Increase in Lime Bikes on LL

[Rockets]

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

 

[first mate]

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 Monday at 08:13 by first mate

[Rockets]

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....

[malumbu]

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,

[ab29]

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 Monday at 15:55 by ab29

[malumbu]

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

[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 Monday at 17:07 by ab29

[rjsmall]

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.

[Rockets]

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.

[malumbu]

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

[ab29]

@malumbu And what part of my  message is "unsubstantiated"?

Edited Monday at 18:06 by ab29

[Rockets]

10 minutes ago, 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.

12 minutes ago, 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?

12 minutes ago, 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.

 

13 minutes ago, malumbu said:

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

When I read this post from you I am reminded of a sticker that adorns the walls of Meat Liqour that states: Don't be a Richard. 

[malumbu]

Offensive, please remove that comment.  Hurling Insults are not a way to have a debate.

I can find no data on the relative risk of Lime bikes, so all we have is some anecdotal evidence.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

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

This Malumbu, is beyond the pale. Using the horrific death of that poor man (whose son works in the area by the way) to try and mock someone during a debate is a new low. Wow.

[malumbu]

Very childish. You still haven't removed your juvenile insult 

[Rockets]

And you still haven't removed your ill-thought out, sick post that uses the horrific death of a man to mock another poster in a debate about Lime bikes. Trust me, I am not the childish one in this case. You clearly see no issue with your original post and that speaks volumes - very sad.

Anyway, Lime bikes are clearly becoming a problem. You don't think they are, that's fine. Time will tell.

[ab29]

1 hour ago, malumbu said:

Very childish. You still haven't removed your juvenile insult 

You still have not answered which part of my  message is "unsubstantiated"?

Edited Monday at 22:11 by ab29

[malumbu]

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.

[first mate]

https://x.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

[Rockets]

14 hours ago, malumbu said:

You quoted Tommies as objecting to a bike lane as they presumably considered it unsafe. 

Looks pretty unsafe to me - what do you think Malumbu?