first mate

I know, it looks pretty shoddy on Southwark's part.

Humdinger said: "If you are in a wheelchair (a tiny, tiny fraction of the population) then you already know you have hard luck, a few extra bicycles on the street is hardly going to push you over the edge." Quite honestly words fail. FWIW, for anyone already dealing with the "hard luck" ( an unbelievably unempathetic choice of words ) of some sort of physical disability (not just wheelchair users) and the daily inequalities they already contend with, having your access blocked by an e-bike lying in the pavement is exactly the sort of thing that can push you over the edge.

I think this article makes some of the points I have tried to touch on. Obviously we are not in USA and speed limits, including for official e-bikes, are different but I still think there is food for thought. https://www.vice.com/en/article/88q54x/america-has-an-e-bike-problem-that-cant-be-solved-with-more-e-bikes

I don't think bicycles are as inherently dangerous as cars, for reasons of weight, as you say, but I have had more near misses with other cyclists when cycling and it has made me wary. That is of course just my experience. You also have to think about the potential impact of e-bikes, scooters and souped-up e-bikes (or illegal motorbikes as you prefer to call them). It is no good trying to separate off the powered variety of two wheeled transport because they are 'not really bicycles'. They are a central part of the council's stated aim to transition to micro mobility and active travel. Having witnessed some recent behaviour of those using e-bikes, as well as the carelessness with which the bikes are left lying around after use, I am not convinced this category of users will be more law abiding than car users.

Yes, I think most people know what that result was about and that it was important to send a message to central Govt at the time. What it was not was a resounding mandate in support of LTNs. Interesting even Sadiq Khan can see there are problems with the way some have been implemented.

In the last Environment scrutiny session Cllr Rose used a word salad around all this and kept talking about carefully curated dockless use and careful management of provision, but you really got the impression that the council are stumbling into all this, not clear about what they are doing or the consequences.

I think as soon as you hear weasel words like "evidence suggests" you know the evidence is probably somewhat lacking.

Rockets said: "Funny how Cllr Newens goes on to say: "In reality, the 2022 election results give southwarklabour a strong mandate to improve active travel infrastructure + reduce traffic in our borough"....a little bit rich and someone ought to remind her how she, and her other councillors and party, went out of their way not to mention anything about active travel during the run-up to the election, choosing to pretend it wasn't a local issue at all...." This is so true and I had actually forgotten how surprised I was at the time that the issue was seemingly buried by Labour for the duration of the council elections, it seemed as though it was not mentioned by Labour Councillors at all.

Yes, but not very accessible if blocking pavements or lying in the road. I agree, it is great that young people, especially have a convenient, fun and cheap form of transport but we do need to address current issues with these bikes and find a solution and not create problems for other sections of the community.

Yes, I think this is it as well as prioritising the ticking of green boxes in order to trumpet what they have achieved. I do note what you said about the narrow difference between those who voted no to this and to Calton etc.., which was pushed through. I know a consultation is not a vote but I'd love to know what prompted the u-turn exactly?

I also wonder how many of those focussed only on reducing car use also enjoy holidays and travel abroad and fly to their chosen destinations? How many have wood burning stoves and have loft conversions and side returns, all that building work is polluting and arguably unnecessary. What about the climate costs of technology, whether phones, computers or other gadgets? How many use Amazon and similar regularly? Visiting Peckham Rye yesterday I saw the huge energy consuming vehicles involved in building the Gala site, yet we are told this is a sustainable event, despite damage to the park each year?

You must admit though that despite Dulwich Park and other very large green spaces literally on the doorstep, there is a massive need in this location for a tarmac area for 'permitted public events' and an area where children can gambol and play on tarmac as well.

Yes, we can only hope that the Nunhead campaign is emboldened by this.

I thought this was quite interesting, in terms of souping up an e-bike. How are people getting around this limit? In the real world, there are a lot of ways around the speed limit and some tricks that people are using that don’t stick within the laws. So what are some ways people are getting around the UK e-bike speed laws? Hacking the speed controller – One thing that a lot of e-bike owners do is to use some kind of hack to get their bike to exceed the speed limit. Going faster outside of busy city roads – Another common thing you’ll read on the e-bike forums and places like Reddit is that riders stick to the speed in cities but exceed it once they’re out on roads. Ride normally and avoiding attention – One common opinion is that if you ride sensibly, as you would on any bike, it’s highly unlikely you will be pulled over. Using a Cycle Analyst – With this device you can have a really powerful e-bike of say 1000 Watts but set a limit to it of 250 Watts. At the press of a button, you can quickly reduce your output from the illegal (but speedy) 1000 down to the legally allowed 250. Overclocking the motor to get more out of it – A little-known secret about e-bike motors is that they can actually push out a lot more power than what they’re intended for. Most of the 250 Watt motors built in China can actually give out 500 Watts if you know how to do it. What the motor is officially ‘rated’ as is often far less than what it’s capable of. Do the police know what to look for? Another hot and controversial topic is the question as to whether or not a regular police officer would be able to tell the difference between a legal e-bike and one that was 500 Watts instead of 250 Watts. Or even be able to spot a power-assisted bike at all (some are not as obvious as others). Many believe that they would need special training and knowledge to be able to tell if an e-biker was breaking the law or not. During our research for this article, it was hard to find many examples of people being pulled over and asked anything by the police about their e-bike. Realistically, the police have a lot on their plates and e-bikes are probably not a priority. And it’s not likely they would know what to look for without training. That being said, you might get unlucky and be pulled over by someone whose hobby is e-bikes and they’d know straight away if you were using one of the above tricks to get over the legal limits.

A number of streets in ED today with Lime bikes scattered untidily on the pavement or road. A number seemed to have fallen over. Another road in Nunhead has a freshly painted bay but a number of bikes were left strewn outside of the designated drop off point.

In this link at around 18:17 Cllr Rose outlines her plan to increase hire bikes but especially e-bikes and scooters, across the borough. There will be increased docking but also dockless ( "curated", whatever that means). Also see 26:48 on dockless trials. Perhaps this is the reasons for the sudden influx of Lime bikes. They have been given the green light by the Council.

1st para: I disagree. 2nd para: Not sure what point you are trying to make? The issue is about the potential for tension between cyclists and pedestrians, as demonstrated in Amsterdam and on a smaller scale in Dulwich Village Square. 3rd para: The issue is about the tension between cyclists and pedestrians; you have shifted the goalposts by making it about cars. 4th para: souped up e-bikes are e-bikes, nonetheless. Does the article I linked to call them illegal motorbikes? No. The relevance is that our council want to increase both bike and e-bike use. As I said earlier, are you really so sure we won't get similar problems over here? Today I saw someone on an e-bike on Barry Road going like the clappers. I doubt he is unique and imagine we'll see more of this sort of behaviour as more people take to e-bikes. Carry on twisting and turning. I'll leave you to it and leave you to have the last word too, as I am fairly sure you'll be unable to resist 😉

Hmm, nice try Mr C. I was not defending points but using links to elaborate and illustrate. The first link was to illustrate my first point - that in the inner sections of Amsterdam bicycles are becoming a problem ("nuisance") and there are tensions between the needs of pedestrians and those of cyclists. The second link illustrated a further issue to do with souped up e-bikes. I think the only person trying to move goalposts is you. I agree impossible to even attempt a sensible conversation, but I am really not convinced you want one.

It does look that way. And Malumbu, please stop. It is clear what you are up to.

What I actually said: "Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam" As you well know, I posted two links: 1. about issues with bicycles/ cycling and pedestrians in Amsterdam 2. a second link specifically about issues with souped up e-bikes in Amsterdam Hope that helps.

Mr C "proliferation of E bikes. See the "E2 in there. This is not, as you claimed "bicycles are a nuisance", this is about what are effectively unlicensed motorcycles. Parleying that into "bicycles are a nuisance" is disingenuous to say the least. The other link does also not say what you seem to think it says". Another wilful misrepresentation of a post by the feathered one- at least I don't accuse you of putting words into my mouth! To correct you, I mentioned both bicycles and e-bikes and supplied a link for each. Are you really suggesting that speeding e-bikes and souped up e-bikes are not likely to become an issue over here too? I think the link about the increasing tension between cyclists and pedestrians in inner Amsterdam says exactly what I think it says. My point about the Dulwich Village square was to show a small scale version of that same tension. Unlike you, I do cycle... a lot. My point was that, in my experience, other more reckless and speed orientated cyclists can present as much of a hazard as cars. Perhaps when you start cycling you will find the same.

Two links for you to explain the issues with cycling and proliferation of e-bikes in Amsterdam https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/14/amsterdam-crackdown-souped-up-e-bikes-dangerous-streets In terms of the e-bikes, I think it is only a matter of time before we get the same issue here. We live in a 'fast' city. Our 'communities' are fragmented, we don't have everything we need within walking distance; that is just the way our western lifestyle has evolved. You cannot undo all that in the blink of an eye. As we know, the cycling pressure groups are not keen on the Dulwich Village junction ('square') being pedestrian only, as they would have to dismount and cannot walk in cycling shoes! I do for the most part cycle. I am much more fearful of large vehicles like buses but also of cars, however other cyclists can also be a problem, especially those cycling at top speed (in early threads a cycling propagandist castigated me for suggesting mobility scooters be allowed on cycleways, as this would slow cyclists like him down).

And yet, as you so helpfully pointed out in an earlier post, despite this long history of transport change Amsterdam has nearly the same level of cars as we do in Southwark. Moreover, there are moves to now ban cycling from large sections of the Dutch city, as bicycles too are deemed a nuisance and safety issue. Is this what you envisage here?

The council have said they want more hire e-bikes. They are very aware of the issues associated with the increase but seem to be turning a blind eye. They just want to tick their green credential boxes. One plan is to have lots of hire bike hangars on the road. In my view, that will not work. Many hire e-bike users seem to want to dump and go. They will not want the hassle of putting the bike away in a hangar. Failing that, just expect more hire e-bikes to be left willy nilly on the road or on pavements. As the warm weather kicks in this will become much more of an annoying issue.

Yep, saw this. Straight out of the pro LTN lobby playbook...all the usual disclaimers.