Earl Aelfheah

More big increases in cycling in London... "Cycling journeys in the capital have increased by 43% over the past six years to 1.5 million a day": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly02lljdero?app-referrer=deep-link

Because the suggestion we should regulate all 'two wheeled contraptions' as though they are powerful electric mopeds, regardless of whether or not they are, is obviously silly.

They're not the very same bike though, if one has been illegally modified. Any vehicle can be illegally modified - by definition putting it into another category. This is just a nonsense argument.

Cutting through all the BS, there is a broad consensus on the fact that illegal electric bikes (call them what you like, but legally, they're classed as mopeds / motorcycles in the UK), are a problem. New regulations on their sale and import (including mod kits), as well as stronger enforcement of the existing laws is obviously sensible. Pretending they're bicycles and calling for more "laws about what you can do on a bicycle", is clearly not.

What new laws, and in relation to what types of vehicles? This was actually what you asked: It's formulated to deliberately conflate 'bicycles' with other types of powered two wheelers. Something you did overtly here: So it's not an honestly posed question, where you are taking no position is it? It's a dishonest 'just asking questions' rhetorical device, where you're trying to breeze past the fact that you've conflated bicycles with electric pedal assist bikes and illegal electric mopeds / motorbikes. I'm not 'suggesting' anything, they already have legal definitions; The first is an EAPC, the latter is categorised as a moped (in the Netherlands they also refer to it as a 'speed pedelec').

I don't really think the term 'fat bike' is very helpful. There are basically three distinct categories - bicycles (non powered push bikes), EAPCs (legal, pedal assist e-bikes), and electric mopeds / motorcycles. The latter can be legal if registered, taxed and insured. You seem to be talking about illegal bikes and suggesting that we need new laws to make them illegal. Presumably you see the contradiction with that (they are already illegal)? The issue appears to be one of enforcement - how do you crack down on mod kits and seize illegal bikes. You say that the police can't tell the difference, but them describe exactly how they do. The suggestion that the answer is to regulate all 'two wheeled contraptions' as though they were all powerful electric mopeds, regardless of whether or not they are, is obviously silly. What are the "more stringent laws about what you can and can't do on a bicycle" that you are calling for, or suggesting we may need?

👆 That sentence directly contradicts itself. What laws are you calling for in relation to bicycles? You seem to have been mainly talking about EAPCs and electric mopeds - which already have different laws applied to them. Or are you again suggesting that all 'two wheeled contraptions' must be treated the same (and if so, are you making the same argument for all 'four wheeled contraptions')?

The only collision I've ever had on a bicycle, happened in the middle of the day, in good light. I was wearing a lime green helmet, a reflective jacket and had a red, flashing back light on. A car accelerated up behind me and went straight into the back of my bike. The first thing he said when he got out of the car was "I didn't see you". It doesn't matter how visible you are, if someone isn't paying attention. If you have lights and reflectors, and are cycling on well lit city streets, then there is no reason for someone not to see you, assuming they're engaged with what they're doing. Whilst I think it's sensible to wear bright clothes, not to do so does not make you 'partly to blame' if someone drives a car into you. Obviously everyone should have lights and reflectors, a legal requirement at night.

Last time I looked, electric cars also cause congestion.

It's already law for electric powered bikes that don't meet UK standards as an EAPC (what on this thread seems to be loosely referred to as a 'fat bike'), that you must wear a helmet, have tax and insurance. You also have to be over 14 to ride an EAPC in the UK already. We have very clear categorisation of these vehicles and they are regulated appropriately. Despite your insistence that all 'two wheeled contraptions with pedals' are the same and must be treated as such - any sensible person understands that they are not - which is why UK law and regulations differentiate them.

What does this mean? Are you suggesting that a moped (with a motor and throttle) is just a "boy racer" sub-category of a bicycle? It's nonsense ; Like saying a motor car is just a "boy racer" category of a pedal cart. Whether they call it a moped, or a 'fatbike' or whatever (presumably it would be something in Dutch), they don't think "their goes a bicycle". We have very clear definitions in the UK - EAPC's (pedal assist bikes), bicycles, and electric mopeds / motorbikes: https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules They're clearly different and are regulated differently as a result. The same applies for the different categories of 4 wheeled motor vehicles.

Fair enough, I may have misunderstood; I thought you quoted the alderman as saying she wanted to ban fat bikes specifically (which is the opposite of saying all two wheeled vehicles should be treated the same)? Interestingly to ride an EAPC in the UK you already have to be over 14. We already have legislated in the UK though https://www.gov.uk/electric-bike-rules, so clearly it can't be that hard. It absolutely is. There is a massive difference between an illegal e-moped / motorcycle, a pedal assist e-bike and a bicycle. The classifications are few, and really very clear. Why do you think they should be classified as if the same? There are far more categories of 'four wheeled contraptions'. Would it be 'more productive' if we treated them as though they were all the same and regulated accordingly?

I don't believe this is what the Dutch government says at all. They seem to be saying the exact opposite. Your point that some people can't tell the difference between an electric moped, a pedal assist bike, and a conventional push bike / bicycle is very odd. I don't believe for a second that is true, but even if it was, it's not a good reason to just treat them as if they are the same. Should we regulate a formula 1 car and an HGV as if they're no different, if enough people are silly enough to think they're the same? There are different regulations applied to different types of motor vehicle (https://www.gov.uk/driving-licence-categories). Are you arguing that they should all be treated exactly the same? A modern Formula 1 car can accelerate from 0 - 60 in under 2 seconds and has a top speed exceeding 220 mph - By the logic of you and Rockets that makes cars for too dangerous for cities and we should probably be banning them altogether - after all we must stop trying to dissect vehicle categories into different subsets and treat them the same. Right?

I don't get this insistence on bundling together illegal electric mopeds, pedal assist e-bikes and push bikes / bicycles. They're clearly different and yes, there are different issues (and in the case of the latter two, benefits). Are all two wheeled vehicles the same? Are all four wheeled vehicles? Of course not.

You did say you supported the Grove Tavern crossing, I'll give you that one - although it was whilst ranting about how the delivery of it was part of a nudge tactic by the council to slow traffic 🤣. You were also objecting to the 20mph scheme and segregated bike lane on Sydenham Hill in the same thread. The others are all examples of where you may have said you support something in principle, but have then objected to every specific scheme introduced locally. And it's not 'bullying' to point this out - it's just that I know exactly what your position will be on any local scheme before you've expressed it. You'll object that it's part of an 'active travel lobby / cyclist lobby' and council conspiracy to attack car drivers.

Susan Hall issued campaign leaflets that resembled penalty charge notices and claimed Khan had a "secret plan" for pay-per-mile charging. It was totally made up / a lie. ...and on the susbstance of pay per mile (or rather, what I'd like to see in time - dynamic road pricing) - it is clearly the best way to manage road use. Had Hall been voted in we would now have dirtier air and more ill health.

Think that's the one in the Village - which is still going strong by the looks of things.

As I walked passed the other day, the door was open and there has been no work inside at all. I suspect it's permanently closed.

Eh?

I've had the same thing at other stores. I think the issue is more with InPost than Barry Stores. InPost have been becoming increasingly unreliable.

It's really annoying and has been an issue for years.

Can you provide one?

You cut out the first bit. You can correct this if it's factually wrong?

Rockets objects to bike lanes, 20mph speed limits, bus lane enforcement, extended pavements, new road crossings, etc. etc.. He has no interest in improving the experience of people walking or cycling (he does give a nod to pedestrian safety, but only rhetorically, where it can be used to rail against 'cyclists'). I can't think of a single, local road safety measure, or public realm improvement that he hasn't objected to. So yes, it's just trolling. His responses are effectively algorithmic - 'car v's bike - car good, bike bad'. It's that binary, that basic.

He only found one person willing to say that Farage currently expresses racist beliefs? Is that meant to be reassuring in relation to a leading politician?