Rockets

No Rahx3 someone published research and it looks like they sold it to the media on the basis of "London is now the most congested city in the world because of cycle lanes".....which looks like it wasn't entirely accurate and which, of course, the media went with as their headline. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863

Oh my....this from a recent PACTs report...no wonder A&Es are worried by the increase in admissions. Experience from an emergency department In response to a rapid increase in incidences of e-scooter casualties, a service evaluation was conducted over a four-week period in May and June 2021 across Bristol.18 In that period 90 patients presented to all three Emergency Departments in the city with e-scooter related incidents. Of these 96% had been riding an e-scooter with 80% of those who declared how they were travelling riding hired devices. As in other studies, while the use of private e-scooters is illegal the fear of prosecution may deter riders from being honest about the device they use. The majority (71%) fell from their e-scooter, as opposed to being involved in a collision with another vehicle. Nearly 20% suffered head injuries with three patients sustaining severe traumatic brain injury, intracranial haemorrhage or a skull fracture. Only 7% of injured riders were helmeted. Over 80% suffered limbs injuries and over 40% suffered a fracture. Experience of an orthopaedic surgery team Since October 2020, an audit of e-scooter casualties has been underway at the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.17 To the end of July 2021, 92 people had presented to the Royal Liverpool and Aintree Hospital Emergency Departments and the Garston Urgent Care Centre and were referred to the orthopaedic team. Only one e-scooter rider had been hit by another vehicle. The rest were involved in single vehicle incidents having lost control of the device and then falling from it or colliding with a stationary object. Liverpool hosts Voi as their e-scooter operator and, of the people who declared which type of e-scooter they were riding, two thirds were using rental scheme devices. As the use of private e-scooters is illegal the fear of prosecution may have deterred riders from declaring the device they used. Of the 92 patients in the Liverpool cohort that sustained upper or lower limb fractures, 13 required surgery. Due to the nature of the audit, head injuries and casualties discharged home from the Emergency Departments with more minor injuries have not been recorded.

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Congrats on taking the clickbait > > Evening Standard Journalist admits anti-cycle lane > angle on London being named world's most congested > city would ?get more readers? whereas economic > rebound was single biggest factor. > > https://road.cc/content/news/journalist-anti-cycle > -lane-angle-gets-more-readers-288449 I think it's clear that Peter Lees did say what became the headline. Read the note carefully. What he is saying is: "Yes I did say that but I didn't expect it to be the headline/actually appear in print". It explains why the BBC has not changed their story as they would have been one of the outlets briefed by Inrix, and, one presumes Peter Lees and no matter how much begging Inrix did they would not change the story if that was how it was briefed to them. The BBC does not take headlines from the Evening Standard and doesn't do/need to do clickbait. Interesting how the likes of Will Norman and pro-LTN publications have swung into damage limitation mode - with so much exposure they must be worried that this type of thing might stick.

Pugwash Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Tooley Street HQ is home for 2,000 staff and > is all open plan. Officers have been working from > home since March 2020. Staff were recently > informed that only 900 employees could be in the > premises at any one time. I would say that most of > the dissatisfaction with the council relates to > staff not being allowed to have face to face > contacts with local residents and not being able > to phone the council sections directly. > Councillors have only recently been allowed to > hold their surgeries. All local councils have > restricted finances as the Government have cut > back the amounts allocated to local authorities. Most other organisations have returned to the office in some shape or form (until today) - why is the council different?

Dan-the-man - thank you for your assessment - it is going to be fascinating to watch. I don't know about anyone else but I really wish Labour would stop fighting itself and try and unite to provide some proper opposition to the Tories. The far-left, left, centrist-left, Blairite nonsense has gone on for too long and has cost them hugely at the polls and ultimately cost this country dearly.

DKHB - in your response to 4 you know there was a tender and procurement process to select the 3 companies for the trials don't you - and that the 3 winning companies have about $1.5bn of VC money behind them globally to win the deployment goldrush? There's big money at stake here and TFL and the councils know this and use it for leverage.... Anyway, some reading on the issue for anyone that is interested: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/e-scooters-london Also BBC article is still up, unchanged, regarding the bike lane congestion....that suggests to me someone from Inrix did actually say that......https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863

This is going to be fascinating to watch - strap yourselves in there's likely to be one hell of a fight about to commence with local, regional and national implications.

DC - your timing was perfect....a fine example of depositioning if I ever saw one!!! ;-) Congratulations, maybe your co-depositioners can elevate you to Depositioner in Chief - a mantle I am sure you will cherish!!!!

Deposition is the act of trying to undermine an opponents position on a matter (usually by creating a distraction). - So Goldilocks was depositioning the Age Speaks group by suggesting there were not 30 people who protested at the town hall because they could only see 14 of them in the picture - Malumbu keeps depositioning anyone anti-LTN based on the "an objection based on convenience" narrative/falsehood - Rahx3 (I think it was them) tried to deposition Age Speaks on the basis of them creating a dangerous situation by blocking the road as they, and their children, tried to turn right on their bikes (which was clearing not true and a gross exaggeration) - the council tried to deposition anti-LTN folks by claiming they were a "small vocal minority". - Cllr Newens took to twitter to tell everyone that someone had put a no closures sign in her garden after the protest and how concerned she was that it alerted people to where she lived. But by using this to try to deposition on the public forum that is twitter it actually alerted a lot more people to where she lives and left many wondering why you would take to twitter to say this! - DC continually tries to deposition me by claiming I make things up.....;-) What links many depositioning attempts (in any situation not just this) is that they are often based on falsehoods and amplified with a heavy dose of moral indignation.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes - every time this group meets up or some other > variation on this group (essentially the same > people at everything) the numbers are hugely > inflated. At least doubled. Because there was > such a low turnout at this event it was genuinely > possible to count that there were 14 people there, > so shows just what has been going on. > > > > Hitmyhat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > goldilocks Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > 'around 30 people'... > > > > > > > > > One can only assume that the other 16 people > > were > > > camera shy or queuing for the loo at the time > > the > > > photo was taken. Either that or the usual > > 'report > > > double the number of attendees' approach is > > doing > > > some heavy lifting there. > > > > That is the only comment you have? This was > older > > and disabled people telling Southwark Council > how > > difficult their lives have become because of > the > > LTNs and your only comment is to quibble about > > numbers?? But Goldilocks - regardless of how many people actually were there (and during your forensic analysis of counting the number of people in the picture you have failed to do a spot the difference as between picture 1 and picture 2 you may notice different people can be seen in each photo which suggests not everyone was in the picture) is the point not that there were people actually protesting? You can try to deposition all you like on semantics but people went to the Town Hall to protest just like a lot more people from that Age Speaks group protested in Dulwich Square over the summer (so many in fact that someone on here couldn't ride their bike through the junction and screamed blue murder about it! ;-)) and then even more people protested at the Square this autumn (again which riled some people about the alleged blocking of the cycle lane which was never actually blocked). I know it riles you that people oppose these measures but good on them for doing something rather than sitting back and accepting the status quo and folding (as the council and most pro-LTN lobbyists would have hoped would have happened by now).

Or maybe Malumbu, those vehemently against the LTNs are principally concerned that they create more congestion and pollution and don't actually deliver against the goals that are stated for their deployment. This whole "inconvenience to themselves" narrative doesn't hold any weight I am afraid. We are, however, very glad to hear that you sleep well at night - that is very reassuring! ;-)

Does the BBC do clickbait not normally their style? Their story is still up: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863 Funny tbe BBC story is not corrected after 10 hours...normally that only happens if the BBC are 100% happy that the headline is correct or based on the info that was sent to them. Maybe Inrix did say that but are now trying to redress the balance. Someone gave tbe outlets the story that made the headline.....they didn't make it up themselves...expect it from the Mail certainly only not the BBC - they are quick to correct any inaccuracies and have fact checkers to do that.

Yes but enabling micro-mobility should not be a catalyst for an increase in injuries and hospital admissions and what I find amazing is that TFL and the council roll out these grand programmes (often funded by the companies who are desperately trying to get a foothold in the market and will pay huge amounts to do a land grab) without, seemingly, a single glance to what has been happening everywhere else that e-scooters have been rolled out. Do a search - no-one in any city where they have been rolled out seem to have much good to say about them - Paris had huge problems with injuries caused by them and reduced their max speed as a result, Munich has a massive littering problem and drunk-driving problem with them, Stockholm has banned them from parts of the city and so the list goes on. Of course I am concerned about road safety but was surprised/not surprised by your phraseology (which is the anti-car phraseology, I mean really...it doesn't stop drivers killing 5 people each day...it's a bit pointed isn't it?) but also amazed Southwark are rolling out e-scooters. It seems that in the quest for modal shift they grasp desperately at any "solution" they can see and councils and transport authorities get awfully blinkered and make truly bizarre decisions. Does anyone here really think that once these get rolled out we won't all be saying what a pain they are or that the outcomes in other cities over the last few years won't be repeated here? I think you should be concerned that a surgeon at Kings is concerned enough to flag the issue - 196 admissions in a year does seem a lot (but I appreciate Kings does have a large catchment area) especially considering there was no official rollout of e-scooters at that point. It makes you wonder what will happen when the council rolls-out the hire network. Meanwhile, per Spartacus' post we read that London is now the most congested city in the world due to the installation of cycle lanes during the pandemic (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59559863), which if correct, will definitely be leading to a massive increase in pollution. A cycle charity was contacted by the BBC and they said that the research was "incredibly simplistic" and "not written by Rachel Aldred so should be ignored" - they didn't say the second bit! ;-)

And there is this narrative that all road deaths are the fault of drivers - Ex- you just fell into that trap with your drivers killing 5 people every day commentary - which we hear time and time again from the pro-cycle lobby - as if drivers are on a deliberate quest to kill people. It's really not helpful as any death is one too many. No-one knows the circumstances of each and every accident and whilst it is true that there are deaths caused everyday by vehicles it's not always the driver's fault - for example, I was in cab with a driver who had been a witness to a fatal bike accident and he said that the cyclist had been texting on their phone, lost control of their bike and fell into the path of a vehicle and that it was no fault of the vehicle driver who could do nothing about it. Ex- there must be concern about the rise in e-scooter accidents for the Kings specialist to go to the papers about the rise and they say: "Our day case trauma surgical lists are being impacted with an increasing volume of patients needing surgery to treat complicated fractures following e-scooter collisions. The increasing costs, and their rate of increase, are a concern.? But, hey ho, let's just ignore this because e-scooters are not cars and, therefore by default must be brilliant! I am not drinking that Kool-Aid I am afraid and so it seems are lot of other people in a lot of other countries who have first-hand experience of dealing with the issues they cause. And rjsmall yes drunk driving on scooters is a big issue in those countries that have had them for a few years: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/06/rise-in-drunk-riding-fuels-munichs-call-for-e-scooter-curbs-during-oktoberfest

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).

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.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Brave politicians would try to find a > resolution > > that appeases everyone > > There is no compromise that will ever appease the > rejectionist lobby that wants the status quo ante > at any cost. They do not see the problem and are > not willing to accept any restraint on their > desire to drive anywhere at any time. > https://thumb.spokesman.com/D1ims2fi_wtetprNKQ2ZPa > kBmMU=/2500x1405/smart/media.spokesman.com/photos/ > 2021/05/20/60a6741a3616b.hires.jpg > > If the Southwark Labour Party is being Marxist on > LTNs (something that would come as some surprise > both to Labour's dwindling cohort of actual > Marxists and the Tories that sponsored LTNs), then > OneDulwich is definitely playing the Rev Ian > Paisley rejectionist role: "Dulwich Village says > NO!" > https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardia > n/Pix/pictures/2012/2/8/1328661492265/The-Rev-Ian- > Paisley-007.jpg Perhaps more importantly there is no sign of any compromise from the council and councillors who thrust this ludicrous and harmful scheme on the residents of Dulwich. The longer it goes on the more maddeningly and foolishly entrenched the councillors become, somehow deludong themselves that there is some good coming from this yet the overwhelming evidence shows the complete opposite. I read with interest that Cllr Newens (predictably) has begun the blame game by pointing the finger on the failure of the measures she helped introduce at Lambeth and TFL. Weak politicians who are backed into a corner always look for someone else to blame and alsmost inevitably end up incriminating themselves even more when they do so. I am sure, come May when the inevitable happens we will see a raft of "solidarity comrade" type messages from those councillors who survive the council elections to those who do not. Pretty soon Cllr Williams will start to worry that there might be a cull of councillors across the borough happening under his watch and that might get attention of Labour HQ - and the type of attention that could hinder his polticial aspirations. That's when he will start showing any sort of leadership on tbe issue.

I think a lot of people are following the rather poetic phrase: I can't wait till May, When I can finally have my say!

Well I suppose the political future of our councillors depends on whether their mutual admiration society is bigger and more galvanised than our one. But, in my books, politicians are supposed to be the catalyst for creating a meeting of minds amongst constituents not driving a wedge between them. Brave politicians would try to find a resolution that appeases everyone rather than seemingly celebrate the fact a huge swath of the electorate are being ignored per Cllr McAsh and that his "comrades" are brave for continuing to do so - maybe that is modern day Marxism for you!

Labour seems to have lost all sense of constituent empathy. As they did at the last general election they have become dangerously disconnected from the voting public, are putting their own ideology ahead of everything else and becoming a liability to themselves and all that Labour represents. You would have thought they would have learnt some lessons from the Corbyn disaster.

Ha ha, come May some of their political careers may succumb to constituent pressure......bravery fast becomes foolishness at the ballot box!

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?

DulvilleRes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It feels to me that the only thing that is going > to reduce traffic on everyone's road is when there > is a powerful disincentive to drive for private > journeys that could be completed by active travel > or public transport, and that seems to be > happening. The LTN's are part of a package of > other measures, such as ULEZ charges and reduced > road space because of cycle lanes that might make > people think twice about jumping into the most > convenient form of transport ever devised. > > In the north of the borough I've noticed a > complete sea change in the last 2/3 years of > people's transport choices - there are huge > numbers of cyclists on the road, and I've actually > been caught up in a traffic jam of parents taking > their kids to nursery/ school by push bike. That > never happened before. > > Dulwich seems slower to catch on, but I don't see > how the One Dulwich recommendation for things to > 'return as they were' is really going to change > anything. I completely get that people are opposed > to the LTN's for a wide variety of motives, and > some posters here don't own a car. However I would > have thought that that oppositional energy would > be better directed at finding ways of reducing > private car journeys rather than getting on the > Council's back, who are at least trying to so > something. But there is no evidence to date that the LTNs are doing anything to reduce car use or congestion is there - but there's compelling evidence that they merely divert the traffic elsewhere and create more congestion - I refer you to the GSST sponsored report. And those LTNs within the GSST report are in the north of the borough - an area where PTAL scores are much higher in the south of the borough. So maybe, the "slowness" for Dulwich to catch on has more to do with the fact there are not viable alternatives to travel through and across the area - LTNs were doomed to fail in Dulwich. And this whole get off the council's back and put your efforts into supporting the council is a bit laughable; especially considering the council steadfastly refuses to engage with anyone other than Southwark Cyclists or Living Streets on the matter. In fact, they seem to be going out of their way to avoid engaging with any constituent actually having to live with the LTNs. I am intrigued what these other measures in the package are; ULEZ is a TFL initiative and Southwark have done very little in terms of segregated bikes lanes. I would also challenge you on your assumption that the motor car is the most convenient form of transport ever devised, it's not by a long way - cars cost a lot to buy, own and run. I think the bike trumps the car in the most facets of the most convenient category! It's just that, for some reason, people choose the car over the bike.

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.

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wow - Rockets - I have just read that Twitter > thread - so is Southwark saying that their are > 'neighbourhoods' who deserve clean air and then > Lordship Lane, Grove Vale, Croxted Road and East > Dulwich Grove are not 'neighbourhoods' so we can > just suffer pollution, inequality and more > traffic? > What is all this Village business??? I am a City > dweller - My parents lived in a Village - > shudder.... It appears to be the pre-cursor for the 15 minute city narrative. Of course, in many ways they are correct that Southwark is a collection of interconnected villages but theym ignore/fail to use their own data to determine the viability of 15 the minute city narrative. If you look at the 2018 TMS report on Dulwich the overwhelming majority of journeys to and from Dulwich are to/from neighbouring and non-neighbouring boroughs - which makes the 15 minute city narrative a non-starter. Granted, people can shop locally etc on foot and bike (which Dulwich folk do already - 68% of local journeys blah blah blah) but their lives extend beyond a 15 minute door to door radius - unfortunately much of that is dictated by the sprawling nature of London and without a massive and fundamental upheaval of the public transport system in the area the car will always be the first choice. It's one of the reasons that there is zero reduction in car ownership within the boundaries of LTNs - people may cycle their kids to school or walk to the local shops but they keep their cars for longer journeys.