Hopefully scooters will be forced to use the roads not the pavements… and hopefully the council will attend to potholes. Hitting a ten inch pothole with eight inch wheels would be disastrous.
Obviously narrowing roads (per the council’s plans) will put scooter users, cyclists etc under increased risk of collision, so hopefully the council will rethink this daft policy.
It’s hard enough riding a normal scooter with this issue, I have gone head over heels after hitting a large pebble. Maybe the ones with pneumatic off-road tyres for me then.
I think many on this open forum have capably described the selfish behaviour of others during this crisis particulary @marymck who has capably provided a number of examples both in behaviour and action. So I suppose the simple answer to your question is there are many people in our community and even those outside it who I describe and I stand by the description. I cannot fathom why anyone could not agree that during this crisis pedestrians and cyclists should have access to additional space particularly in the face of vastly reduced road usage and that our governments at all level would wish to consider this. To further seek to critisize those who support those actions with ad hominems seems completely off the mark and certainly fails to take other opinions into play.
A good time to remind local residents to make their thoughts known, and to make recommendations for measures at this site.
Glad you think that way. Shame it permits some to make baseless strawman arguments, but hey… these are strange times we are in and hypocrisy is rife.
Escooters are amazing. Ofc there are many suitable needs for standard cars and trucks but we mostly don’t need tonne hulks of metal carrying around single passengers for the most part. How we get there I’ve no idea but hopeful the current situation gives an opportunity to try.
You shouldn’t put things in quotes if they’re not quotes, people might think you’re quoting someone instead of presenting your subjective views as something objective. Just like calling “authoritarian council policy” a “factual description” when it’s clearly your subjective view. (Note correct use of quotation marks).
Also, thinking people have self interest isn’t presumption of malice. Everyone has self interests, and some have a disproportionate impact on those around them and merit conversation. Referring to that as a presumption of malice is wrong and clearly not what I said.
Okay - we’re getting a bit off topic here again. Clearly it’s an issue that attracts strong opinions, but please can we all keep the discussion civilized and on topic, following all the community guidelines here: /se23.life/faq#civilized
I’m inclined to agree - e-scooters have such a high centre of gravity that it just looks crazy dangerous for them to be moving at anything more than a slightly brisk walking pace. I’m not sure what the breaks are like on them, but I’m guessing they can’t be as good as a bicycle.
e-bikes would be my preference, but these e-scooters would seem to fill a nice niche somewhere between bicycle and pedestrian, and perhaps not entirely safe on either the road or pavement. I guess you easily can carry them on all public transport though.
Hoverboards are perhaps even more portable again, but really start to blur the line with pedestrian use and may be unsuitable while social distancing, and even on a widened pavement. Hoverboards do however look really cool when ridden while wearing a cape, which might be of particular interest to you @Starman?
Sorry @starman but I’m a bit lost here. I don’t know what I’ve said that makes you think I’m in favour of what I actually consider a kneejerk blanket reaction that could in a number of cases just push the problem elsewhere. I just wanted to put the record straight on that purely for my own peace of mind.
As a close to home example of my fears, pre Covid-19 there had been a small group of Thorpewood Road residents working with @CllrLeoGibbons on parking/traffic in that street. I don’t know exactly what point they had reached before lock down, but I know one of the options they had been discussing was making Thorpewood a “School Street” and closing the road to people who didn’t live or work on it.
That would have a disastrous impact on surrounding streets, particularly upper Kirkdale which already has double parking during some school runs and is much more heavily used by through drivers since the changes to Dartmouth Road.
In normal times any changes like School Streets would have to go through a process of democratic consultation with the neighbouring streets. An online survey is not a democratic consultation. It’s a snapshot of a very small sector and disenfranchises those that aren’t part of the profile of people that use social media.
Yes small scale, very short term changes where the road conditions permit, we could maybe have a few cones out - as we do for events such as the Christmas tree switch on, where we were trying to prevent pavement parking. But this opens an easy way to a blanket narrowing of roads by an anti motorist lobby. I’m not suggesting any individuals on this forum are anti motorist, but those lobbyists do exist and we need to be alert to the fact that they could exploit our nation’s tragedy to push their own agenda.
Something we have to deal with though is the impact of private cars on our shared public space. Parking is an inefficient use of land and parking cars on streets in particular results negative externalities for pedestrians, it is motorists socialising the costs of their private transport choices. I am not saying ban it but i think motorists need to be aware of the true costs of their transport choices.
The roads were designed for vehicles. The pavements for pedestrians.
Well, yes. And pedestrians crossing the road cause negative externalities for drivers.
Yes, cars take a lot of space. But busses take even more space, and inconvenience all road users by frequently stopping.
Does that mean we need to make it harder for pedestrians and busses to use the roads? No.
This style of argument is circular and narrow minded, and we’re not going to get anywhere if we keep trying to imagine a moral hierarchy of road users where one group is bad and others are good.
We need to learn to share our public spaces and that means acknowledging that people have legitimate reasons for owning cars.
Motorists pay obscene amounts of tax in the form of fuel duty, road tax, congestion charges etc. Cyclists pay nothing don’t pay these taxes, yet enjoy the use of the road network.
Regarding policy-making, I’m glad e-scooters have come up in this topic.
By liberalising e-scooter regulation, the government are increasing freedom and contributing to the mix of green transport options as opposed to crudely removing or redistributing freedoms, as Lewisham Council have been doing. We want positive, forward looking, open policy, not negative zero-sum divisive policy.
Apologies. I was not referring to your thoughts on this specific matter. They are very clear. But I was highlighting your many posts of other forms of selfish actions or behaviors including pavement cycling, park gatherings and some runners.
I don’t believe this to be knee-jerk reactions. The council has been clear these are emergency measures to help maintain social distancing in light of increased pedestrian and cycling flows against the backdrop of a significant reduction in vehicle movements. And hopefully this will help to address some of the very concerning issues you have already raised. In the last few days this has also been a topic of discussion in the mutual-aid group for my local area where proposals are under consideration by a group of residents reacting to concerns around social distancing as they are out and about helping residents in need. I take your point about the breadth of the consultation, but I don’t accept your point about its limit to social media. I have also received email communications from the Council and read about it in local media. I’d also suggest you discuss ongoing concerns with your local councillors.
In this matter I believe the council has the best interest of our whole community in mind. And with the PM’s vague announcements last night, the volume of pedestrian and cycling traffic is very likely to increase in response.
Of course I can’t speak to the specific circumstances of establishing a School Street on Thorpewood Avenue, but in principle I would be happy to support limiting vehicle access around my local schools during the morning and afternoon pinch points. I don’t consider this anti-motorists but simply improves access to schools and public health.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. If anything, I’ve seen more schemes refused in the last few months.
How about this for a radical suggestion? Roadways for vehicles (including parking); footpaths and pavements for pedestrians and wheelchair users.
The countryside also has bridleways. Where practicable, a system of segregated cycle/scooterways that don’t impinge on roadways, footpaths or pavements could be created and also designed into future housing schemes.
I have no issue with the use of e-scooters on roads. I only flinch when I seem them in use both for their users and for vehicle drivers. I always seemed to notice them going around Trafalgar Square where traffic is particularly chaotic and would almost always look away.
But I do think that any form of transport which isn’t your own two feet should require some form of safety training before use of the roads is allowed. I recall on this thread, or elsewhere someone mentioned safety training for bicycles. When I was a youngster a few years ago at home in Canada, I had to complete a bicycle use course before being allowed to use roads. And my bike had a small metal license applied to it to show I had completed it.
Middle-aged men on kids toys never look good. Even with capes.
In some cases that I know of, Planning Department is suggesting that neighbours who have made legitimate objections to quite impactful and/or high density developments “reconsider” their objections in light of Covid-19 and/or the risk of squatters moving in. If we’re not alert to these pressures we could find we lose even more pubs and business premises to developers than would otherwise be the case and when we eventually emerge from the current emergency, it could be to a very different landscape.