Nowt Left In The Coffers Say Scc

[crookesey 635]

39 minutes ago, Resident said:

Not to mention some of the most generous and lax sickness policies. 

Claim stress related illness, have 6 months off, come back for a week then go off for stress for another 6 months, on full pay. You could even go and get another job too.

 

Sheffield example mentioned here

I couldn’t have coped with the public sector mentality, I never considered pensions/benefits as being important when I was a youngster, as it is I’ve done OK.

[harvey19 541]

1 hour ago, dave_the_m said:

No, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Should people who pay more income tax get a better service from the NHS than those pay less? Or should we abandon income tax and make everyone in the country pay a flax £3000 annual government tax?

Maybe those who pay more into the pot should get enhanced services.

[Bargepole23 337]

1 hour ago, harvey19 said:

Maybe those who pay more into the pot should get enhanced services.

I pay more than average. I want segregated cycle lanes on all major Sheffield roads.

[harvey19 541]

Maybe we should have a vote and see how many Sheffield people want cycle lanes.

 

[hackey lad 3,980]

This council should be put in special measures 

[bassett one 452]

re-cycle lanes ,charge them road tax then ask what they want

[hackey lad 3,980]

18 minutes ago, bassett one said:

re-cycle lanes ,charge them road tax then ask what they want

Wait for it 

[Resident 1,193]

8 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

I pay more than average. I want segregated cycle lanes on all major Sheffield roads.

My arguement against them is one of funding.

 

Everybody uses roads, directly or indirectly & they are paid for & maintained by general taxation.  Not everyone can or will use cycle lanes/paths directly or indirectly so why should general taxation pay for their construction & maintainence? 

If cyclists want their own special infrastructure then they should be the one to pay for it.

Futhermore, given that in some areas segragated cycling infrastructure has been built and yet some cyclists refuse to use them, with the most common (pathetic) reason being that there are junctions/give ways along them, forcing them to stop/slow down (for safety reasons), then we need legistlation putting in place that mandates the use of said infrastructure where it is present, especially since the cheif reason used by cyclists for getting it built in the first  place is one of keeping them safe. 

[Bargepole23 337]

2 hours ago, Resident said:

My arguement against them is one of funding.

 

Everybody uses roads, directly or indirectly & they are paid for & maintained by general taxation.  Not everyone can or will use cycle lanes/paths directly or indirectly so why should general taxation pay for their construction & maintainence? 

If cyclists want their own special infrastructure then they should be the one to pay for it.

Futhermore, given that in some areas segragated cycling infrastructure has been built and yet some cyclists refuse to use them, with the most common (pathetic) reason being that there are junctions/give ways along them, forcing them to stop/slow down (for safety reasons), then we need legistlation putting in place that mandates the use of said infrastructure where it is present, especially since the cheif reason used by cyclists for getting it built in the first  place is one of keeping them safe. 

A reduction in the number of cars on the roads benefits road users with faster journey times, therefore they should pay for them.

 

A reduction in the number of cars improves air quality, benefitting all, therefore all should pay for them.

 

That's how taxation works, we all pay in, even for things we don't directly benefit from.

 

Anyhow, way off topic.

[Planner1 438]

9 hours ago, bassett one said:

re-cycle lanes ,charge them road tax then ask what they want

Do you also expect pedestrians to pay road tax if they need any improvements to the highway?

 

As I’m sure you well know, road tax income just goes into the general taxation pot and doesn’t  specifically get spent on roads. Cyclists will be paying the same taxes as you or I, so have just as much right to ask for it to be spent on better infrastructure. 

[Planner1 438]

17 hours ago, harvey19 said:

Interesting but I do not think things will change in Sheffield.

I do not know a single person who has started cycling because of the council's efforts to encourage it.

Initiatives like low traffic neighbourhoods (LTN) take some time for the positive impacts to show.

 

In London they’ve had them for a few years and University of Westminster have done research on the outcomes. They found:

• LTN residents did 115 mins more walking and 20 mins more cycling per week. These positive effects were much higher in LTN’s than in other areas which had received walking / cycling investment without an LTN. The impacts increased over time.
• Number of cars and vans registered in LTN’s dropped by 6% over 2 years
• There was a 70% reduction in road casualties in the LTN’s and no negative impacts on roads around the boundaries
• There was a 10% reduction in street crime in the LTN’s which increased over time. No displacement to adjoining areas.
• No evidence that emergency services response times had been affected

Search for University of Westminster LTN impacts and distribution if you want to find details.

[AndrewC 307]

5 hours ago, Resident said:

My arguement against them is one of funding.

 

Everybody uses roads, directly or indirectly & they are paid for & maintained by general taxation.  Not everyone can or will use cycle lanes/paths directly or indirectly so why should general taxation pay for their construction & maintainence? 

If cyclists want their own special infrastructure then they should be the one to pay for it.

Futhermore, given that in some areas segragated cycling infrastructure has been built and yet some cyclists refuse to use them, with the most common (pathetic) reason being that there are junctions/give ways along them, forcing them to stop/slow down (for safety reasons), then we need legistlation putting in place that mandates the use of said infrastructure where it is present, especially since the cheif reason used by cyclists for getting it built in the first  place is one of keeping them safe. 

Doesn't make sense.

First off, you've got motorways, etc. that are paid for by general taxation. Can we let cyclists and pedestrians use the motorways now then?

 

Secondly, it's about balance. As I've said earlier in this thread, the costs of providing for the motor car are higher than people think, and the truth is, that however much you try and argue that urban roads are 'for everybody', we all know that the truth is on roads, the car is king because they are oversized, are driven at excessive speeds, cause inordinate damage to other users in accidents etc. etc. Cyclists & Pedestrians are not able to use roads freely as you might otherwise try and suggest because of those dangers. Providing better public spaces and cycling infrastructure is really just a rebalancing of the way we share road space and funding, is all. It's actually a more equitable use of road space is all, but if you've spent your whole life in a car, it probably feels like you're being hard-done-by.

 

Once your eyes have been opened to the disproportionate amount of space given to big metal boxes often with as little as 1-1.5 person occupancy on average, you really can't unsee it.

 

As for the 'they've already got lanes and don't use them', in the UK, the (tiny number of) lanes you're referring to are almost always terrible routes, terrible condition, bushes etc overgrowing over them, badly laid out, stop-start incomplete, etc. etc.

 

If road systems were as bad as the current state of UK cycle lane systems you would never hear the end of it.

Edited August 3, 2022 by AndrewC