Increase in Lime Bikes on LL

[Spartacus]

Not quite pure lime but 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/24/food-delivery-rider-caught-riding-illegal-ebikes-death-trap/

Police are reporting a doubling of illegally modified eBikes siezed in the past year (this is only the tip of the iceberg i fear) 

[first mate]

2 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

Not quite pure lime but 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/24/food-delivery-rider-caught-riding-illegal-ebikes-death-trap/

Police are reporting a doubling of illegally modified eBikes siezed in the past year (this is only the tip of the iceberg i fear) 

And this was utterly predictable but the cyclisterati, high on their Brooke's saddles, refuse to admit there are any potential problems with the bike and e-bike revolution they are intent on forcing through.

[Earl Aelfheah]

54 minutes ago, first mate said:

And this was utterly predictable but the cyclisterati, high on their Brooke's saddles, refuse to admit there are any potential problems with the bike and e-bike revolution they are intent on forcing through.

😂

You OK? 

I don't believe anyone at all is arguing that illegal 'e-bikes' (actually more akin to an electric motorcycle than a pedal assist e-bicycle, as they have a throttle) should be 'forced through' (whatever that means).

These are effectively motorbikes which are being driven illegally and from what the article suggests, are being rightly 'cracked down on'.

Edited September 24 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

I am shocked sometimes at how fast I see Lime bikes going - I was following one recently and he was doing 20mph down Lordship Lane and cycling up the inside of buses, squeezing between the parked cars and the buses -  creating self-induced close passes - the Uber driver suggesting he was going to get himself killed. Aren't Lime bikes supposed to be topped at 14 mph?

[malumbu]

Here we go again, another thread that has turned into an anti cycling one.  Why oh why for a number of you are cyclists public enemy number 1? Anyway to go back to the original thread, I suggest that you contact Lime to enquire if their bikes can go above the legal limit of 14mph.  I have no idea on whether you can override this, I couldn't find any boy racers on YouTube doing this,

As for illegal ebikes, whether they are those already not allowed on the road (twist and go) , unless the vehicle is registered, taxed, insured and the rider has an appropriate license (as they are electric motorbikes) or those that have been modified, they are not pedal cycles, and should not be compared with them.  I'm sure there was a thread already on concerns.

Edited September 24 by malumbu

[first mate]

I refer you back to the Dave Hill article. If cycling increases and we engineer road infrastructure to force people in that direction then we will get more speeding on bikes, more bad behaviour, more illegal modification of e-bikes. We do not live in a slow culture, people want to get from A-Z in the fastest possible time. 

[Spartacus]

8 hours ago, malumbu said:

Here we go again, another thread that has turned into an anti cycling one.  Why oh why for a number of you are cyclists public enemy number 1? 

I suspect it is down to the way people see cyclists constantly breaking the law, if they followed the rules, respected pedestrians and stopped at crossings, then I believe there would be less anti cyclest rethoric . 

[Earl Aelfheah]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

I refer you back to the Dave Hill article. If cycling increases and we engineer road infrastructure to force people in that direction then we will get more speeding on bikes, more bad behaviour, more illegal modification of e-bikes. We do not live in a slow culture, people want to get from A-Z in the fastest possible time. 

Do you really believe that we have engineered our roads to 'force' people to use bicycles? And that this in turn is to blame for illegal motorcycles? This is such an obviously spurious argument you should feel embarrassed.

We have a small number of bike lanes which attempt to make it (mildly) safer for those who choose to travel by bicycle, at least some of the time. The vast majority of our road network is designed for, and dominated by, motor vehicles.

Attempts conflate illegal motorbikes with bicycles, so as to insinuate that people pose a great risk to others when they are traveling on a push bike, cannot seriously be made in good faith. Or if you do genuinely hold this view, I direct you to look at road accident statistics and just think a second on the physics of it (you've previously claimed to be a 'scientist'?).

Edited September 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

No more spurious or embarrassing than trying to conflate closure and pedestrianisation of a major junction with access of cars to Dulwich Park in the 60's.

That aside, are you seriously trying to argue that our local council, for example, is not trying to get people out of cars by changing road design/ access? Are you seriously proposing that our councillor in charge of streets is not on the record as saying he would like to see all cars removed from our streets so that people can walk and cycle?

Just now, first mate said:

No more spurious or embarrassing than trying to conflate closure and pedestrianisation of a major junction with access of cars to Dulwich Park in the 60's.

That aside, are you seriously trying to argue that our local council, for example, is not trying to get people out of cars by changing road design/ access? Are you seriously proposing that our councillor in charge of streets is not on the record as saying he would like to see all cars removed from our streets so that people can walk and cycle?

Oh, and I have never, not once, claimed to be a scientist. You are getting confused on a number of fronts.

 

[Penguin68]

10 hours ago, malumbu said:

Here we go again, another thread that has turned into an anti cycling one. 

Based on the thread's title I suspect it started as one

[Earl Aelfheah]

7 minutes ago, first mate said:

..are you seriously trying to argue that our local council, for example, is not trying to get people out of cars by changing road design/ access? Are you seriously proposing that our councillor in charge of streets is not on the record as saying he would like to see all cars removed from our streets so that people can walk and cycle?

You're right, cars are an endangered species, can't remember the last time I saw one in London.

You've claimed that if we have more people using a bicycle to get about, then:

Quote

we will get more speeding on bikes, more bad behaviour, more illegal modification of e-bikes

This logic (from a 'scientist') is just so basic / laughable I can barely bring myself to point it out. But here goes.

If you increase the number of people travelling by bicycle, you will see an increase in the number of people demonstrating bad behaviour when travelling by bicycle. You will also see an increase in the incidence of good behaviour. This is basic maths.

The issue of bad behaviour however, is one of bad behaviour. In so far as the form of transport is in any way relevant, a badly behaved individual on a push bike poses significantly less of a risk to others than they do when in a motor vehicle. Again, if you doubt this, I direct you to the basic laws of physics and real work road casualty statistics. 

On the final point, about illegal electric motorbikes (bikes with a motor and a throttle); No one is in favour of unregistered, uninsured motorbikes on our streets; it has nothing to do with bicycles. Your attempt to conflate one with the other is cynical and transparent. 

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

27 minutes ago, first mate said:

 with access of cars to Dulwich Park in the 60's.

By the way, I was poking around on the Dulwich Society website and one of their newsletters seemed to suggest it was only in about 2000 or 2001 before access to Dulwich Park was via the Old College Gates only. Didn't think to keep the link, sorry.

[first mate]

Again, you are getting very confused Earl. Please show where I have stated I am a scientist?

Given your Trumpian ability to present and argue using 'alternative' facts, I repeat, we are not a slow city, people want to get around fast. Therefore, if more people take to cycling because they cannot use a car - this is a stated aim of Southwark- it is more likely that the incidences of careless cycling we are seeing will also increase. What are we going to do about it? Any ideas- and no, it is not just about illegally modified e-bikes.

1 hour ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

By the way, I was poking around on the Dulwich Society website and one of their newsletters seemed to suggest it was only in about 2000 or 2001 before access to Dulwich Park was via the Old College Gates only. Didn't think to keep the link, sorry.

"Seeming to suggest" is a very low standard of evidence 🤣

[Rockets]

3 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Do you really believe that we have engineered our roads to 'force' people to use bicycles?

In the last 5 years the vast majority of engineering to our roads has been designed to "nudge" (isn't that the word TFL and councils use") drivers to switch to bikes.

 

12 hours ago, malumbu said:

Here we go again, another thread that has turned into an anti cycling one.  Why oh why for a number of you are cyclists public enemy number 1?

If I can't mentioned my observation about Lime bikes travelling at 20mph on a thread about Lime bikes where can I - do you suggest I start another thread......?

 

Is it 14mph under battery power - if you pedal as well does that increase the speed? He was cracking along at 20mph - the Uber driver showed me and it was a bog standard Lime bike.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Lime bikes have a top assisted speed of 14.8mph, at that point the motor switches off. You can obviously go faster than that, but the motor doesn't help you (and the weight of it actively works against you).

1 hour ago, first mate said:

Again, you are getting very confused Earl. Please show where I have stated I am a scientist?

I apologise, that was not you, but Heartblock. My error.

 

Edited September 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Penguin68]

2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

The issue of bad behaviour however, is one of bad behaviour. In so far as the form of transport is in any way relevant, a badly behaved individual on a push bike poses significantly less of a risk to others than they do when in a motor vehicle. Again, if you doubt this, I direct you to the basic laws of physics and real work road casualty statistics. 

But of course people in cars have to pass  (increasingly stringent) tests, which include hazard awareness, road rules etc. People on bikes don't. So an increase in drivers is an increase in trained and tested people. Drivers have training to understand, and avoid 'bad behaviour'. And the penalties they face personally if they indulge in it are far more stringent than penalties (ha ha) faced by cyclists.

[Earl Aelfheah]

1 hour ago, first mate said:

we are not a slow city, people want to get around fast. Therefore, if more people take to cycling because they cannot use a car - this is a stated aim of Southwark- it is more likely that the incidences of careless cycling we are seeing will also increase. What are we going to do about it? Any ideas- and no, it is not just about illegally modified e-bikes.

"Seeming to suggest" is a very low standard of evidence 🤣

No one is being stopped using a car. Southwark have not said that they aim to ensure people 'cannot use a car'. 

You are correct that it is often quicker to use a bike, but that is simply due to congestion caused by too many cars. More bikes = less congestion.

 

In terms of more people getting about by bike meaning more people cycling carelessly - it also means fewer people getting about by car and driving carelessly. Whilst neither is desirable, the former is substantially less problematic than the latter.

To answer what one should do about poor / dangerous road behaviour - it should be policed effectively.

11 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:

But of course people in cars have to pass  (increasingly stringent) tests, which include hazard awareness, road rules etc. People on bikes don't. So an increase in drivers is an increase in trained and tested people. Drivers have training to understand, and avoid 'bad behaviour'. And the penalties they face personally if they indulge in it are far more stringent than penalties (ha ha) faced by cyclists.

And yet, still there are substantially more road accidents, serious injuries and deaths caused by cars. So even with those extra measures, the danger posed to others is significantly higher by several orders of magnitude (which obviously explains why we apply stricter standards in the first place).

Edited September 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[first mate]

15 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Lime bikes have a top assisted speed of 14.8mph, at that point the motor switches off. You can obviously go faster than that, but the motor doesn't help you (and the weight of it actively works against you).

I apologise, that was not you, but Heartblock. My error.

Apology accepted and FWIW, I agree this is primarily an issue of human behaviour but change to facilitate cycling is being pushed through at quite a fast rate (in some respects for laudable reasons- which I do get). My point is that if vehicle switch happens in the desired numbers those same badly behaved humans will show up in that context but without necessary checks in place- as P68 says. 

[alice]

Why are you choosing to ignore the role of public transport - that’s available for everybody. 
Cars and bikes  both slow down bus journeys. 

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not ignoring it. I literally posted a picture above which shows the amount of room it takes to transport the same number of people by private car, bicycle and bus.

[Rockets]

29 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Lime bikes have a top assisted speed of 14.8mph, at that point the motor switches off. You can obviously go faster than that, but the motor doesn't help you (and the weight of it actively works against you).

Someone should get that kid to the velodrome then.....!

 

17 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

No one is being stopped using a car. Southwark have not said that they aim to ensure people 'cannot use a car'. 

But they said that they want to reduce car use by 50% - which is easy to say, far harder to do (especially if there is no investment in public transport infrastructure to support it). If you only pour money into one form of transport the others will not work effectively.

2 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I'm not ignoring it. I literally posted a picture above which shows the amount of room it takes to transport the same number of people by private car, bicycle and bus.

Which is a great picture but only in it's most simplistic visual form. It can only work in practice if everyone is doing the same thing, going in the same direction at the same time, transporting the same things - it's a wonderful ideological visual statement but one that doesn't actually exist - it's logical but utterly flawed when applied in the real world.

[Earl Aelfheah]

3 hours ago, Dogkennelhillbilly said:

By the way, I was poking around on the Dulwich Society website and one of their newsletters seemed to suggest it was only in about 2000 or 2001 before access to Dulwich Park was via the Old College Gates only. Didn't think to keep the link, sorry.

This is interesting, I've struggled to find exactly when they stopped through traffic. It looks like you could still drive around the park up to 2004, but (I think) only by entering from the Old College Gate:

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/Data/Executive/20040622/Agenda/Item 07 - Limitations onAccess to Dulwich Park for Motor Vehicles a Report.pdf 

Edited September 25 by Earl Aelfheah

[Moovart]

2 hours ago, first mate said:

is more likely that the incidences of

Shurly you mean Incidents ed???

Incidences doesn't make sense 

 

Probably not a statistician 🤔

[alice]

It always interested me why the only gate open to car traffic was in the privileged Dulwich village car free area.  
I remember at the time people with disabilities could no longer enter and park inside their nearest gate.  

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

This is interesting, I've struggled to find exactly when they stopped through traffic. It looks like you could still drive around the park up to 2004, but (I think) only by entering from the Old College Gate:

Yes this is how I remember it - a circular car park rather than through traffic.

 

Seems to be born out by the council document too:

 

These carriageways constitute a circular route and provide access to all areas of the park. These roads have also provided a considerable amount of parking for users of the park.