Rockets

@Earl Aelfheah by Lime's own admission only 8% which is probably more than offset if the other 92% are replacing walking or public transport. This is just common-sense. Lime bikes are not environmentally friendly if they are not replacing more damaging journeys and their usage patterns suggest they are, in a large part, replacing walking.

That Lime bikes are increasingly replacing walking - and that is not a good thing as walking is by far the most environmentally friendly and least damaging of all modes of travel. This narrative that Lime bikes are somehow a great environmentally friendly form of travel is only true if they are replacing a more damaging form of travel (cars) - so every Lime bike that replaces walking is actually bad for the environment and there's probably a case to say that a Lime bike in lieu of public transport is also more harmful.

If even Lime are claiming only 8% of their journeys are replacing cars then the problem is probably worse than it appears. So, by that measure, do we presume that around 92% of their journeys are replacing walking and public transport? Given most suggest Lime is being used for first and last mile journeys to and from public transport and less than a mile then it suggests a lot are replacing walking. I cannot find any data from Lime on average journey length and that suggests to me that a large proportion may be very walkable. If Lime journeys are replacing more environmentally friendly ways of travelling then they are contributing to the problem not solving it.

But do you think the majority of these journeys are replacing car journeys - seems to me that most/a large majority are replacing walking, which, if so, is actually contributing to the problem? Is the average Lime bike journey still under one mile?

Not sure if anyone else has had Labour canvassers door-knocking to ask about voting intentions for the local council elections in May of next year (my how quickly this has come around). One wonders if Labour are trying to get a mood board now they are in government as last time round they leaned almost exclusively on a vote for them is a vote against the Tories....I suspect they might be trying to determine how not having the protest vote against Boris might impact things this time round.

And many of these journeys on Lime bikes and scooters are replacing journeys that could easily be walked - they're creating a generation of non- walkers.

Yes and I think the council we able to lean in on vested-interest local lobby groups like EDST, Mumsforlungs, Melbourne Grove RA etc to do their bidding for them.

Funny isn't it but before the council started meddling no-one ever complained about parking pressure? Dulwich parking pressure is being created by a council hell bent on securing revenue from CPZs. It's so transparent it's laughable.

Mischievous is a wonderful description for our council and their approach to such things. How many parking spaces have they managed to remove? @march46 I think the council misled you with their clever misuse of plurals.....look how the decision document talks of a request coming from " the businesses on Lordship Lane" (which implies more than one) and then in the very same sentence it very quickly switches to...."that they have large vehicles coming to collect and deliver goods to the business" (implying a single business). And then later it said the council officers met with "the local business". - although, to be fair, the whole thing is so poorly written it could well be that the council officer who wrote it struggles with sentences and basic grammar 😉

"Parking pressure" - catnip to the LTN fan bois......it's almost as if the council do things just to create "parking pressure". Well fancy that...why on earth might that be.....?

Ha ha, but the pedestrians are on the crossing - the cyclist has to give way to them and stop....the Highway Code is very clear about that. I think that poster is hilarious and I cannot believe someone from the WHO didn't notice their visual Freudian slip.... Because it is not a myth but a fact. A fact backed up by comments from your beloved Southwark council and TFL. You know that the further outside a city centre you get the worse the transport links get right? Or are you arguing that the southern most parts of the borough of Southwark have better or comparable transport links to the northern parts? And please don’t start talking about comparing here to some village in the countryside - that is basically doing the same as the council bleating on about most people in Southwark don’t own a car….it’s trying to create a narrative to fit your argument.

But the vast majority of households in this area (where the council has decided to roll out these measures) do have a vehicle. Why? Because the transport links are poor and there are more families. This whole "majority of households do not own/have access to a car" is such distraction narrative nonsense - Southwark is a big borough - in the north of the borough (where the highest density of housing is) transport links are excellent and car ownership is low. In the south of the borough transport links are poor, the density of housing is lower and car ownership is high. Go figure.....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ge92xldrjo

@march46 sorry I have to laugh that even the WHO poster shows what looks like a cyclist speeding towards a pedestrian crossing with clearly no intention to stop.....;-) Not the best clip art selection by the WHO there....

Does anyone think Lambeth has helped, or hindered, the goal by what they have done? From day one of these debates I said councils risked doing long-term harm to the active travel cause by behaving in the way they were - by forcing measures on a lot of residents (often by bending the rules) without engaging them or getting them on the journey risked alienating the very people who councils needed to get support from. Lambeth have done exactly that and now the LTN will need to be removed and they have turned a lot of people against the measures - of course they are also likely going to have to repay the huge number of fines generated by the LTNs and fund that from (likely) allocated budget after spending tax-payers money on defending the case their constituents had to bring against them. They have created one hell of a mess which may have long term negative impacts - and this is what I feared from the outset - it's well and good pandering to the active travel lobbyists and the small number of people directly benefiting from the measures but if you're not convincing the majority then you are digging a deep hole for yourself. Lambeth find themselves at the bottom of said hole.

@Earl Aelfheah the challenge facing many councils now is that so many of the tactics that Lambeth have used (and the judge had issues with) are the same that others councils have been using to force these measures in and to suppress legitimate concerns raised by local residents. Unfortunately for councils it is not the cycle/active travel lobby or posters on forums who are deciding whether claims made by residents in opposition to the way councils have implemented these are B*****S or not it is now high court judges and they actually properly assess what happened on a point of law. Lambeth have opened the floodgates. Yes there are lots of great, and effective, active travel interventions that have a clear ROI but there are also many that are local ideologically driven vanity projects that actually are doing more harm than good. This is the problem when politicians (of any kind) only listen to lobby groups - things get forced through that then have to be taken out because the proper process was not followed. How much time and money has Lambeth wasted on this? It is not that many messages ago that people were coming on here saying that the West Dulwich LTN would not be removed and saying the same for more local ones too. Trust me, there will now likely be a number of very nervous councils getting their legal departments to go on a discovery exercise to determine what happened during the implementation of their LTNs - whether they were installed one year ago or 5 years ago and determining what their defence will be if people come after them. Bottom line is if councils have cheated the system they will get found out as Lambeth have found to their cost and ultimately this is no longer about just the LTN process but also political reputation particularly timely for Southwark given one of the favourites to take over from Cllr Williams is the councillor responsible for oversight of the Southwark LTNs.

@Dogkennelhillbilly I think the judge and the high court didn't think so. If you read the ruling the judge was critical of many parts of the consultation process but said the issues raised did not reach the high-bar required to make them unlawful in his court. Whatever anyone thinks about this I think we can all agree that Lambeth council have let themselves down, let their residents down and ultimately done harm to the broader active travel cause by implementing something that was, ultimately, unlawful. As I have said numerous times before the way councils are going about their implementation of active travel schemes could well be doing long-term harm to the fight against climate change. The West Dulwich case and the removal of the LTN is a very local example of it and I suspect the first of many as other local resident groups learn from the WDAG victory as there are so many similarities between the gripes about the way the councils have been behaving.

Sounds like Lambeth are finally having to be accountable for their (unlawful) actions. What a diabolical waste of tax-payers money and well done for WDAG for keeping up the fight and not giving in. All of those spouting the "this is all a nonsense judgement based on an admin oversight" must be pretty upset right now - oh how they were happy to come on here to impart their wisdom on how the LTN would not have to be removed....well I guess they might be feeling a little daft right now. Now I love how the narrative is "well the other LTNs aren't going anywhere" when surely the narrative should be how have we ended up at this point and can we trust our elected officials to do anything right? Maybe instead of cheer-leading the unlawful actions of a local council many should be trying to hold them to account (as many of us are) - for too long there have been way too many blinkered council-apologists who are helping prop up and defend councils who have been engaging in awful, and now in Lambeth's case unlawful, behaviour, often against the very people they are supposed to represent. Turning a blind eye because you agree with what they are doing is not a defence. Lambeth have helped open a tinder box for other fights against LTNs and I suspect you will read more about successful challenges where there has been unlawfulness. That statement from Lambeth Council is everything you would expect from a council that has been humiliated by a judge for their downright brazenness....one wonders if they might also be heading for a slap down from the High Court judge in the Brockwell Park case too...they are going to have to learn they aren't above the law nor are the above being accountable to residents. Maybe there might be a vacancy in the leadership of Lambeth council in the not too distant future too..... No wonder so many are so disillusioned by politics and politicians now. It's this type of wanton abuse of power that is giving rise to the likes of Reform but, a bit like the statement from Lambeth for many politicians sorry seems to be the hardest word.

https://www.brixtonbuzz.com/2025/06/west-dulwich-ltn-overturned-by-high-court-with-lambeth-council-denied-permission-to-appeal/ Ouch....Lambeth got a telling off from the judge too......pretty clear now.... Deputy High Court Judge Tim Smith firmly rejected Lambeth’s attempt to delay removal of the LTN and to avoid the ETOs from being quashed: “Revoking the Orders after I have made a finding of unlawfulness leaves the same impression as would an attempt to resign immediately after one has been fired.” He also refused Lambeth’s request to appeal, confirming there was no realistic prospect of success, and stated in relation to Lambeth’s attempt to avoid paying a full costs award to WDAG: “The Claimant came to court seeking a quashing of the Orders. It has gone away having achieved that objective. It has therefore been completely successful.” A spokesperson for the West Dulwich Action Group (WDAG) said:

The frustrating thing is when you get an email saying they couldn't deliver as no-one was in when you have been in all day and no postie has been anywhere near the house...

Apologies @Dulwich Born And Bred this is all so confusing - I had no idea EDF now has a Facebook page.

I wonder if someone can prove that East Dulwich Mums is also a proxy for the group pretending to be East Dulwich Forum. Is someone able to name the cleaning company involved as this is pretty underhand stuff and I am not sure I would want to engage them in cleaning services.....

Looks like McAsh got his chance to make a run on the leadership - the cut-throat world of internal party politics playing out before us....

https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/southwark/kieron-williams-to-stand-down-as-leader-of-southwark-council/

You cycled? A303?