Jump to content

Recommended Posts

rupert james Wrote:

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

> Rollerskates, skateboards, tricycles I do not work

> that well on grassland etc.


Dogwalking works pretty well though, in my experience. Of course I welcome all the little 'uns on their various contrivances and watch out for them. But why, for example, as I saw today, feel the need to have a football kickabout on the tarmac when there's all that lovely grass available?

Bottom line, it's a small park so activities on foot will always take precedence, annoying if you want to cycle but cannot see cyclists ever getting right of way, even voluntarily. Dog walkers may prefer to walk dogs on lead in tarmac for a variety of reasons - to avoid other dogs that are off lead on the grassy areas, to reduce distractions of smells on grass, to avoid distraction of football and other games, to avoid picnickers; sometimes tarmac feels more comfortable to the human foot and in some level we may just automatically follow roads and paths.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Bottom line, it's a small park so activities on

> foot will always take precedence, annoying if you

> want to cycle but cannot see cyclists ever getting

> right of way, even voluntarily. Dog walkers may

> prefer to walk dogs on lead in tarmac for a

> variety of reasons - to avoid other dogs that are

> off lead on the grassy areas, to reduce

> distractions of smells on grass, to avoid

> distraction of football and other games, to avoid

> picnickers; sometimes tarmac feels more

> comfortable to the human foot and in some level we

> may just automatically follow roads and paths.


Fair enough, it's lovely cycling there anyway - I was just trying to make a suggestion which I thought might benefit all parties!

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> 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.



The signs about keeping dogs on a short lead are for the inner parts of the park only. No such signs around the outer perimeter.

Ruffler Wrote:

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


> The signs about keeping dogs on a short lead are

> for the inner parts of the park only. No such

> signs around the outer perimeter.


Fair enough so, maybe that's why so many dog owners do stick to the road. I think that's a shame though, obviously there are issues with dangerous dogs and so on but I can't really see why responsible owners of well trained dogs shouldn't be allowed to let their pets off the leash over those lovely acres (a lot of them do anyway and it doesn't seem to do anyone much harm).

I'm quite concerned about this.


I haven't cycled for years, am far from confident and am taking advantage of Southwark Council's free lessons- which for beginners take place in parks.


My second lesson will be in Dulwich Park, and my instructor has advised me to practice there in the meantime.


If people are walking dogs with a leash stretched across the road, then that fills me with horror frankly.

Will not be difficult to see them and walking my dog each day I cannot remember seeing dog leads stretched across the park road.


Horror story that really does not exist.


If you cannot manage this park road with confidence you should not be on the road.

spider69 Wrote:

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

> Will not be difficult to see them and walking my

> dog each day I cannot remember seeing dog leads

> stretched across the park road.

>

> Horror story that really does not exist.

>

> If you cannot manage this park road with

> confidence you should not be on the road.


It's not a "horror story" by any means, that's just silly nomenclature, but it's the honest truth that today I had to come to a complete stop as a lady walking a Jack Russell was doing exactly what I said, walking on the outside of the road with her dog on the bridlepath the opposite side with the lead stretching the width of the road - and it's not the first time. That's kind of what inspired me to write what I still maintain was merely a polite suggestion that some people could show some more consideration to fellow park users, however much some people have chosen to be offended by it.


Sue, good luck with your lessons and don't let the naysayers put you off, you'll get there. I've been riding round the busiest parts of London for almost thirty years and never had a serious accident - just stay aware, make strong signals and the second something feels wrong just stop and get off the road.

Problem with Dulwich Park is that everyone there thinks they have the god-given right to walk. Run, roller-skate, ride a horse, ride those stupid hire trike things, etc., whatever, over anyone else's right to do anything.

More than any park I know - like people step up a notch in the up-their-own-arse stakes as they pass through the gates.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> you could even take your bike on a train and cycle

> around somewhere new - and less busy.


So rather than cycle round our local park - to which after all we do contribute as council tax payers and in which cycling is fully permitted - being courteous, aware and respectful of other park users and hoping for the same in return, we should take a train elsewhere? Hmm.

It's a park that's the whole point, it's nice to be able to walk around it & not have to be squeezed onto a pavement as you are when you are on a normal street! Unless there is a designated cycle path I don't think you can argue that bikes should take priority over people enjoying walking around the park and actually it is nicer to walk on the middle of the path rather than the sloping uneven pavement section. The velodrome is available down the road for proper cycling with no fear of pedestrians in the way!

spider69 Wrote:

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


>

> If you cannot manage this park road with

> confidence you should not be on the road.



How very helpful and encouraging.


Better suggest to Southwark Council they take their cycling lessons elsewhere then.


Any suggestions as to where beginner cyclists should gain confidence if not in a place without cars?


ETA: And obviously I am not cycling on roads with cars yet, otherwise I'd hardly need to practice in a park.

Ignore that - Dulwich Park is a great place to learn or practise cycling.

It's a shared space and most people are courteous and considerate. Some less so, but that's life in general, isn't it.

Peckham Rye is also suitable. It doesn't have the wide circuit path that DP has, but is probably a bit quieter - maybe because of that.

Hi Sue, are you in touch with Cycle Confident? The council funds them and they are very good.


Once you are steady on your wheels Southwark cyclists do Saturday am social rides on quiet back streets and parks. We post them all in the What's On section. This saturday they are taking part in the national butterfly count and going from park to park counting butterflies. What could be nicer. When you start to feel up to it, get in touch or just turn up to one of our rides and enjoy them with us.


The butterfly ride is here: http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/events/butterfly-count-peckham-healthy-ride/


ignore the picture -- I don't approve of thinking of cycling as medicinal.



Any suggestions as to where beginner cyclists should gain confidence if not in a place without cars?


ETA: And obviously I am not cycling on roads with cars yet, otherwise I'd hardly need to practice in a park.




Don't worry, you'll be fine! Even when there are dog leads stretched out, there's plenty of space to pass around them & plenty of time to anticipate. It's not like they appear out of nowhere.


Second what DuncanW says - also, the park's quieter outside the school hols naturally, and during the nice long evenings we're getting at the moment.


I'm a fast cyclist when I need to be, but parks are above all there to be enjoyed.

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

> Hi Sue, are you in touch with Cycle Confident? The

> council funds them and they are very good.

>

>


Yes, thanks Sally Eva, that's who I'm doing my lessons with.


ETA: And thanks for the info about cycle rides!

The park is fine to cycle in, just need to be a bit careful at the weekends as dogs and children will run across the road without any warning. I tend to cycle slowly anyway and usually everyone is very good natured and I like watching the dogs have fun in the park.


The only two times I have witnessed angst is a woman on roller blades going very quickly having a go at a dog owner because she had to swerve to not hit the dog and a pedestrian who had a go at me (a bit sweary in front of his kids) when I rang my little toy town bell on my bike to warn them I was behind them. No accounting for shouty people really.

well not my point at all RH - actually suggesting exploring and using your newfound love of cycling to do my than laps around the Rye....


In fact I would struggle to see how you could gleen such hostility.


rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> -----

> > you could even take your bike on a train and

> cycle

> > around somewhere new - and less busy.

>

> So rather than cycle round our local park - to

> which after all we do contribute as council tax

> payers and in which cycling is fully permitted -

> being courteous, aware and respectful of other

> park users and hoping for the same in return, we

> should take a train elsewhere? Hmm.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> well not my point at all RH - actually suggesting

> exploring and using your newfound love of cycling

> to do my than laps around the Rye....

>

> In fact I would struggle to see how you could

> gleen such hostility.

>

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > you could even take your bike on a train and

> > cycle

> > > around somewhere new - and less busy.

> >

> > So rather than cycle round our local park - to

> > which after all we do contribute as council tax

> > payers and in which cycling is fully permitted

> -

> > being courteous, aware and respectful of other

> > park users and hoping for the same in return,

> we

> > should take a train elsewhere? Hmm.


Strange assumption to make about my love of cycling, seeing as I've been mad keen on it for thirty years, across the UK and across Europe, I've done my fair share of exploring, thanks. As I said above, Mrs.H doesn't want to cycle on the roads so Dulwich Park is the ideal place for her to potter round.

keane Wrote:

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

> It's a park that's the whole point, it's nice to

> be able to walk around it & not have to be

> squeezed onto a pavement as you are when you are

> on a normal street! Unless there is a designated

> cycle path I don't think you can argue that bikes

> should take priority over people enjoying walking

> around the park and actually it is nicer to walk

> on the middle of the path rather than the sloping

> uneven pavement section. The velodrome is

> available down the road for proper cycling with no

> fear of pedestrians in the way!


I didn't ask for priority, just that perhaps, as it's a shared park where cycling is permitted, some dog/children walkers (a small minority) could show a bit more consideration for cyclists by not taking up the width of the roadway and keeping an eye on kids/dogs to stop them putting themselves, and cyclists, in danger. There's plenty of room there for everyone if we share nicely, was all I was saying, though it seems some people have interpreted that as saying I want to run a Tour de France stage through the park.

richard tudor Wrote:

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

> Perhaps cyclists should employ the skiing rules

> always look ahead.

>

> If you have to stop or avoid so be it.

>

> There are more children, people and dogs than

> pedal pushers. They are not aware of danger. As it

> should be in a park


So although cycling is legitimately permitted in the park, and of course cyclists have to be aware of all potential hazards (and we (me and Mrs H, not all cyclists, I admit) are), nobody else has to look out for them but should do exactly as they please no matter what inconvenience or risk to fellow legitimate park users? That's one point of view. My point of view is that I think it would be rather nice if all park users (as 90% do) looked out for and were considerate of all other park users, whether walking, running, cycling, horseriding, rollerblading or whatever. That we we could all enjoy the park together instead of one group clashing with another - no matter what the ratios. That, I think, would make for a happy community we could all enjoy, instead of an "I can do this so I will" attitude.

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...