E-scooters to come to Dulwich Park...

[Rockets]

DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to read up on a few things. Southwark have previously said they want to reduce car usage by 50% across the borough.

What frustrates me in all this is that there is a crying need for more cycle storage on Lordship lane yet the council are turning precious pavement space on Lordship Lane (in front of Superdrug) over to electric scooter companies rather than installing more bike storage themselves - and I am sure the motivation for that is that electric scooter companies will pay handsomely for the space due to the gold rush to try and establish their businesses whilst bike storage requires council money.

[DuncanW]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to

> read up on a few things. Southwark have previously

> said they want to reduce car usage by 50% across

> the borough.

>

That would be a brilliant thing to achieve, in my opinion - would you not agree?

How we get to that point, plus the efficacy, costs and externalities, etc of the efforts to date are all up for discussion of course.

[niall]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You see pillion passengers,

> including kids, on them all over the place, often

> on the way to school, believe it or not.

I have never seen this happen.

[Siduhe]

There are at least two families I see regularly on my cycle in, around Willow Walk SE1 - we're obviously on similar schedules. Both kids tend to ride in front of the parent and both have helmets on, but neither of them can see over the handlebars. Parents ride in the road, not on the pavement and the route is a cycle route but it looks pretty terrifying to me. Not helped by the fact that one of the parents has a phone mounted on the handlebars so that his child can watch Peppa Pig at max volume en route.

But that just may be my grumpy reaction given that we often end up at the lights at the same time and I find the noise at that volume really annoying and distracting.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

----------------------------------------------Southwark have previously

> said they want to reduce car usage by 50% across

> the borough.

And that's completely different from saying "Southwark Labour Party [has an] avowed objective to drive (sic) private car ownership out of Southwark?", which is simply unhinged nonsense.

[Nigello]

niall Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Nigello Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > You see pillion passengers,

> > including kids, on them all over the place,

> often

> > on the way to school, believe it or not.

So, does that mean it doesn't exist? Why post if you don't want to intimate that it is not a cause for concern, or maybe even suggest I am making it up. It does, I see it at least twice a week and feel very concerned for the young, unprotected passengers (more so than the reckless riders).

>

> I have never seen this happen.

[Rockets]

DuncanW Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Rockets Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > DKHB - not entirely - again, you might want to

> > read up on a few things. Southwark have

> previously

> > said they want to reduce car usage by 50%

> across

> > the borough.

> >

>

> That would be a brilliant thing to achieve, in my

> opinion - would you not agree?

>

> How we get to that point, plus the efficacy, costs

> and externalities, etc of the efforts to date are

> all up for discussion of course.

Brilliant but not at all realistic. Far more realistic would be reducing fossil fuel car use by 50% but the council seems to be doing nothing to encourage the electrification of cars which seems like the most realistic, pragmatic and achievable goal to have a massively positive impact on emissions and air quality. They seem to have been brain-washed by lobby groups that brake dust etc is a reason not to pursue an electrification strategy.

[legalalien]

It will be interesting to see the detail of proposed govt regs to require new homes to have car charging points and how they deal with new builds without car parking spaces - will there be some requirement for local govt to roll out charging infrastructure nearby as part of any new build they oversee or to require developers to contribute to funding roll out of charging infrastructure? At the moment the council?s plans for new builds seem to involve no car parking, plus putting CPZs in the local area and rendering residents of the new builds ineligible for CPZ permits. (So that they are forced to use public transport or active travel). I imagine developers might like to push back on that as if residents can access kerbside chargers the properties might be more valuable? I can see also see that central govt might like to push the cost of rolling out charging infrastructure onto developers and/or councils as much as possible?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/24/plan-for-car-chargers-in-all-uk-new-homes-will-make-access-exclusive

[Nigello]

Re EVs - I have heard say that putting plugs on kerbs is a possibility, running them from the underground cables and/or lampposts.

[Rockets]

Some councils have also put them at a 90 degree angle from the kerb so that two cars can be charged.

Isn't the government initiating a broad electrification plan? Maybe Southwark will start rolling out infrastructure when they have someone to blame!! ;-) It is worrying how blinkered some of our councillors seem to be towards EVs, regurgitating the "what about the brake dust narrative" sold to them by the cycle lobby.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> the council seems to be doing nothing to

> encourage the electrification of cars

More untruths. The council is giving a 75% discount for residents parking permits for electric vehicles and had for years subsidised the installation of on-steeet charging points for those who can't charge at home. They've also bought a bunch of EVs for use in their own fleet where it's practical to do so.

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/parking/parking-projects/electric-cars?chapter=3

https://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/2017/nov/southwark-council-supports-switch-to-electric-vehicles

Southwark council doesn't control VED, ULEZ, main roads, fuel duty, VAT or any of the other major levers for electric vehicle takeup. There's not much else they can do to encourage EVs - apart from perhaps to exclude vehicles fuelled by petrol or diesel from certain streets or areas. But I suspect that might give some of our more "fervent" members an apoplectic fit and they don't actually want that despite their concern trolling. "Gosh, I'm just SO WORRIED the council isn't doing enough to support EVs and cycling, and that's why I oppose reducing car usage..."

Naturally electric vehicles will do nothing to solve congestion - but they will at least make it quieter and less /locally/ polluting.

[Rockets]

A discount on parking permits and their own fleet of EVs....my that will move the needle and encourage people to buy that electric car won't it......?

You mention installation of on-street charging points....there are so few of them around it's laughable - I think there are fewer of them than the bike hangers that the council so needed to install to facilitate modal shift.

The council could be doing so much more to provide the infrastructure to support the move to electrification - every lamp-post and parking spot on streets could easily have electric charging points. Until such time people will live in a state of permanent range/charging point anxiety and not make the switch to electric cars and it will remain the domain of those with off-street parking in front of their homes.

I am afraid the council seem to have drunk way too much of the "all cars are bad" kool-aid since the article you link to was published in 2017. A lot of that narrative has been forced down their throats by the cycle lobby and seemingly (and publicly) they now seem to think that electrification is a bad path to follow.

I agree they don't solve congestion but they do help solve pollution issues - an electric car in congestion is far, far less polluting than a petrol or diesel car in congestion - and isn't the pollution problem the one that we are all focused on trying to resolve?

[malumbu]

Rocks, you are now taking over this thread too. Hats off to you for your persistence.

[Jenijenjen]

Returning to the subject of e-scooters, Kings has reported 196 cases of injuries incurred by e-scooters in 2020.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/growing-number-of-e-scooter-injuries-a-concern-top-kings-surgeon/?fbclid=IwAR10Na3Pb8zlqmssP2-TwXSsRTkY-wIn5LBXPCOU0CtN6ZEmVNwc4nfjbXU

[Angelina]

It needs legislation for that very reason. The TFL scooters will be more solid and safer, as the bikes are.

[goldilocks]

Its not great - but its hard to understand in context isn't it. For example there were 196 injuries in the year, but how many e scooters are being used. Compared to the number of casualties Kings treat where pedestrians are injured by having cars driven into them, or driver or passengers of car injuries I'd imagine its small.

[Moovart]

But if you were knocked over by a car and you were, for example, a self employed person who broke your wrist and couldn't work for a year, you could claim against the driver's insurance.

If you are hit by an e scooter or a bicycle on a pavement in the above scenario then it's just your hard luck that you lose your livelihood.

Isn't it time that bikes and escooters were registered, identifiable and required to have third party liability insurance in case if accident and stopped from riding on pavements (which the scooters frequently do at speed)

[goldilocks]

There are some issues to consider - but its a bit like 'if you're hit by an individual' - they don't have insurance to claim against either. Like if someone attacks you in the street, they don't have insurance. There is the criminal injuries compensation scheme (maybe this would apply in the scenarios you note as also illegal activities) but wouldn't pay for loss of earnings.

I don't think that anyone is advocating that e scooters should be on pavements - they travel too fast, but of the 196 cases noted above, it sounds as though the majority are from riders themselves falling off their scooters. If this is just alone then maybe caveat emptor and they'll become less popular. If its because they were hit by cars, then the ongoing questions about the safety of our roads for any users other than cars is back on the table.

[legalalien]

interesting recent review of literature here

https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/27/5/490

Injuries mostly falling off type injuries rather than collisions with other road users. Significant cost/ burden on A&E/ health services....

[Angelina]

It would be interesting to know the ranked list of causes of accidents and the impact on the NHS.

I imagine that the top ones would be subject to Health and Safety regulation at least.

Fireworks are probably on there.

[Rockets]

I believe any motorised vehicle should require a licence and insurance to operate. The fact you can go and jump on one of these things with no training is ludicrous and I am not surprised there has been a marked increase in admissions as the result of accidents.

I still can't fathom why TFL and our council think they are a good idea to encourage e-scooters as a form of public transport - they are, literally, an accident waiting to happen and the NHS will be the ones left picking up the pieces.

[ed_pete]

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> interesting recent review of literature here

> https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/27/5/490

>

> Injuries mostly falling off type injuries rather

> than collisions with other road users.

> Significant cost/ burden on A&E/ health

> services....

Hmm - For those that can't be bothered, don't assume that because it's a BMJ article it's discussing scooter accidents in the UK. It's not. Also that's your "significant" not the BMJ's. The NHS budget is what, ~?170bn so what do you term significant ?

[legalalien]

Ok maybe replace significant by ?meaningful?. you?re right it?s not the U.K., which is good as it?s surely best to be looking at data from places where escooters have been in place for longer? I?m not particularly in favour of a ban but do think we should properly consider available evidence around accidents etc and regulate if and as appropriate. A number of countries are considering or require helmets, for example. The types of injuries are different from bikes and I?ve seen in various places that travelling across different road surfaces (road to pavement for example) is a particular issue. If nothing else we should be making sure scooter riders are properly informed about risk and how to minimise risk?

[ianr]

I had been thinking to write just to say that I agreed with legalalien's selection of bullet points, and maybe to include just this extract from the paper: "Moreover, over two-thirds of patients (68.9%) required at least one procedure during their emergency department visit. These findings are supported by a New Zealand study which found that the introduction of electric scooters had a large impact on regional healthcare costs.[46] This may be of particular interest to cities considering the adoption of shared electric scooter schemes, as the introduction of such services may increase the demand of already-stretched emergency services."

There's obvious variation between some of the reports reviewed. I'm curious, for example, about whether the cited high fracture or admission rates in some were functions of the treatment centre selection, the locale, the social environment, ... The only way to investigate is by drilling down, ie reading them, and it's useful to have a scoping review like this to get a fuller picture of possibly relevant factors. The authors have taken some pains to select only articles likely to be reliable, and the compilation process is probably tedious and painstaking. The words, btw, are theirs, not the BMJ's.

[Rockets]

196 patients attending Kings in 2020 as a result of e-scooter accidents is an incredibly large number (especially considering they weren't being as used much then) - frighteningly large and does nothing to sway me from my thought that e-scooters are inherently dangerous due to the odd centre of gravity and that the consequences of falling off one or being involved in an accident on one are far worse than a bike. When you fall off a bike you put your feet down - I suspect when you fall off an e-scooter it is your arm that tries to break your fall as your feet are on the footplate - which might explain why more people are being admitted with injuries (many of which seem to need surgery).