Forum Topic

Illegal e-scooter use in Ealing.

Here we go, can we get back to talking about LEGAL use of e-scooters as part of the upcoming trial scheme on the other thread?

Paul James ● 1574d96 Comments

Save that, unlike heroin, simple possession of a scooter a s not illegal.  Of course, it is nonsense to believe that anyone would either buy a scooter simply to admire it or that everyone buying one will only use it on private land. The law, as currently framed, is nonsensical.

N V Brooks ● 1379d

If a drug dealer was openly selling heroin from a shop in the high street there would be a raid. if a shop is openly selling e-scooters then obviously the same rules should apply

Peter Chadburn ● 1379d

Who, the well know Pc PR James!!Agreed not seen many private 1s. Not entirely happy with them on the road thinking of insurance purposes.Good to see though they have lights & identity plate

Peter Yale ● 1380d

Looks like the Old Bill have clamped down on the privately owned ones, haven't seen that many in Ealing for a while -https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-59474466

peter king ● 1380d

Richard the third? Rhyming slang, one presumes.

Simon Hayes ● 1537d

Bit confused TBH, who is Richard?

N V Brooks ● 1537d

Sorry Richard but you are a bit to keen to have a go at people. Will this satisfy your vastly superior intellect - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/17/e-scooter-hire-schemes-to-be-rolled-out-in-london-from-june

peter king ● 1537d

The usual and now expected non-sensical and idiot comment from you Mr James.Please continue making a complete and utter mammary of yourself on here, it's highly amusing.If not slightly disturbing.

Rosco White ● 1537d

I’ve just come back from a job in Hammersmith. Drive along King Street and Chiswick High Road and then to South Ealing via Brentford. I didn’t see any cars or fans driving on the pavement in that five mile journey. Not one. Can you believe it?I did see a lot of pavement cyclists, even in Chiswick where there’s a lovely big and expensive cycle superhighway. I also saw loads of  escooters on those pavements, all of which were privately owned ones. Outside the Catholic Church on CHR there were two boys, neither old enough to hold a driving licence, sharing one scooter. I wonder if they know they were breaking at least four laws in one go?

Simon Hayes ● 1537d

From reading one contributor's posts you would think that there is no room for pedestrians, prams, pushchairs and wheelchairs or (illegally ridden) scooters and bikes because of the sheer number of cars, vans and lorries being driven "everywhere, every day" on our pavements.

N V Brooks ● 1537d

Road vehicles can use pavements where designated i.e. crossovers for access.Or to manoeuvre into a location.So could Horse and Carts and Barrows and trailers.However, Pavements are primarily for pedestrians, prams, pushchairs and Wheelchairs all at pedestrian speeds.

Raymond Havelock ● 1537d

Cars & vans are not deliberately driven down pavements (as are bikes &  scooters). If they - cars & vans did, penalty notices are issued.Unlike bikes & scooters.That’s how it works

Peter Yale ● 1537d

They really aren't, which is why you can't provide a single piece of evidence.Just get some help for your own sake please.

N V Brooks ● 1538d

Stick to the topic please, e-scooters are dangerous, especially the private ones being driven/aimed by children, some of who have a passenger riding with them. I've seen them on tube platforms, ironic as tfl seem so keen on them.

peter king ● 1538d

But they are routinely driven on pavements Nigel. Happens all day, every day.

Paul James ● 1538d

That is because, except in your world, cars and vans and lorries do not routinely drive on pavements. Get some help.

N V Brooks ● 1538d

1) A repetition of the I'm right mantraI was right.2) A repetition of the "I've already answered this" fallacyI did already answer it already, did you not see that either?3) Your normal level of vitriolVitriol? Bitter criticism or malice. Really?4) The avoidance of factsI said the point of legal escooter trials is that they are for people that want to try escooters legally, not illegally.How is that not full of facts?

Paul James ● 1538d

>Pavements Are For People.>There should be immediate and unrelenting stringent & robust enforcement of the current legislation regarding riding e-scooters (and bicycles!) on pavements.You've left of cars and vans for some reason?!

Paul James ● 1538d

Bottom line, to the original Topic, is that Pavements Are For People.There should be immediate and unrelenting stringent & robust enforcement of the current legislation regarding riding e-scooters (and bicycles!) on pavements.

Rosco White ● 1539d

Yes, I was actually hoping that you might take the suggestion on board. At least you managed to avoid infantile smileys in your response this time, must be having a better day.

N V Brooks ● 1539d

OMG!!I’ve just been up and down Boston Road and there was not ONE vehicle driving on the pavement. Same in Northfield Avenue and Windmill Road. It’s outrageous!Someone please inform Rachel Aldridge’s that her ‘research’ might be flawed and, well, a bit biased. Paul James, you seem to have plenty of time on your hands. Over to you to drop her a line.

Simon Hayes ● 1539d

"No, I leave talking to yourself to the deluded who see cars on the pavements everywhere every day. Get help please."Nigel, did you read what you just wrote?

Paul James ● 1539d

Especially as Surbiton station is 'step-free'  (I'll get me coat).

N V Brooks ● 1539d

Might have been awkward getting the ladder on and off the bus or train.

Simon Hayes ● 1540d

Driven from Surbiton to Ealing?Surely you should have used public transport?

Peter Yale ● 1540d

Paul. The reason for the traffic jams was roadworks. As has been explained to you before, blocking bits of road creates congestion. Increasing congestion increases pollution.You should understand that but I fear you left your brain out in the rain and it shrank!You must be gutted that you won’t get a day in the LTN consultation. How will you cope?And why do you put the weird emojis on every message? Are you 13?

Simon Hayes ● 1540d

No, I leave talking to yourself to the deluded who see cars on the pavements everywhere every day. Get help please.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

Nigel "rather than some 'carmageddon' created by a delusional fantasist."Simon "Strangely, I’ve just driven from Surbiton to Ealing amid some very heavy traffic and lengthy jams":D :D :DHave you two heard yourselves?! :D :D :D

Paul James ● 1540d

I walked to Hanger Lane tube this afternoon alongside the A40 on the shared carriageway. Three e-scooters (the private ones) came towards me as well as one cyclist, all were going at a fair pace and all seemed as if they weren't going to stop for anything/one. The carriageway needs the overgrowing vegetation cut back as it is VERY narrow in parts but tfl, the traffic experts, have said it doesn't need their attention. They had the cheek to say that if I wasn't happy with their ruling then I should consult the ombudsman!!!!!

peter king ● 1540d

We shall have to console ourselves by living in the real world rather than some 'carmageddon' created by a delusional fantasist.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

That’s highly amusing. Old Vile surely found some hapless motorist to blame for his friend’s offence.Strangely, I’ve just driven from Surbiton to Ealing amid some very heavy traffic and lengthy jams but failed to see any vehicles using the pavement as a shortcut. Oddly enough, I’ve not seen anything like that in all the years I’ve lived here.Yet I saw plenty of cyclists on the pavement today and a lot of escooters ridden illegally.

Simon Hayes ● 1540d

Absolutely right. Jeremy Vine was bemoaning that a 'friend' had been fined £300 and had points imposed for riding a private one on a pavement. Good.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

I wish that I could help you with the problems you have Paul. I have denied nothing. I really think that you should consider professional help or counseling as it cannot be easy.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

Nigel. Your denial is making you look extremely silly!

Paul James ● 1540d

Sad, how very sad. Continued unsubstantiated claims. Never mind.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

You continued assertions that all pavements in Ealing are motor vehicle free are frankly, ridiculous.

Paul James ● 1540d

Sorry, still not a shred of evidence. Some may consider someone who makes repeated unsupported claims simply a liar. I just think "sad".

N V Brooks ● 1540d

"Paul James alludes to witnessing this happening all the time and everywhere without a single shred of evidence."It does happen all the time Nigel

Paul James ● 1540d

Sorry, import not impost.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

Sadly, the "Gospel according to St. Aldred" has gained much traction with those who use it with the ardour of fundamentalist believers to support their particular position. It is quite mild compared to the latest 'absolute zero' crap (no better word) which proposes closing all airports and eventually banning all shipping that does not have zero emissions by starting in 2030 as we will not need to impost anything.Like that is ever going to happen with the Chinese.

N V Brooks ● 1540d

Just how are kids managing to hire these when a licence is required which means over 17 years of age?  Seems they have all found a hack to the app.The stuff by Aldred is distorted research to suit a means.There is a big difference between an accident and criminal, wilful or malicious action.Much off the statistics do not cover the investigation of and accident that determines the fault and whether or not is was a pure accident and whom the fault lay.It's been poorly defined since long before the current issues.

Raymond Havelock ● 1540d

TFL finally take some action on illegal e scooter use - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-e-scooters-forbidden-london-tube-railway-stations-b941890.html#comments-area

peter king ● 1541d

The fact is that fatalities on the roads in Ealing are, thankfully, small. Even TfL know this from their own stats. Most involve motorcycles. And Ealing is a large borough with a sizeable population, not to mention a lot of through traffic.I wonder what stats will emerge from the escooter trial. If Khan maintains his Vision Xero policy of no deaths or injuries on London roads then surely if any such incidents occur due to negligent riding of these scooters then the case for having them fails immediately.

Simon Hayes ● 1541d

It is though David a question of magnitude. While every death caused by the actions of a lawbreaker should and must be condemned, Paul James alludes to witnessing this happening all the time and everywhere without a single shred of evidence. It is sadly a tactic of those who obsess about such things to take a single incident and conflate it to the point where they actually believe their own delusion. If this was happening everywhere, every day the outrage would be widespread. It simply isn't. Mr James has been asked to submit any evidence he has to the MPS rather than perpetuate allegory.

N V Brooks ● 1541d

Did you not notice the name of the ‘expert’ quoted in the report? Rachel Aldred. All her ‘research’ is biased. None of it is peer reviewed. The tune of this article was emotive and certainly not scientific.Man takes drugs and goes on rampage. Probably far more drug fuelled killings perpetrators are on foot or, perhaps, bikes. Seriously, try and find something that doesn’t come from the same source, over and over again.Cranky, some of you people should grow some backbone. Be careful out there, the sky might fall on your heads.

Simon Hayes ● 1541d

After reading Paul James'post regarding the report from Roadpeace which I believe is a well regarded charity.I had a look at the report myself and it certainly wasn't fantasy.It gives a detailed analysis of incidents which has been logged by the police. Some of the details are horrific eg. The indi vidual who  had been on an 18 hour drug fueled binge and had driven at speeds of up to 117mph. before killing a pedestrian . Some were accidents but most I would suggest were a complete lack of personal responsibility.

David Burke ● 1541d

Paul, you should start taking your medication. You are getting very shrill and rather incoherent in your arguments.I read the piece you posted the link to. These casualties seem to be as a result of accidents, rather than deliberate acts of pedestrian killing by drivers. One refers to a nurse who momentarily fell asleep after a long shift and crashed. Clearly, in your view, she’s an evil person.What your report also mentions is that six if the 548 incidents were collisions between cyclists and pedestrians ON THE PAVEMENT! What were those naught bicycling people doing breaking the law?I know that in Paul World everything is seen through some mysterious bike shaped prism but having FREQUENTLY passed the places you mention, such as the B&Q junction, I’ve never witnessed anything you describe. You wouldn’t be making things up now, would you? I know it’s a favourite tactic of the LCC, which we know you support.

Simon Hayes ● 1541d

I have NEVER driven on the pavement. I wait. If you have no evidence for your ridiculous assertions then you have proven yourself to be nothing more than a fantasist. What is 'absurd' are you continued assertions of law-breaking without a shred of evidence. You are sir, an empty vessel, full of noise but without a single shred of evidence to support your ridiculous, and frankly incessant and tiresome, bleating.

N V Brooks ● 1541d

https://www.roadpeace.org/2020/02/17/pedestrian-pavement-deaths/

Paul James ● 1542d

..and what's more the death and injury stats show it.You are FAR more likely to be struck whilst on the pavement by a motor vehicle that anything else..

Paul James ● 1542d

Nigel, go out, you'll see it happening all over Ealing and London, and you do as well, you're just trying to deny it.The evidence is there for a start, LOADS of motor vehicles up on pavements every day, they didn't levitate there and they're not going to levitate off the pavement.Go to a school too, loads of driving up onto and along pavements where space is tight.Down by B&Q at chiswick roundabout, pretty much if the queue backs up there then some drivers wanting to turn left to go up the north circ mount the pavement and drive along it, two wheels on two wheels off, the same happens in a number of places along embankment in central london; I've seen it with my own eyes.Even in ealing broadway, motor scooters are "rammed" up onto the kerb at speed so their riders can pick up stuff.Your assertion that motor vehicles aren't regularly driven on pavements in London and the UK in general is, frankly absurd.

Paul James ● 1542d

You can keep posting this until the cows come home. But until you actually substantiate your claims with some evidence which you can send to the Metropolitan Police, either put up or shut up.

N V Brooks ● 1542d

It isn't though Nigel, it's happening out there all day every day.

Paul James ● 1542d

The sort of people I've seen piloting these dangerous scooters are too young to have had a period (girls obviously) or have the need to shave (boys obviously). They wouldn't know what a licence was if it smacked them in the face

peter king ● 1542d

Post the evidence then to the MPS. Let us all know when you have done  this please.  Otherwise it's just hearsay and/or fantasy.

N V Brooks ● 1542d

I've stood outside several schools in the borough with narrow streets and quite often seen people drive up onto pavements to pass each other Nigel.

Paul James ● 1542d

Those driving illegal e-scooters are being fined and it can also mean points off your licence.

Philippa Bond ● 1542d

No but cars vans and lorries often drive over the kerb cracking and breaking the paving stones (or footpath) making it dangerous for pedestrians.  Sometimes this is pure laziness in parking by driving in forwards over the kerb and often dislodging that.

Philippa Bond ● 1542d

Vehicles I often see parked on pavements are delivery vans. Maybe they should be banned.

Simon Hayes ● 1542d

A ridiculous exaggeration, they don’t  blatantly drive along the pavement as do scooters & bikes,Some vehicles do mount pavement to park, usually to prevent blocking the road,They could be fined & often are,Cyclists & scooters aren’t

Peter Yale ● 1542d

This is the same Paul James who insists that cyclists should NOT wear a helmet as it makes drivers more ‘careless’ around them!

Simon Hayes ● 1542d

POST EVIDENCE THEN.Those who do this could then be prosecuted. The MPS is awaiting your dossier of miscreants.The fact is that road casualties have shown a downward trend since 1966. Except,doubtless in James Fantasy Land. If you have evidence, post it or,bad some might say " put up or shut up".

N V Brooks ● 1542d

Grow up.

Rosco White ● 1542d

I am grown up, and much better than you at assessing risk it seems! D

Paul James ● 1542d

I see many many cars and trucks driven up and along footways at teh side of the road every day.So do you.

Paul James ● 1542d

Typical idiotic and bordering on unhinged comment from you Mr James, grow up.

Rosco White ● 1542d

Outrage is the same.Car truck or lorry doesn’t deliberately drive along footway,escooters (& bikes) do

Peter Yale ● 1542d

Peter, remember it can equally be argued that car drivers pay nothing either, road tax does not contribute directly towards road maintenance.

John Smith ● 1543d

If you're going to get killed on a pavement in London statistics say it'll be a driver in a car, truck or lorry that does it for you...Where is the outrage from you there?

Paul James ● 1543d

Plod, I know you check these postings.Enough is enough, there MUST now be a hard and continuing crackdown on these e-scooters being ridden on footpaths, it is now out of control and extremely dangerous for pedestrians.Someone is going to be killed very soon if you don't act NOW.

Rosco White ● 1543d

Yes, as soon as there is a non- discriminatory, equitable and non-judgmental alternative proposed by those who do not have a totalitarian agenda.  There needs to be a solid mix to cater for all needs.

N V Brooks ● 1544d

Paul, you really are a gaslighting twat. When did I say that? You need to stop your lying because you just show yourself up as a needy, intellectually challenged bully.We are still waiting for you to provide your ‘overwhelming evidence’ that the majority support LTNs. It’s obvious that they don’t. But you can’t accept that you are wrong.

Simon Hayes ● 1544d

..my agenda being that I think lots of people need to stop using cars so often.Simon agrees this needs to happen, so do you right?

Paul James ● 1544d

No rules about bonfires, but plenty which define the 'nuisance' that you may cause by having one.Equally, there is statute about 'environmental pollution' caused by loud music.Hopefully, Scotland will be the first part of the UK to fine those who smoke in defined areas near schools and playgrounds.You probably knew this already but it would, of course, not stop you from posting sweeping inaccurate generalisations is they have a link, however tenuous, to your agenda.

N V Brooks ● 1544d

Paul, you must be high up the list for sainthood. You are just so virtuous. Must be very hard for anyone to live with your awesomeness.

Simon Hayes ● 1545d

I'm legally entitled to stand outside a school gate chain smoking cigarettes, have a bonfire every evening, and play awful music out loud all day.I don't though.

Paul James ● 1545d

I would suggest that all theses schemes are illegal as the operators do not have any type of street trading licence.Part 3 the London Local Authorities Act 1990, states that: "street trading" means subject to subsection (2) below the selling or exposing or the offering for sale of any article (including a living thing) or the supplying or offering to supply any service in a street for gain or reward;"Surely this is a 'service in a street' and the operator will get 'gain or reward', so where are the licences? If you or I were to erect a stand in a street and start offering this service, we would likely be slapped with a £150 Fixed Penalty Notice under the terms of the very same Act. In Westminster, my goods would simply be seized and I would be taken to court for this, so perhaps we should count ourselves lucky that mere mortals in Ealing would only have to pay £150!

Persida Thomas ● 1545d

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/e-scooters-dangerous-anti-social-behaviour-newcastle-b1823298.html

Philippa Bond ● 1570d

Sorry Peter, post above yours refers.The Twitterati as they seem to believe that they are, are already accusing councillors of 'treachery'. Pathetic.

N V Brooks ● 1572d

Stick to Twitter, you can rant with the fanboys to your heart's content.

N V Brooks ● 1572d

Just like all us vehicle owners, legally entitled (as we are) to go about our daily business

Peter Yale ● 1572d

>Then what is the point?So people like me can use them legally and not illegally.

Paul James ● 1572d

I accept that Paul wants to try without breaking the law. Nothing wrong with that.I've tried these at events and abroad, within the law and that forms my opinion of the machines themselves. Fun novelty machines. But that is just him and those who wish to abide by the law.It's the bigger picture and that's the question. If the current use of these is illegal and enforcement ( and this is being discouraged by TfL and City hall)  is already near impossible or unenforceable, Then what is the point?Who is going to pay to hire and comply when most will not?  Very few.

Raymond Havelock ● 1574d

That’s not how it works. All these part time drivers ( when it suits with no real agenda)along with cyclists mafia (who pay nothing )demand & dictate- along now with  lawless scooters.

Peter Yale ● 1574d

Paul, the only bore here is you.You like these scooters because they fit your narrow agenda. But there is a serious safety issue that remains unresolved.And there are far too many illegal ones still in use. Plenty in Ealing, even though you say you’ve seen three being seized. Of course, in your book that makes it a fact that police are seizing all of them.

Simon Hayes ● 1574d

Simply, an expectation that you could one day, just possibly, answer a question without the following1) A repetition of the I'm right mantra2) A repetition of the "I've already answered this" fallacy3) Your normal level of vitriol4) The avoidance of factsIt's not difficult, try it.

N V Brooks ● 1574d

Why all this abuse? I answered the question, as I always do, just not in the way you want me too I suspect!

Paul James ● 1574d

Ah, The Paul James Hymn Sheet which he wishes everybody to sing from; when all reasonable people have already recognised is only meant for a solo voice - his own.

N V Brooks ● 1574d

Bore off Simon :D

Paul James ● 1574d

>What is the point of a legal trial when the Horse has already bolted?I answered it!It's for people like me who would like to try e-scooters but DON'T want to do it illegally! :DDid you not see that!? :DI answered your question and you read straight over it?! :D

Paul James ● 1574d

Paul, with all due respect, are you incapable of answering a question with fact or even opinion?All you do is duck the question.What is the point of a legal trial when the Horse has already bolted?Or the other unanswered questions about insurance liability and if it covers injury to pedestrians? Not available in the spec for the hire?

Raymond Havelock ● 1574d

Paul, you have your own perfect echo chamber here. Enjoy it.

Simon Hayes ● 1574d

..and I can't believe you want to talk about LEGAL use of e-scooters on the road on this thread about ILLEGAL use of e-scooters on the road :D :D

Paul James ● 1574d

> when clearly openly illegal use is not policed?It is, I've seen three different people on illegally used e-scooters stopped by police and quite a lot of news reports of this happening.

Paul James ● 1574d

If I want a go on an e-scooter, or actually use one to get from a to b, I'm going to go via the trial because I don't want to break the law.Can I ask, why can't you seem to comprehend this? Genuine question, I'd really like to understand! Think deep now.

Paul James ● 1574d

So answer this?  It is a pertinent question.What is the point of a trial with legal requirements when already it has been usurped by the illegal use and availability?How will it be anymore enforceable when clearly openly illegal use is not policed?

Raymond Havelock ● 1574d