some form of measurement of increased use by cyclists must be in place??  Or are they just using increased travel times as a basis of success??

According to this:

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/pop-bike-lane-sheffield-city-centre-set-be-removed-2914667

 

No measurements of cyclists was being done anyway. So without knowing what the use was before the changes, no one can say it's a success for cyclists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, alchemist said:

To determine the success of the project some form of measurement of increased use by cyclists must be in place??  Or are they just using increased travel times as a basis of success??

Maybe stimulating a debate on cycle facilities was a success factor. Seems to have worked on here.......

Share this post


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

Maybe stimulating a debate on cycle facilities was a success factor. Seems to have worked on here.......

If you wanted it stimulated in a very negative way then its a MASSIVE win.

Share this post


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

Maybe stimulating a debate on cycle facilities was a success factor. Seems to have worked on here.......

A very expensive and futile waste of money though.

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.