Earl Aelfheah

I would love to see the 'Southwark spine' turned in to a proper, safe, south / north corridor. The worst parts of that route currently are the crossing with Peckham Road travelling North to south, and Crystal Palace Road - which is too narrow (cars get impatient, especially travelling up the hill, and make dangerous / close passes). The turn off of Chadwick Road to Lyndhurst Road is super dangerous. Many cars plough through that turn, whilst the bike lane curves round to the right. There have been a lot of collisions there.

Glad everyone had fun; Sorry to have missed it. If I can, I'll try to make the next one. Well done for organising Sue.

Not in Ed, but I was in NE England over the weekend and saw an otter in the wild! Never seen one before, it was quite lovely.

As Mal says, we're going to undergo huge changes in the labour market over the next 5 years as a result of AI. Driverless cars are probably the least of our worries. Might be time to get a trade!

You want your friend to be able to make comments and not be challenged? Ask Rockets not to take things off topic if it bothers you. Don’t ask that he be immune from challenge when making disingenuous and / or misleading comments. I’ve never said they’re a panacea. You’ve offered no evidence that they’re increasing pollution. None. It’s amazing that you expect people to take your ‘concern’ that Lime bikes are damaging the environment seriously whilst having nothing to say about short journeys being undertaken by car (on any measure a far more polluting option). The cognitive dissonance must be overwhelming. The irony. So you’re are Ok to talk about Lime bikes, in ways that are both misleading and disingenuous, but anyone who responds or corrects you is taking the thread off topic. Do you actually hear yourself?

Because they posted it on this thread. Why not address this to Rockets? I did not bring it up.

I’ve directly addressed the points they’ve made. Ask them not to make points about e-bikes or the council tax paid by motorists ‘without discount’, if you think they’re taking things off topic. Don’t ask that people not be challenged on things they’ve said.

It has less environmental impact (Which you’re pretending to be really concerned about remember), and active travel is better for health. Nope. This is a concept you regularly appear to struggle with. There are not just a fixed number of journeys that people make without choice. I have literally given you an example of one scenario, but there are many. Different available transport options open up different opportunities, or reduce ‘friction’ leading to different decisions. A well documented example of this is induced demand following the creation of. Anew road for example. So again. Explain why you’re concerned about the pollution caused by short journeys taken by e-bike, but not by car? Doesn’t seem like common sense. Seems massively disingenuous. Presumably including car.

Tell that to people who wanted to make points about council tax levied on motorists ‘without discounts’ and those wanting to express concern about the environmental impact of electric bikes whilst consistently minimising the impact of car journeys / objecting to any suggestion that is a problem. If one is going to make such points, it is not reasonable to expect them to be accepted without comment or challenge.

It’s not just about CO2, but just for a bit of perspective Rocks as you’re suddenly concerned about the environmental impacts of transport choices: Car: Approximately 271 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. Bus: Around 101 grams of CO2 per passenger-kilometer. E-bike: Around 14.8 to 22 grams of CO2 per kilometer. Walking/Cycling: Negligible CO2 emissions …cars and buses also contribute to local air pollution. So any concern you have about short e-bike journeys (some of which replace private car and bus journeys), must be even greater with regards short car journeys, which only replace less polluting modes of travel. Could equally point out that you only have concern about it when it’s to undertake necessary maintenance, but apparently don’t consider it an issue otherwise?

If people are using bikes instead of a car or the bus then it’s a win. If they’re using them exclusively in place of walking it could be a (small) negative. That is almost certainly not how they’re being used though. By 2023 there were already 1 million car journeys that had been avoided. You’re trying to pretend that no one walks anymore, but are choosing to pay three quid every time they leave the house based on nothing. It seems incredibly unlikely. As usual you also assume that there are a fixed number of (purely essential) journeys and people just switch one mode for another. This isn’t how it works. I may decide not to go meet a mate for a quick pint if I’m short on time, or can’t be bothered to get a bus / walk. But could make a different choice if there is a quick and convenient (and fun) way to get there. I suspect a large number of lime journeys are actually new journeys / the result of induced demand as well as switches. Which tallies with those Lime users saying they’ve generally become more active as a result of using them. What we do know, and don’t need to speculate about, is that people are regularly driving extremely short distances and yet apparently you do not consider that any sort of problem at all. So cycling a journey one might otherwise not have made, may have used a bus or car for, or perhaps walked, is a concern. But driving a journey one might have otherwise walked is not? I think everyone can see how disingenuous this is. So you’re suggesting that 35% of car journeys (‘any mode’) are actually under 1 km? Is that better?

No. It is very likely that many of the journeys are replacing cars and buses, some walking (although the cost makes me doubt this is significant, as you’re unlikely to pay a few quid for a journey easily walked), and many will be entirely new journeys as a result of induced demand. This would tally with those saying they’re generally more active as a result of using Lime bikes. Again, why do you think people cycling short distances instead of driving, taking the bus, or walking is a problem, but have nothing to say about the huge number of people regularly using a car to travel less than 2km? Explain that please.

I think most people pay full council tax, regardless of their car owning status. They said: I took the ‘without discounts’ to imply that they should get discounts. Otherwise I don’t understand the reference to discounts. Especially when followed with complaints that the council “makes a profit from ttaxing motorists“, and; “They (the council) are awash with cash they have extracted from car owners.” If I’ve misunderstood then I apologise, but I ask again, what taxes are the council raising on motorists? Are they paying any more council tax than non-drivers? If not, what is the point? It certainly sounds like they think council tax payers owe drivers something. But by all means quote the whole post and tell me how you’ve understood it, if you think I’m being unfair.

It's not common sense. It's your usual mental gymnastics. For someone who opposes all active travel measures, all attempts to get people out of private motor vehicles and travelling by foot, bike or public transport, you're now concerned that e-bikes may 'only' have discouraged a million or so car journeys a couple of years into operation? To say that this seems disingenuous is being kind. If you are worried that some trips are being cycled, which could be walked, wait until you find out the percentage of car journeys in London that are under 2km. You're going to absolutely go off on one!* *it's 35%

They're also replacing car journeys, which are by far the most damaging form of transport; They’d already avoided around 1 million motor vehicle trips by 2023. Why do you not worry about the amount of journeys which could be walked that are undertaken by car? Do you think that's perhaps a bigger issue? Like I say, I suspect that the popularity of hire bikes is increasing the total amount of active travel. if you read that report, those who have used Lime also say that it's increased their overall activity levels. It's amazing how you can claim to be 'concerned' that Lime bikes supress active travel, but oppose any attempt to reduce the amount of people using cars for short journeys.

What 'problem'? Based on their data (it's from 2023 - at which point ridership was increasing by around 10% a month, so will be significantly higher now), the service had already helped avoid about 1 million motor vehicle trips (excluding public transport) in London since launch. That over 2.6 million fewer motor vehicle km (excluding public transport) travelled between Lime e-bikes launch and 2023 when the report was published (equivalent to London to Paris and back 3,000 times). Also, whilst there is a concept of 'Last mile transport' this just refers to transport used to start or finish your journey, rather than undertake the journey in it's entirety. It's a catch all / short hand for 'local journeys that connect you to major public transport hubs' (i.e. train and tube stations). It's not meant to reflect an actual, average distance. And this is only one way Lime bikes are used. Like I say, I use them for getting to Brixton tube. This is exactly the type of thing 'last mile transport' is intended for. Brixton is not one mile away, and I wouldn't have previously walked.

Well, that is a recognised term, but I did explain in quite a detailed way what I meant providing multiple examples. I think it's clear. 'Unintended consequences' doesn't really have the same meaning, (an externality is a cost or benefit that is caused by one party but financially incurred or received by another). ...but the point is not to bash motorists, simply to challenge the idea that they deserve some sort of thanks / special treatment from council tax payers - a view which is rather entitled in my opinion.

Not really. To say that car owners ‘pay council tax at the full rate without discounts', suggests that a discount should be given does it not - either on parking, or their council tax (the wording suggest the latter to me)? I would like to know what additional money car owners (I am one), pay in council tax, over those without a car? It sounds to me as though CPR Dave thinks the council / local tax payers owe car drivers something. I'd point you to the bit in my post above, re. the negative externalities of motor vehicles.

Some might be, for sure. Probably a greater proportion replace bus journeys or cab rides. I will fairly regularly jump on a lime bike to / from Brixton for example, where previously I may have called a cab or got someone to drop me off in the car. If you’re asking me to guess, I would say that the proliferation of electric bikes has likely increased the total amount of ‘active travel’ happening in London. Lime's own research (so treat with caution), suggests around 8% of journeys replace one that might otherwise have been undertaken by car. If correct that would represent a significant amount of car miles saved: https://cdn.li.me/content/uploads/Lime-in-London-final-report-2-min.pdf ...it's also worth noting that people like them, find them significantly more convenient than the alternatives - Arguments that apparently hold weight when applied to cars, but don't for any other form of transport?

Private motor vehicles contribute to air pollution, (leading to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, especially in urban areas) and are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. Congestion from car travel has major economic costs. Inactivity, impacts physical and mental health impacting our public health services. Motor vehicles kill and seriously injure 1,000's every year. Environments built around the car, lead to greater social isolation, especially impacting children, who tend to spend more time 'trapped' inside causing a host of public health issues. Most of the costs of these things are externalised (i.e. born by others), whilst the benefits are mostly accrued by the motorist. Most households in our borough don't have access to a car, and yet I would guess around 80% of our public space is given over to private motorists, a significant amount of it for the storage of cars which are stationary around 90% of the time. There is a huge opportunity cost to this loss of public space / amenity. Yet we have people arguing for a discount on their council tax if they drive around everywhere? Does this not seem a little entitled? Perhaps e-scooters are not more active, but normal scooters and e-bikes, and push bikes, are clearly more active than siting in a car. Both scooters and e-bikes have fewer negative externalities than a motor car (they take up less room, contribute less to congestion and pollution, to respiratory and cardiovascular problems, to the deaths and serious injury of others etc).

I'm over 40 and quite regularly use Lime bikes. But so what if it is younger people using them in the main? They do also have to get about. Eh? What money do you pay to the Council as a car owner specifically? Why should car owners get a discount on their council tax?

I finally tried Chilli & Garlic - really good and amazing value. Highly recommend.

No. Defence has nothing to do with local councils. Councils in London (and across the UK) have a legal duty to maintain public roads and footpaths to ensure they are safe for use, including for pedestrians and cyclists. There is also a duty on London boroughs to promote public health and sustainable travel. This duty is reinforced by legislation like the Health and Social Care Act 2012 TfL and other organizations provide funding and support for boroughs to implement active travel projects. So one very much is their business, the other obviously, is not.

It's interesting (and instructive) that people think that allocating vast amounts of space to private motor vehicles for both transport and storage is not a choice. But that (much smaller) allocations of space for pedestrians and those travelling on bicycle, is a choice. Both are a choice and both involve trade offs. To suggest that it's not the role of government to think about it, betrays an assumption that the dominance of most public spaces by motor vehicles is simply the 'natural order'. It is not. ...and a reminder that the majority of households in our borough don't own / have access to a car. I think it's perfectly right for our representatives to allocate a greater proportion of space to people getting around by foot, bike and bus.

It's a legitimate policy aim. There is a social cost to private car transport and to inactivity, the cost of which is borne by the public purse. Also, public bodies have responsibility for maintaining roads, for transport, infrastructure and the public realm. That means deciding how public space is allocated, maintained and improved.