Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Afternoon all,


I'm not trying to annoy or offend anyone, so I'd like to start by saying that I'm a lifelong dog lover (only the smallness of our garden stops us having one) and am also very fond of children and love seeing them out playing in the open air.


But...Mrs H, who doesn't like cycling on the roads, and I have recently taken to cycling laps of the perimeter road in Dulwich Park for exercise, and very pleasant it is too. We keep to a sensible speed and always slow down for other park users. I would like to ask though, when there's an eight foot wide pavement on one side of the road and a ten foot wide bridlepath on the other, if it's really necessary for people to walk three or four abreast down the centre of the road, letting dogs and/or children merrily gambol across from side to side. A particular joy are those dogwalkers who walk on one side of the road and let their dog explore the other side, the two joined by an extendable leash.


There's rather a lot of grass in Dulwich Park, which I'm sure both children and dogs prefer to play on...I hope it's not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists? That way we can all enjoy this wonderful amenity without getting in each others' way.


Cheers,


Rendel


P.S. There are a few cyclists, I know, who treat the road like a velodrome, charging round it at 25mph. They're jerks, and we are definitely not of their ilk!

"I hope its not too presumptuous to ask that pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass (or even just stick to one side of the road rather than the centre) and leave a clear passage for cyclists?"


Far, far too presumptious, when I was growing up the park-keeper would clip your ear if you cycled in a park! Of course things have changed since then and cycling is rightly encouraged for both health and environmental concerns. However, this cannot be to the detriment of those park users who walk which would relegate them to second class users and would prevent them from using the park in the way they have done since the park opened over 100 years ago. There are also far more pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than cyclists. You and your other half just need to show some patience for other users or use one of the many cycling only routes that have been appearing recently in Southwark which I have to say are making even me think about taking up cycling (though probably not). Besides, fewer pedestrians will encourage even more cyclists you consider jerks to charge around at 25MPH.


I do agree though regarding dogs being walked on extendable leads which I think should be made illegal as they have caused serious injuries both to cyclists and to the dogs themselves.

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "I hope its not too presumptuous to ask that

> pedestrians use the pavement, bridleway or grass

> (or even just stick to one side of the road rather

> than the centre) and leave a clear passage for

> cyclists?"

>

> Far, far too presumptious, when I was growing up

> the park-keeper would clip your ear if you cycled

> in a park! Of course things have changed since

> then and cycling is rightly encouraged for both

> health and environmental concerns. However, this

> cannot be to the detriment of those park users who

> walk which would relegate them to second class

> users and would prevent them from using the park

> in the way they have done since the park opened

> over 100 years ago. There are also far more

> pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than

> cyclists. You and your other half just need to

> show some patience for other users or use one of

> the many cycling only routes that have been

> appearing recently in Southwark which I have to

> say are making even me think about taking up

> cycling (though probably not). Besides, fewer

> pedestrians will encourage even more cyclists you

> consider jerks to charge around at 25MPH.

>

> I do agree though regarding dogs being walked on

> extendable leads which I think should be made

> illegal as they have caused serious injuries both

> to cyclists and to the dogs themselves.


I think you've missed the point a bit in Dulwich Park: it's a road, not a shared path, running round the perimeter,and it has a very wide pavement by its side. How is it relegating pedestrians to second class users to ask them to use the pavement instead of the road?


P.S. Just curious - why have you edited the bit of my post you have quoted to take out the absolutely correct apostrophe in "it's"?

It's not a road in the conventional sense as it is not open to public motorised traffic, only to park access vehicles. Methinks you want to turn it into a velodrome whilst saying otherwise.


PS No idea what happened to your apostrophe, I certainly didn't edit it out. As you can see from the first word in this post, I am aware of the correct use of apostrophes!

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's not a road in the conventional sense as it is

> not open to public motorised traffic, only to park

> access vehicles. Methinks you want to turn it

> into a velodrome whilst saying otherwise.


No, I don't. It just seems perfectly logical that when there's a pavement and a road that the cyclists stay on the road and the pedestrians stay on the pavement. That's not making anyone a second class user, it's just common sense.


By the way, when you say "There are also far more pedestrians that use the roadway in the park than cyclists," today at midday, with lots of people having hired bikes from the facility there, I'd say it was just about 50/50.

It would be logical if it was a public highway - but it's not so it's meaningless to say because there's a pavement there pedestrians should confine themselves to this. There are many streets now pedestrianised that still have the old pavements but pedestrians are not expected to restrict themselves to walking on the pavements only.


As for numbers of pedestrians versus numbers of cyclists, I can only talk about the times I've been there and pedestrians have always outnumbered cyclists by a long way.

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would be logical if it was a public highway -

> but it's not so it's meaningless to say because

> there's a pavement there pedestrians should

> confine themselves to this. There are many

> streets now pedestrianised that still have the old

> pavements but pedestrians are not expected to

> restrict themselves to walking on the pavements

> only.


All I am suggesting is that as there is no disadvantage to pedestrians in walking on the pavement it would be courteous of them to use it rather than block the road and force cyclists continually to slow to make sure their dogs and/or children don't dart in front of us. If you find being asked for that courtesy is too great an imposition, fine, I'm not saying it should be obligatory.

I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a very safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow going at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to ask people to stay off the road. If you want to improve your fitness, you'd probably enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them together with back roads that will be much quieter than negotiating Dulwich Park.


Dulwich Park has a 5mph limit so if you see cyclists speeding around I think it's OK to give them a polite reminder.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a very

> safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow going

> at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's

> reasonable to ask people to stay off the road. If

> you want to improve your fitness, you'd probably

> enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and

> Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them

> together with back roads that will be much quieter

> than negotiating Dulwich Park.


Thanks for the suggestions, I personally ride hard on the road for fitness, Dulwich Park is just for pottering with Mrs H. None of those other places you mention have a wide road with a wide pavement as DP has - I would feel people would have every right to complain if we were cycling round those places on the paths, where pedestrians should definitely have priority. All I was pointing out that Dulwich has plenty of space for both groups if shared sensibly, so why don't we share it sensibly? There's plenty of room there to paint in a dedicated cycle lane, but with a little common sense and common courtesy (on both sides) it shouldn't be necessary.

Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast cyclists in parks already, anything that deters them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed cycling. I do however agree about those pesky extension leads.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry, with NX on this. In my view too many fast

> cyclists in parks already, anything that deters

> them is a plus, dedicating tbe 'road' in DP to

> cyclists would be a disaster and encourage speed

> cycling. I do however agree about those pesky

> extension leads.


I absolutely agree, in most parks it's ridiculous the way cyclists speed - along the canal towpaths as well. In my opinion Dulwich is unique in having a wide road as well as plenty of room for pedestrians so could easily be sensibly and safely shared. Apparently this is not a popular opinion, so be it.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I wasn't arguing with you: I just take a more

> pragmatic view. Hard to imagine all the

> pedestrians walking in single file on the narrow,

> sloping pavement, dogs on short leads, while

> cyclists have the road to themselves!


Didn't think you were! The pavements are eight feet wide...when we walk in DP we use them or walk on the grass. The signs in DP actually indicate that dogs should be on short leads at all times, which I think is daft, but I can't understand why dogwalkers, and other walkers, don't enjoy the grass when it's as dry as it is at the moment, instead choosing to walk round on hot hard tarmac.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I do know what you mean, RH, but Dulwich is a

> very

> > safe, flat, child-friendly park so it's slow

> going

> > at this time of year, and I'm not sure it's

> > reasonable to ask people to stay off the road.

> If

> > you want to improve your fitness, you'd

> probably

> > enjoy Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery, Belair and

> > Brockwell parks more, and you can loop them

> > together with back roads that will be much

> quieter

> > than negotiating Dulwich Park.

>

> Thanks for the suggestions, I personally ride hard

> on the road for fitness, Dulwich Park is just for

> pottering with Mrs H. None of those other places

> you mention have a wide road with a wide pavement

> as DP has - I would feel people would have every

> right to complain if we were cycling round those

> places on the paths, where pedestrians should

> definitely have priority. All I was pointing out

> that Dulwich has plenty of space for both groups

> if shared sensibly, so why don't we share it

> sensibly? There's plenty of room there to paint

> in a dedicated cycle lane, but with a little

> common sense and common courtesy (on both sides)

> it shouldn't be necessary.


Ever since I can remember going back many many years the park has alway been used sensibly.


Why should this question have been raised?


The road was closed many years ago to allow people to amble in safety.


You said in an earlier post you have lived in the area for a while, why did you not know this?

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> nxjen Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It would be logical if it was a public highway

> -

> > but it's not so it's meaningless to say because

> > there's a pavement there pedestrians should

> > confine themselves to this. There are many

> > streets now pedestrianised that still have the

> old

> > pavements but pedestrians are not expected to

> > restrict themselves to walking on the pavements

> > only.

>

> All I am suggesting is that as there is no

> disadvantage to pedestrians in walking on the

> pavement it would be courteous of them to use it

> rather than block the road and force cyclists

> continually to slow to make sure their dogs and/or

> children don't dart in front of us. If you find

> being asked for that courtesy is too great an

> imposition, fine, I'm not saying it should be

> obligatory.


Seems like you're asking for right of way rather than courtesy.

rupert james Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Ever since I can remember going back many many

> years the park has alway been used sensibly.

>

> Why should this question have been raised?

>

> The road was closed many years ago to allow people

> to amble in safety.

>

> You said in an earlier post you have lived in the

> area for a while, why did you not know this?


The road was not closed to cyclists, was it? Cycling is still permitted in the park and indeed, as there is a cycle hire facility within the park, it's encouraged. All I have suggested is that certain people (a small minority), particularly dog walkers, might improve their safety and that of cyclists if they used the road less selfishly, i.e. not completely blocking it or allowing kids/dogs to run around from side to side. Why not use the vast green spaces available instead?


I've lived in this area for more than twenty years, and I know you like to think your opinion on local issues is more important than other people's because you've lived here longer, but that is in fact utterly irrelevant.

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Seems like you're asking for right of way rather

> than courtesy.


Nope, I think pedestrians should have right of way at all times in the park, and I cede it to them, always. However, I fail to see why it's such an incubus for pedestrians not to walk down the middle of the road, is there some special joy in this compared to walking over the grass or on the pavement that eludes me?

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I only know the original meaning of the word which

> means something very different.


Indeed, I was, I assure you, using it in its secondary sense. From the Latin incubare meaning "to lie upon", which accounts for both meanings, I suppose.

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rupert james Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > Ever since I can remember going back many many

> > years the park has alway been used sensibly.

> >

> > Why should this question have been raised?

> >

> > The road was closed many years ago to allow

> people

> > to amble in safety.

> >

> > You said in an earlier post you have lived in

> the

> > area for a while, why did you not know this?

>

> The road was not closed to cyclists, was it?

> Cycling is still permitted in the park and indeed,

> as there is a cycle hire facility within the park,

> it's encouraged. All I have suggested is that

> certain people (a small minority), particularly

> dog walkers, might improve their safety and that

> of cyclists if they used the road less selfishly,

> i.e. not completely blocking it or allowing

> kids/dogs to run around from side to side. Why

> not use the vast green spaces available instead?

>

> I've lived in this area for more than twenty

> years, and I know you like to think your opinion

> on local issues is more important than other

> people's because you've lived here longer, but

> that is in fact utterly irrelevant.


Wrong again RH, my view is not more important than others.


Cycling is permitted and is taken advantage of particularly by children, and the bikes hired by the cycle shed reflect this.


If you want to pedal hard go to the cycle track in Herne Hill. I have never seen cyclist having a hissy fit when riding the road because there are people in front of them. Mrs H can cycling in a sedate manner and look out for obstructions, i.e. adults, children and dogs.


I do not think most people consider it to be road more of an avenue to wander on.

Hyde park has a cycle lane, an equestrian lane and a pedestrian lane. All are free to wander off their designated lane but are advised to look around to check they aren't going to get in the way.


Maybe Dulwich park would benefit from a cycle lane? There is a clear lane for horse riders........imagine the uproar if they cantered all over the place!


This is about safety primarily no?


Those long leads for dogs are just fine......it's always the dumb owners who can't use them sensibly that are the problem.

Don't be silly Rupert, I said that I too cycle sedately in the park, but even at slow speeds, dogs and kids ducking about in front of one can be dangerous. If you choose to regard a perfectly politely phrased request for people to take more care as a hissy fit that says much more about your attitude than mine. If parents/owners want their kids and dogs to play on the tarmac that's their right, but I really don't see why they want them to. "An avenue to wander on"? Acres of beautiful grassland, wooded areas etc and you want to walk round on the tarmac?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...