Dockless semi-electric bikes are cropping up more regularly on our street – sometimes parked correctly, sometimes blocking the pavement. They are surprisingly heavy, and can be dangerous, e.g. to children,  if knocked over.

Our ever-helpful ward Councillor Deepak Sardiwal tells me that some Fawnbrake Avenue residents have been in touch with their understandable concerns over the proliferation of poor bike parking in the neighbourhood. He has shared with me the response he gave them, following a discussion with the council team involved. He explains that the council ultimately intends for the dockless bikes to be placed on kerbside space allocated for this purpose, as part of its new Kerbside Strategy. (I don’t know whether they intend to make dedicated kerbside spaces on every street…). Meanwhile I thought it might be helpful if I shared this position more widely.

Lambeth policy

The statement reads: “Lambeth recognises the conflict since Dockless bikes reappeared in numbers on the streets earlier last year. Currently, we have no legal lever to control them or licence them in the borough as no such legislation exists although it is expected in the coming years. In terms of confiscating the bikes and returning a fee, we have come to a temporary arrangement with the operators requiring them to move a bike within 2 hours of it being reported if it poses a clear obstruction. Our enforcement officers will also remove a bike if it is deemed to cause a danger or threat, in this case, we would charge the operator for the costs of confiscation and storage.

“We have recently come to an agreement with all the operators and developed a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This MOU and associated agreements will address Lambeth’s concerns on footway impediment and the serious accessibility issues they cause., whilst ensuring the bikes can still be used by the public.

“Once we have allocated kerbside space for the dockless bikes all bikes [presumably they mean all dockless bikes] in the borough will be required to be parked in dockless bike bays. If a resident sees a bike parked inappropriately, blocking the footway, falling, preventing or making it difficult to walk, please report this to the Operator, quoting the location and its serial number, This can normally be found on the QR code used to book the bike.”

I am trying to find out whether there is a number within Lambeth Council where we can report dangerously parked electric bikes.

Temporary parking suspensions, announced through notices stuck on lampposts, trees etc, are legitimately used to reserve spaces for utility works, removal vans, skips and so on. But problems arise when our cars, innocently parked on these spots when owners go away on holiday or on business trips before the notice goes up, are deemed to be in contravention of the suspension if it comes into force in their absence and attracts a parking fine.

In response to a discussion about this issue on our street WhatsApp conversation, I offered to write to our councillors to see whether they could offer a solution. I have now emailed the two most active of our ward councillors, Jim Dickson and Deepak Sardiwal.

Here is the text of what I have written:

Dear Councillors

Several of my neighbours here have asked me if I could raise an issue with you, in the hope of finding a pragmatic solution. I’m guessing that you yourselves will not know the answer either, but perhaps you can ask the appropriate team for their advice. The problem, you will see, is not unique to our street and probably not to this borough.

We are in a CPZ zone, which works pretty well. From time to time, notices are fixed on lampposts or trees announcing that parking is suspended at specific nearby areas, for a variety of reasons – utility works, removal vans, skips etc. We are supposed to take note of these warnings and make sure not to park our cars there during the prohibited times. We all understand this, even though sometimes people don’t realise that the notice applies to parts of the street somewhat distant from where the notice is a fixed. But that is not what worries us at the moment. We are learning to be vigilant.

The real problem arises when car owners are absent both when the notice is affixed and when the ban comes into effect. This can happen quite easily. People can go away on holiday or travelling on business for two or three weeks (or even longer) legitimately leaving their cars behind, parked in such an area in all innocence. They can easily be away both when the notice goes up and when the ban comes into effect.

This gives rise to two problems. The parts of the road earmarked for use by, for instance, utility companies, skips, removal vans and so on will inadvertently remain blocked, thus frustrating the original purpose of the parking suspension. Secondly however, any cars parked entirely legally and in good conscience in that spot automatically become liable for a parking penalty without the owners knowing or having the opportunity to avert the situation. They can come back to find an expensive penalty notice on their windscreen.

But attempts to appeal the penalty almost always fail. And naturally the traffic enforcement officers cannot judge whether the car they are ticketing was just parked there carelessly the night before, or had been put there innocently in advance of the ban being announced.

This strikes us as unjustified. It causes great resentment towards the Council.

We have seen suggestions that parking authorities sometimes advise that, to avoid this situation, residents planning to be absent from the street for more than one or two days should empower family members or neighbours to move their cars if the need arises. But this is not a practical solution. It may even be illegal. Many people would not be insured to drive other people’s cars, or would be reluctant to do so for numerous reasons.

So we would like to ask if you could raise this with the parking teams and see whether they can advise on a possible solution, or arguments that could validly be advanced for making an exception in the case of an appeal.

Thank you in advance for looking into this issue.

Neighbours may remember our report in June about an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging point being installed, with no clear warning or explanation, outside a resident’s house. He protested – not at the concept of an EV charging point, which of course no-one could really object to, but at the lack of consultation, given that a crumpled laminated notice replete with official jargon hanging from the lamppost just like another appeal for lost cats, could scarcely be regarded as consultation.

In response a senior officer of the council – having in due course ordered the demarcation of a dedicated EV parking slot outside our neighbour’s house – has just sent him a lengthy statement which explains their approach.

This is an attempt to summarise and simplify what they are saying.

Free bonus

Any reader with a thirst for more information and a capacity for council jargon can spend a happy hour or so ploughing through a report and appendices buried deep on the Lambeth website.

Meanwhile, here goes…

1. Lambeth assume that the EV market and user demands will rise and that the council should therefore cater for existing and potential EV users. But preserving normal CPZ parking bays adjacent to a new charging point could create difficulties and conflicts, hence the need for dedicated areas. The council assume that internal combustion engine (ICE) users and non-recharging EV users should still be able to find a permit space elsewhere locally (noting correctly that residents have no automatic right to park at their preferred length of kerbside).

2. Lambeth aim to increase the number of lamp column charge points across the borough, and as the EV market develops the council will need to keep their policy under review in supporting the increased demand for recharging. They say that not every lamp column would automatically be appropriate for a charge point installation. But even if almost all suitable lamp columns were to be converted into a charge point, they say, there would still be the risk that ICE vehicles could obstruct access to EV users wishing to recharge their vehicles – hence the need to provide dedicated EV charging bays, barred to other vehicles including even EV cars when they are not being charged. (Comment: if, at some future point, all cars were electric, demand for charging points could not be met simply by converting lamp posts, of course. What then?)

3. Lambeth have a general target to achieve. Particularly in roads with minimal off-street parking, no EV vehicle owner should be further than five minutes away from a charge point. Once this aim is met, additional charge points (e.g. in this case) can be provided to cater for known demands. (Er, how do they assess demand?) They rather defensively pointed out that a notice was erected explaining their intention – but our neighbour’s robust response to this feeble excuse points out, as mentioned above, that while there is general public support for the electric charging policy, Lambeth’s failure to properly communicate their policies and decisions typifies, unfortunately, the council’s tendency to impose policies with negligible explanation: “a half decent consultation programme would have dissipated a lot of the current unhappiness”.

The big unknowns

No-one seems to know whether the take-up of electric cars will accelerate or stagnate. Obviously there is no exhaust pollution from EVs, which is a huge benefit. But there is ample doubt about the wider economic and environmental benefits and costs, when you take into account the need for much additional electricity generation (by what means?), the painful cost of securing the rare ingredients for the batteries, which in addition cannot be safely recycled when they expire; and the gigantic environmental and financial cost of disposing of perfectly efficient modern diesel and hybrid vehicles in order to comply with government targets.

So I suppose Lambeth can be forgiven, in this sense, for keeping options open and proceeding step-by-step.

They are still rubbish at communication though.