imutual.co.uk

I wouldn't worry that much about bike rental schemes, green or otherwise. They haven't exactly been a rip roaring success so far. Main reason is that the bikes get nicked. Or set on fire, whatever.

See, for example;
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019 ... ke-schemes

pabenny wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07 2019 3:40pm

"not working" - all we know is that some hirers are parking their bikes badly/irresponsibly at the end of hire. That isn't evidence of whether the initiative is or isn't working.

So what more proof do you require to consider it is not working? A pile of rented dockless bicycles at the top of your street or outside your front door perhaps?

“Not working”: Penicillin is a very effective antibiotic. But some people are allergic to it. It works – even for those who allergic – but the side effects are unwelcome for a few.

Likewise with city bike rental schemes. If usage is anything to go by, they work but there are unwelcome side effects, such as thoughtless parking by some users. However, these side effects do not appear sufficiently serious to lead to prohibition of bike rental schemes.

BTW, I agree fully with the thrust of the linked article, namely that careless parking of rental bikes creates hazards for other pedestrians. I take issue with the headline on the OP, which twists the facts.

pabenny wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 08 2019 9:18am

Likewise with city bike rental schemes. If usage is anything to go by, they work but there are unwelcome side effects, such as thoughtless parking by some users. However, these side effects do not appear sufficiently serious to lead to prohibition of bike rental schemes.

I understand that as: it is not blocking your pavements or outside your door so the problem of the scheme not working properly appear to you as "side effects" and "do not appear sufficiently serious". Typical Green lobby attitudes.

In Italy where I am currently a neighbour lost a sheep and a goat to a wolf. These animals were virtually pets he had them for so long and he was blazing about the local greens in the nearby city who reintroduced the wolves into the area, who are personally unaffect; of coarse they are totally blind to the problems they cause as their holier than thou attitude tells them they are doing the right thing and no matter how much the people complain the people are wrong and the policy is correct and if anything goes wrong its just a "side effect" so the people have to put up with it!!!

There you go again, twisting other people's words. Again.

As for your charge of ‘if it doesn’t affect me personally, it doesn’t matter’ – that could be said of your entire approach to green matters:
- You and yours are not made ill by air pollution in London* so you oppose the ULEZ;
- You won’t be alive* to see the predicted serious consequences of climate change, so you oppose almost any green regulation.

(* clearly, I know very little of your personal circumstances so these are somewhat speculative)

pabenny wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 08 2019 10:29am

There you go again, twisting other people's words. Again.

As for your charge of ‘if it doesn’t affect me personally, it doesn’t matter’ – that could be said of your entire approach to green matters:
- You and yours are not made ill by air pollution in London* so you oppose the ULEZ;
- You won’t be alive* to see the predicted serious consequences of climate change, so you oppose almost any green regulation.

(* clearly, I know very little of your personal circumstances so these are somewhat speculative)

You are indeed being very speculative and very wrong as usual...

I admitted that I was being speculative. That said, if I'm wrong that neither you nor yours are made ill by air pollution in London, I'm surprised that you are have been so dismissive of the ULEZ as an attempt to improve air quality.

And it remains the case that the headline in your OP bears no resemblance to the linked news story.

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07 2019 3:18pm

pabenny wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07 2019 10:11am

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07 2019 8:03am

...you just concentrate on your holier than thou stance

Is it holier than thou to call you out for headline which twists the facts? After all, you did something very similar recently in your post linking to a story about arctic dogs in melting ice.

Mmmm, this appears to be a green initiative and it appears not to be working but the comrades are not allowed to agree with that or their whole ethos of green can't possibly be wrong collapses...

In what way has this initiative "gone completely wrong" and failed to meet its "green" purpose?

I can see that there have been some unexpected and unacceptable consequences in other areas, but that's not what's upsetting you, so don't bother commenting on that.

Chadwick wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 08 2019 2:04pm

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07 2019 3:18pm

pabenny wrote: ↑

Wed Aug 07 2019 10:11am

Is it holier than thou to call you out for headline which twists the facts? After all, you did something very similar recently in your post linking to a story about arctic dogs in melting ice.

Mmmm, this appears to be a green initiative and it appears not to be working but the comrades are not allowed to agree with that or their whole ethos of green can't possibly be wrong collapses...

In what way has this initiative "gone completely wrong" and failed to meet its "green" purpose?

I can see that there have been some unexpected and unacceptable consequences in other areas, but that's not what's upsetting you, so don't bother commenting on that.

It sounds like you should return to the initial post and attachment. This is happening on the doorstep on my central London home yet complaints fall on deaf ears as for most of any working day these dockless rent as you go bicycles pile up. These schemes are flawed but still they remain. It is not the fault (in the main) of "...thoughtless renters" as some claim on here, as dockless zones exist but they cannot cope with the amount of bicycles and there is not enough space for more; however I am shortly expecting the next Green Initiative which will be to move all the people out of Central London to make way for dockless bicycle parks and with the answer (if its questioned) that this is... "A necessary side affect..."

Boro Boy wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 09 2019 8:11am

It sounds like you should return to the initial post and attachment.

No one has disputed that careless disposal of rental bikes is a problem as per the story linked in the OP

But

pabenny wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 08 2019 1:54pm

..it remains the case that the headline in your OP bears no resemblance to the linked news story.

This is the first time you have mentioned that you are personally affected by poor parking of rental bikes. I acknowledge that. I would be annoyed if it happened on my doorstep.

But I return to the illustration I gave about Penicillin. If it cures 99 people and creates mild side effects for you, it doesn't make Penicillin a Bad Thing overall.

For rental bikes, we have to ask weigh the benefits for the millions of residents, workers and visitors in central London against the costs for those same people. Clearly you feel the costs heavily. But that doesn't mean that overall rental bikes are a bad thing. It certainly doesn't make them a "green initiative that's gone completely wrong".