Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, snowy said:

Of course it's a thing - go and have a hunt on tik tok or instagram and see kids pushing lines of them over...

Clearly all these issues are to do with children, that has to be the only explanation. Children must also be going round moving carefully parked bikes and scooters, placing them in the middle of pavements and pedestrianised public spaces too.

 

47 minutes ago, Rockets said:

It seems hospitals are seeing lots of "severe motorcycle-esque" injuries caused by the weight of Lime bikes.

https://www.londoncentric.media/p/lime-ebike-london-switch-cheaper-chinese-tyres

 

That is pretty damning but not surprising. This is the outfit that Southwark want to gift a slice of each street. 

Edited by first mate
28 minutes ago, first mate said:

That is pretty damning but not surprising.

Ultimately once hospitals start saying there is a problem then governments will be forced to act. It happened with e-scooters after hospitals saw a rise in e-scooter related injuries.

But remember folks, bikes weigh much less than cars and do far less damage so those trauma injuries caused by Lime bikes (often to their own rider) aren't important and should not be considered for fear any remedial measures thwart the growth of cycling....sigh....

You've lost me here, the thread is about nuisance parking of Lime bikes yet you know seem to want them banned because they are apparently dangerous.  As the 'dangers' of Lime bikes have been compared in the article, to motorcycles, perhaps you want these banned too.

Your next paragraph, mocking some of the arguments that focus should be on cars in terms of improving road safety, hardly encourages adult debate.

As for the article, I'd already seen it.  Some sensationalising of the situation, what I expect is unproven allegations against the choice of tyres, and no cause of injury ie rider error or other reason.  If the former then training for Lime bike users may not be a bad thing.  Something we would probably agree on,

7 hours ago, Rockets said:

Ultimately once hospitals start saying there is a problem then governments will be forced to act. It happened with e-scooters after hospitals saw a rise in e-scooter related injuries.

But remember folks, bikes weigh much less than cars and do far less damage so those trauma injuries caused by Lime bikes (often to their own rider) aren't important and should not be considered for fear any remedial measures thwart the growth of cycling....sigh....

Long before the ebikes, St Thomas' objected to a cycle lane being forced in front of the hospital building on Westminster Rd - there was a petition to stop it because of a danger to patients, families, visitors etc. - but Westminster Council couldn't care less and forced it in.

Seems as no one is brave enough to stand up to cycling lobby in London and everything / everyone can be sacrificed so they can cycle wherever they want.

Edited by ab29

if one person was killed - was it worth it?

How can this even be an argument? 

47 minutes ago, malumbu said:

So how many people are killed or seriously injured on this cycle lane?  No point in posting unsubstantiated claims.

 

47 minutes ago, malumbu said:

So how many people are killed or seriously injured on this cycle lane?  No point in posting unsubstantiated claims.

And what part of my  message is "unsubstantiated"?

Edited by ab29

Based on the videos in this story https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194 it does seem like a bit of an issue. Although some of the pedestrians don't do the best job of stopping and checking the crossing is clear those efforts are far better than a majority of the cyclists. I would image they are picking up a reasonable amount of speed coming downhill off the bridge and are not aware of the crossing.

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

As the 'dangers' of Lime bikes have been compared in the article, to motorcycles, perhaps you want these banned too.

The article doesn't compare the injuries to those similar to motorcycles but says:

  • More Londoners have approached London Centric with stories of their legs being severely broken after Lime’s heavy e-bikes fell on top of them, with the victims suggesting the design of the ubiquitous vehicles needs reappraising.
  • One London hospital is automatically assessing patients coming to A&E after Lime bike accidents as potential trauma incidents due to the prevalence of severe “motorcycle-esque” injuries.
  • One Lime user whose leg was almost severed in an accident alleged the company is leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bill for injuries caused by poor maintenance, branding Lime’s business model a “wealth transfer from British people funding the NHS to venture capital guys in California”.
  • London Centric has seen Lime’s rider insurance policy, which requires users to be permanently disabled in a severe manner such as the “complete loss of one kidney” before it will pay out.

 

What they are saying is that:

1) hospitals are seeing Lime-bike trauma injuries that are at the same seriousness as motorcycle injuries caused by bikes falling onto their riders - so much so that if they hear someone is coming to hospital after a Lime bike crash they categorise it (and prepare for) more severe injuries

2) If you do fall off and the bike badly breaks part of you the Lime insurance doesn't look like it will cover you

3) Some are accusing poor maintenance of Lime bikes as a reason for some of the accidents

Time and time again the pro-cycle lobby doesn't want to acknowledge many of the issues being created by these new forms of cycling. They will deny it's happening but then find that there is increased legislation because others (most notably and powerfully the medical lobby) will say, hang on something needs to be done.

Throw Lime bikes into the same "it's not happening" bucket as the problems caused by red-light jumping, pavement cyclists and the dangers of floating bus stops and mixing pedestrian and cycling usage. One wonders which one will be the trigger for changes that the cycle-lobby then refers to as "draconian, unnecessary and pandering to a small vocal minority".

 

9 minutes ago, rjsmall said:

Based on the videos in this story https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194 it does seem like a bit of an issue. Although some of the pedestrians don't do the best job of stopping and checking the crossing is clear those efforts are far better than a majority of the cyclists. I would image they are picking up a reasonable amount of speed coming downhill off the bridge and are not aware of the crossing.

That video really shows what the problems are now and I dare any pro-cycle lobbyist to come up with some excuse for what's going on there - actually probably best to post that in the bad cycling thread as the majority of these aren't Lime bikes. What's happening there is cyclists aren't stopping and giving way to pedestrians as they are required to do - just watch as some of them try to force their way through - how dare these pedestrians slow us down! This is one very specific example of problem location (caused by cyclists not wanting to/abating their speed as they come off the bridge) but this is happening all over London - even in Dulwich Square - the path of cyclists is being prioritised over pedestrians.

The thread is about the 'nuisance' of Lime bikes on LL.  You have broadened it to talk about potential dangers.  You don't like Lime bikes and are happy to go down some populist arguments in support of your views 

There will be a large number of Lime bike journeys without problem.  This gives many convenience and cheap mobility. 

I have no idea of the relative dangers of hire bikes Vs push bikes Vs other forms of transport.  All forms of transport carry risk, sadly some collisions leading to serious injuries and fatalities. We don't call to ban modes of transport every time there is a bad collision. 

You quote an article, but from my understanding this is not a definitive study.  

Ps just watching the 6 o'clock news and the story of a person sadly dying after a pop up urinal falling on them.  Perhaps another cause you can get involved in

On 10/02/2025 at 18:01, malumbu said:

The thread is about the 'nuisance' of Lime bikes on LL. 

They appear to be a serious "nuisance" to a some of their riders.

On 10/02/2025 at 18:01, malumbu said:

We don't call to ban modes of transport every time there is a bad collision. 

Who was calling for them to be banned?

On 10/02/2025 at 18:01, malumbu said:

You quote an article, but from my understanding this is not a definitive study.  

Ah, employing the Snowy form of discussion I see. What "from your understanding" is the story then - a reminder we're still waiting for Snowy's exposure on the death of Hilda Griffiths.

 

You quoted Tommies as objecting to a bike lane as they presumably considered it unsafe.  By quoting them you are effectively agreeing with their position at the time.

Having cycled past Tommies scores of times I was neither aware that it was considered unsafe, nor did I see any reason for this.

If you are going to quote other people and organisations you should tell us why they are correct.

I clearly am not calling your argument juvenile as I am sure you are aware.

  • Haha 1
On 09/02/2025 at 12:17, snowy said:

It's clearly not deflection to ask for your answer before answering your question. It's just politeness.
 

My point was that you evidently haven't hired a lime bike.

To end the contract you have to upload a photograph of the bike parked upright in a safe position. They're geofenced to prevent them from being parked in prohibited areas.

Unless the photo is approved then the hire stays live and you continue paying until its parked in a way that meets their t&c's.

If you leave it lying on the ground you can't just walk away. Or you can but you would end up being charged hundreds of pounds and lose your lime account.

Rows of bikes lying in their side have been pushed over. 

A while ago I saw lime bikes on the other side of the fence dividing Underhill Rd and Old Camberwell Cemetry - in the bushes - how could anyone push them over? From what I've seen so far, the antisocial behaviour of the  ebike users has overtaken the cause - and it is sad.

Lime bikes is an American company and its owners are American millioners - I don't understand how can this be acceptable? To trash the public space in UK with their rubbish?

40 minutes ago, first mate said:

Having discovered that Lime is partly funded by Google Ventures and Uber, is it a good idea to give them the 'freedom' of our streets to the degree Southwark seem to want? I think they are dangling some sweeteners to make the "deal" happen.

I thought Rockets loved an uber? 

11 hours ago, first mate said:

According to some, it will have been children wot did it.

As we head towards warmer weather and fair weather cyclists start to increase, I think we will see many more hire bikes blocking access on pavements. 

Which is awful. But London has become a lawless Gotham city on Labour watch.  

And if you are an American millioner you can do no wrong - re: Lime & Co

Edited by ab29

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hello still available please let me know  07538045528 Thank you Lene
    • @Jellybeanz Food poisioning can take 4 hours or so for the symptoms to become apparent. you mention and I quote  "This incident was most defintely the ice-cream or the person serving it having dirty hands or gloves" I think that is a sweeping assumption again pointing blame at the cafe. Kids and adults can be violently sick out of the blue for any number of reasons..I've had situations where I have eaten the same as my partner prepared in our own home and then been sick once only-he was ok and after I'd been sick I felt fine. I feel you're very quick to point the finger at a local establishment frequented by many with a good hygene rating. To mention the other thread where you slated a local buisness because you and your child disliked their vegan hot chocolate (or something like that...)..It was'nt to you or your childs taste-fine don't blame the establishment. I'm fussy about coffee and matcha latte some places do coffee I enjoy and ditto Matcha latte-I would not post on a public forum that XXXX's matcha is rubbish because someone else may favour it. one mans meat is another mans poison as they say and my personal taste does not give me good reason to slate a local buisness (except in the case of a certain chain 'on the lordship' which is frankly all round pretty meh.  
    • I think we can agree trees are fantastic, beautiful and a welcome part of our environment... the issue occurs as Nigello stated above when they aren't cared for or pruned regularly. When they cause damage to payments and property that isn't right, and unfortunately as trees mature - particularly some varieties - they show that it really isn't practical for them to be planted in close proximity to properties. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...