Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Rosetta Wrote:

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

> I meant the one through the bushes, at the back of

> the court lane house gardens and further round. I

> have seen quite a few mountain bikes there and it

> always surprises me.


Well, that's out of order I think - there's neither enough width nor long enough sightlines there for responsible cycling. Quite happy for all bikes to be confined to the perimeter road!

rupert james Wrote:

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

> As a matter of interest how did people manage to

> co exist in the past

>

> Was it just old fashioned common sense?

>

> 4 pages on how to use a park. Magic


I and I'm sure all other commentators apologise for forcing you to open this thread and then comment on it. Several of the comments making up those four pages are your own, by the way - if the discussion is so pointless why did you feel the need to join in?


ETA: In the past, as you know, the road was open to motor traffic, so the question of how to share it nicely didn't arise.

rupert james Wrote:

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

> As a matter of interest how did people manage to

> co exist in the past

>

> Was it just old fashioned common sense?


I'm afraid dear heart the Park has never been the same since those Penny-Farthing riders turned up.

Who do they think they are, looking down on us like that?

Never mind, I shall just have to console myself with reading Proust's ? la recherche du temps perdu ​​under the shade of my loved one's heaving, corsetted breasts...

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> rupert james Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I would hate you to have a heart attack and not

> be

> > able to post any more.

>

> Tasteful. Enough now.



RH you don't happen to have a large black stallion you cherish and sleep heavily?

red devil Wrote:

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

> rupert james Wrote:

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

> -----

> > As a matter of interest how did people manage

> to

> > co exist in the past

> >

> > Was it just old fashioned common sense?















Time to lay off the Tilleul RD ??





>

> I'm afraid dear heart the Park has never been the

> same since those Penny-Farthing riders turned up.

> Who do they think they are, looking down on us

> like that?

> Never mind, I shall just have to console myself

> with reading Proust's ? la recherche du temps

> perdu ​​under the shade of my loved

> one's heaving, corsetted breasts...

aerie Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > rupert james Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > I would hate you to have a heart attack and

> not

> > be

> > > able to post any more.

> >

> > Tasteful. Enough now.

>

>

> RH you don't happen to have a large black stallion

> you cherish and sleep heavily?


Straight over my head that one - explain?

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> aerie Wrote:


> > RH you don't happen to have a large black

> stallion

> > you cherish and sleep heavily?

>

> Straight over my head that one - explain?


In the cold light of day I now get it - good one. I don't have a black stallion, I do have a small black rabbit, I have increased security around its hutch in the face of these veiled menaces!


I don't see why not - it's a bridlepath for horses really, isn't it, but they seem to come into the park very rarely these days.



Sadly the case, due to a number of incidents involving poorly trained and supervised dogs, which chased or attacked the horses. Quite a nice surface for running on though - makes a change from endless unforgiving asphalt and concrete.



So why not stick to cycling on the segregated cycle paths that you "can't recommend too highly" and leave the rest of us alone to enjoy the park? You seem to want it all, but there again, you obviously have a strong sense of entitlement.



They're fantastic for getting from A to B - but still require pretty close supervision when using them with young / inexperienced riders. Don't get me wrong - until they went in, it was flat out impossible to ride with kids in central London, so it's a massive step forward - but the park is an altogether more relaxing situation, as it should be.

wulfhound Wrote:

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


> Sadly the case, due to a number of incidents

> involving poorly trained and supervised dogs,

> which chased or attacked the horses. Quite a nice

> surface for running on though - makes a change

> from endless unforgiving asphalt and concrete.


Yes, Mrs.H's favourite ride from Dulwich stables, Gracie, was badly injured when in foal by a dog attack there.


Re the running/walking on concrete business, I entirely agree, this is what somewhat confounds me about the desire of people without tricycled kids or buggies etc to walk on the road anyway, when we go to the park as pedestrians the first thing we want to do is get the feel of grass under our feet!

Shaila Shah Wrote:

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

> One reason why I prefer the road rather than the

> pavement: the road is far more evenly surfaced. If

> you have any mobility issues, walking along an

> even surface is not only easier but also safer.


For sure, of course it's better for that and wouldn't dream of asking people with those issues not to use the road - but then I haven't asked anyone not to, just asked if they could leave a little gap for cyclists! There are also lots of nicely paved paths away from the perimeter road of course, round by the lake and the caf? and the lovely American garden where bikes are (quite rightly) not permitted.

rendelharris Wrote:

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


> There are also lots of

> nicely paved paths away from the perimeter road of

> course, round by the lake and the caf? and the

> lovely American garden where bikes are (quite

> rightly) not permitted.


The sign I've seen said hire bikes weren't permitted, nothing about everyday cyclists...

micky Wrote:

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

> its hard for a dog walker to walk in dulwich park

> at weekends with organised running events and

> cycling events. Every weekend.


Cycling every weekend? I don't go in for organised events, but Googling I can find the London Cycle Sportive starting in the park June 26th and nothing else.

red devil Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > There are also lots of

> > nicely paved paths away from the perimeter road

> of

> > course, round by the lake and the caf? and the

> > lovely American garden where bikes are (quite

> > rightly) not permitted.

>

> The sign I've seen said hire bikes weren't

> permitted, nothing about everyday cyclists...


Hadn't noticed that - well it should say all cyclists, I wouldn't dream of riding amongst the throngs around the pond and caf?, that certainly would be wrong.

rendelharris Wrote:

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


> Hadn't noticed that - well it should say all

> cyclists, I wouldn't dream of riding amongst the

> throngs around the pond and caf?, that certainly

> would be wrong.


There are other paths that circumnavigates those areas, with much less pedestrian traffic, so a total ban would be silly.

When it comes to cycling in any park, IMO it comes down to common sense and reading what's ahead of you. If you see a throng of people ahead of you, get of your bike and walk for a bit, or take one of the alternative paths etc etc...

red devil Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Hadn't noticed that - well it should say all

> > cyclists, I wouldn't dream of riding amongst

> the

> > throngs around the pond and caf?, that

> certainly

> > would be wrong.

>

> There are other paths that circumnavigates those

> areas, with much less pedestrian traffic, so a

> total ban would be silly.

> When it comes to cycling in any park, IMO it comes

> down to common sense and reading what's ahead of

> you. If you see a throng of people ahead of you,

> get of your bike and walk for a bit, or take one

> of the alternative paths etc etc...


We most certainly would, all I asked initially and have been repeating ad infinitum (or nauseam, if you prefer) is that on such a wide carriageway as in DP perhaps if walkers see cyclists coming towards them they could just make sure, as far as possible, they/their kids/their dogs don't stray in front of them - which 99% of people do. There are just the odd one or two, as exemplified by certain posters on here, who don't think cyclists should be allowed anywhere, who either carelessly or defiantly don't show any courtesy or inclination to share even when there's plenty of room for all.

red devil Wrote:

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

> That's life rendel, where/when in life do you ever

> get 100% consensus? There's far more important

> things in life to rub your worry beads about...


True indeed, all I did originally was post a polite request that we could all share - but when people answer, one tends to reply...especially if they start accusing one of being/doing things which are anathema to one's true viewpoint!

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...