Rockets

Ha ha Snowy, someone took offence to having the Dulwich Society Transport sub-committee's chair award winning active travel lobbying flagged on the forum and asked the administrator for the name to be removed. Nothing in my post broke forum rules. Someone seemed to not want people to know about her London Cycling Campaign awards etc. I wonder why - perhaps you could enlighten us with your thoughts on that? Nothing in my post broke forum rules. Although the tone of your above post does come close to breaking Forum Rule 1 does it not?

I am not disagreeing with anything you say. The whole point of this part of the thread was to highlight the damage these cyclists are doing to cycling and if something isn't done soon to clamp down on this then cycling as a whole suffers. Whilst both Lime bikes and delivery bikes have been responsible for the majority of post Covid cycle "growth" it is actually creating a much bigger cycling perception problem. Pro-cycle lobby groups seem unwilling to address it because they fear scrutiny of their own ilk. Maybe this is why Earl claims that stronger regulation and enforcement will hinder cycle "growth" because people might realise how much of it is delivery drivers on modified pushbikes and drunk Lime bikes users...neither of which is a good look!

Not sure selective quoting applies here as you did say they were bicycles didn't you...modified bicycles granted but not mopeds? That was exactly my point but Earl seemed to want to pick a fight over it...I wonder if they will turn on you now in the same way they turned on me when i suggested that...let's see.....

Well, it appears the Oracle of all Such Things disagrees with you....see below..thanks Ex-!!! 😉 Earl, I am sure you'll be about to launch an argumentative attack on Ex- anytime now.... And that was exactly the point I was making. Earl, you may think it is a matter of legal fact but the court of public opinion sees them as bad cyclists and it is this type of behaviour that leads to calls for more regulation. This whole debate was stimulated by my experience of such bad cyclists in Soho. Also, a point to remember as well, is that these delivery drivers have been propping up cycling counts for a long time and whilst it might be good for Will Norman's "cycling growth" numbers in London it's really, really bad for the perception of cycling and cyclists.

This is where you're exposing you flawed argument style because I never mentioned illegal mopeds. You did. You referred to push bikes that have an electric conversion kit added (new rear bike wheel and battery slung from under the frame) that can go up to 70 mph as illegal mopeds. The point I was making was the below and based on my experience of walking through London and seeing the push bikes with electric conversion kits being ridden badly and in a way that endangered pedestrians: So the issue here is, again, someone makes Point A, you throw in Point Q and then accuse them of something based on your insertion of Point Q and accuse them of stating Point Q when they did nothing of the sort. And you've done it again. It's just the your flawed "debating" style.

Earl, no honestly, you lose me. We start at Point A and you take it around the houses and try to land a punch by making Point Q which has no bearing on Point A at all....

No, according to the admin update at the time of the removal someone asked for the name to be removed (even though it is all public information).

Earl - you're meandering and losing me again.....what I was arguing about was that push bikes with an electric conversion kit are not identified as mopeds by those pedestrians that they are causing huge problems for. They are seen as bad cyclists. Are you advocating that push bikes with electric conversion kits should be registered as you seem to want to treat them differently to other forms of cycling? But the police can via ANPR.

Someone is seemingly policing what gets posted on the forum.....the public names of Dulwich Society sub-committee chairs who are award winning active travel lobbyists and now Dulwich Roads posts that people have been critical of......that'll get the conspiracy theorists going....;-) March46 maybe repost it again and let's see what happens....

Earl I am the one not ducking the question I can assure you. Those delivery bikes which are wrecking havoc in central London and putting pedestrians at risk are not, in the eyes of the public, motorbikes. They are bicycles. Do you agree or disagree?

But to members of the general public, walking around Soho for example, how do they present themselves (and I remind you this is where this part of the discussion started)?.....;-) Do people look and think "oh look there's a bad cyclist" or do they think "oh look there is someone riding (badly) an illegally modified pushbike that should actually be classified as an electric motorbike/moped due to its power output but of course only if it had a number plate, road fund licence and indicators.......which it doesn't...." They present as a bad cyclist and this is what is moulding the negative perception towards cyclists - delivery riders, Lime bike riders, red light cyclists, pavement cyclists are all doing massive harm to the perception of cyclists and to anyone who cycles, like me, this is something that has to be urgently addressed.

A pushbike with an electric motor that takes it to 70mph is still a pushbike - it's just a pushbike with an electric motor. Do you agree or not?

But Kurt - that was what the preceding "drivel" was about - Earl trying to claim that those are mopeds....which I think we can all agree they are not. They are bikes with an electric motor fitted.

But a push bike with an electric motor is not a moped...the attached is not a moped...is it - thats the drivel being spouted on here people claiming that is a moped? Maybe lets put this to an emoji vote: All those who think these are bikes click the laughing emoji All those who think they are mopeds click the confused emoji Honestly.....

But this is the modus operandi of Dulwich Roads - every bit of out of shape street furniture and they launch into a tirade about dangerous driving and try to suggest speeding vehicles caused it. Clearly they don't even check to see whether any vehicle was involved before they post..... The link to the picture seems to have disappeared from March46' original post....

No just reminding you that there are a myriad of reasons why a vehicle might hit a bollard and amplifying that point to those who love to claim every accident is because of dangerous driving or speeding. Gotta say I love your myopic editing - I didn't just highlight cycling you know......well done! 😉

Clearly. But no-one drives their vehicle onto the pavement and into a big block deliberately. Maybe they swerved to avoid someone cycling badly or a pedestrian walking into the road looking at their phone, or maybe they had a medical emergency and the block did what it was supposed to do....this is the thing...no-one seems to know and everyone is guessing....including Dulwich Roads and as I said before they have got things badly wrong previously as they jump to their anti-car conclusions.

To be fair a lot of strawman stuff was applied by Dulwich Roads on their original post. Has the block been lifted out of it's housing - i.e. it's still in the hole it was originally sitting in? The problem with everything Dulwich Roads posts is that they are just guessing/suggesting what they think happened - they don't know that it was hit by a dangerous driver - they want their readers to think that but they don't know that is actually the case. They have got things very wrong in the past because they are guessing/hoping.

But it is still a bike isn't it - a bike with a motor? You're not trying to suggest that these aren't bikes are you and that these delivery drivers aren't cyclists?

No because it is, in fact, a standard pushbike converted to go 70mph....the kits are sold to go on a bog standard bike..... What's that saying that it if looks like a duck, walks like a duck....;-)

Because the majority are push bikes with an electric motor fitted to the rear wheel (they just replace the rear wheel) and a battery pack hanging off the frame - they are not electric mopeds - some are 250W and perfectly legal but I suspect many are over 250W and not legal (but can easily be bought online - take a look at places like this: https://myperfectebike.com/ where you can buy a kit that will take your push bike to 70mph!!). And like Lime bikes are doing harm to the reputation of cyclists because everyone sees them as bikes and many of them are being ridden inconsiderately and dangerously - the term bl**dy cyclists tends to apply to anyone on two wheels with pedals whether they are a push bike, push bike with an electric motor, Lime bike or cargo bike ;-)!!! But clearly not working....which leads us back to my point on the need for tighter legislation, increased policing or limitations of cycle use.

As usual, there is a lot to unpack from a Dulwich Roads post! Do they know it was a tank-like vehicle that did the damage? Was the vehicle that caused the damage being driven dangerously or being driven above 20mph.... It seems that a lot of ideological guesswork gets applied to their posts - they are clearly not in accident investigation - thankfully!! 😉

They're still bikes though aren't they? Or do you categorise these differently? My trip to London was in the evening so far fewer social or commuter cyclists around but the problems posed by those cyclists are very different. I love how you position this as an "anecdote" trying to diminish the experience. Unfortunately, and the very point I was trying to make, this is the growing experience of most pedestrians and this is why there are likely to be increased calls for something to be done - and that leads down one path and that is tighter legislation, increased policing or limitations of cycle use (as has already happened in some city centres). And then that becomes a problem for ALL cyclists - myself included. In the desperate attempt to try to accelerate growth in cycling the powers that be have turned a blind-eye to pedestrian safety - I do laugh that you somehow think Lime bikes and delivery bikes are different to other forms of cycling yet the growth in cycling London, in the main, has been driven by Lime bikes and delivery bikes.

Because the majority of OneDulwich email subscribers are from the Dulwich area. Southwark Cyclists clearly not and it reminds us how much the cycle lobby tried to influence local consultations by any means necessary. Southwark Cyclists claim to be the largest urban cycling group in the world with over 9,000 members....one wonders how many of them tried to influence the Dulwich consultations. So thanks! 😉

There's more....good grief....;-) Seriously though, is this just bad luck? But still bikes right? I mean the "growth" in cycling is being propped up by Lime bikes so you can't exclude them from being categorised as cyclists can you? A bike between 35kg and 65kg powered by an electric motor to 15.5mph carries a lot more mass than a standard pushbike and therefore can do a lot more damage. Can it not? Clearly not the same as a car but still a potential risk.