Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Two police officers were stopping cyclists where Rye Lane begins (opposite the library/arch), and where lots of cyclists ride on the pavement. It looked like they were issuing fines.

Cyclists tend to get to the end of the (admittedly naff/camouflaged) cycle lane and then not follow the curved bit but dash across the pedestrian bit but the police were having none of it.

This sort of negative policing toward cycling is really counter productive in my opinion. Such a dick move as it's really confusing what's meant to happen there, because you are allowed to cross that pedestrian crossing. The whole section is a clusterfuck of pedestrians, prams, shopping trolleys and all sorts of crazy things you see on rye lane which only adds to the confusion.


I saw the same thing happening on the newly opened segregated cycle lane back from Blackfriars one night: it was in a part that is completely industrial buildings and there was a red light at a bike crossing. No one was in sight, let alone going to cross the 1 meter section of cycle lane; it was well past midnight, you know like the dead of night sort of thing. The police were watching the few cyclists slow down at the line and then go through it. At which point 5 coppers would jump out, take them out of sight of the cycle lane and fine them, with more waiting to catch the next one to come along. Luckily I stopped and didn't just carry on like I normally would so had no problem, even though they did look ruefully toward me. Yes yes I know rules are rules and all that crap, but no harm would ever come of that particular situation; no one was gunning it through the lights or anything. To think there were 5-10 cops about made me feel it was a waste of time and they could probably be out policing real crimes in the area.


Great way to raise some money I reckon, that's all.

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Two police officers were stopping cyclists where

> Rye Lane begins (opposite the library/arch), and

> where lots of cyclists ride on the pavement. It

> looked like they were issuing fines.

> Cyclists tend to get to the end of the (admittedly

> naff/camouflaged) cycle lane and then not follow

> the curved bit but dash across the pedestrian bit

> but the police were having none of it.


Thanks for the heads-up...I never use that cycle lane anyway but carry on round the road and up Bellenden Road, simply because it's so poorly designed it's always full of pedestrians and then down Rye Lane nobody really knows what bit's for cyclists and what's not.


Still, good to know that the boys in blue have got their priorities straight, not as if nearly 10% of cars in SE London are being driven without any insurance...

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Two police officers were stopping cyclists where

> Rye Lane begins (opposite the library/arch), and

> where lots of cyclists ride on the pavement. It

> looked like they were issuing fines.

> Cyclists tend to get to the end of the (admittedly

> naff/camouflaged) cycle lane and then not follow

> the curved bit but dash across the pedestrian bit

> but the police were having none of it.


Maybe pedestrians have been knocked down by cyclists dashing across the pedestrian bit?


So something needs to be done.

Personally if they're going after cyclists (which I agree is probably not the best use of police resources) I'd rather they found a way to get guys like the one who went through two red lights at the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Rd while the green man was showing and I was crossing with my six year old kid and ripped past us at high speed.


When I yelled at him that he'd gone through red lights he just yelled back that he didn't care. Classy.


And yes, I know that cyclists are a lot less dangerous than cars in general, but at that moment it didn't seem so.

I'm all for increasing cycling in London. I'm all for pragmatic and reasonable policing towards cyclists. But when I experience lunacy like jumping red lights it makes me less sympathetic to other 'indescretions'.


But I admit I might be influenced by my kid nearly getting knocked down at what is already a dangerous junction.

alice Wrote:

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

> http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?2

> 0,1624090,page=1

>

> an excellent suggestion was made in a previous

> thread


No Alice, it wasn't an excellent suggestion (how big is your ego, by the way?!) and most people who posted disagreed with it. I particularly liked one very succinct response:


alice Wrote:

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

> I have had a great idea. but would it be popular?


No you haven't. No it wouldn't.

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> Personally if they're going after cyclists (which

> I agree is probably not the best use of police

> resources) I'd rather they found a way to get guys

> like the one who went through two red lights at

> the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich Rd

> while the green man was showing and I was crossing

> with my six year old kid and ripped past us at

> high speed.


They drive me (more) insane - if you ever see me out on the streets I'm easily identifiable as the mad middle-aged bloke on a bike shouting "red light, you ****" at cyclists who ride by me as I wait for the lights to turn green. I'm all for police nicking them (though not in the ridiculous circumstances outlined by Dirac above). However, this sounds more like a sting operation by police to catch people crossing five yards of pavement at a stupidly designed intersection.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Personally if they're going after cyclists

> (which

> > I agree is probably not the best use of police

> > resources) I'd rather they found a way to get

> guys

> > like the one who went through two red lights at

> > the crossroads of Peckham Rye and East Dulwich

> Rd

> > while the green man was showing and I was

> crossing

> > with my six year old kid and ripped past us at

> > high speed.

>

> They drive me (more) insane - if you ever see me

> out on the streets I'm easily identifiable as the

> mad middle-aged bloke on a bike shouting "red

> light, you ****" at cyclists who ride by me as I

> wait for the lights to turn green. I'm all for

> police nicking them (though not in the ridiculous

> circumstances outlined by Dirac above). However,

> this sounds more like a sting operation by police

> to catch people crossing five yards of pavement at

> a stupidly designed intersection.


I have seen you and applaud you.

" Yes yes I know rules are rules and all that crap, but no harm would ever come of that particular situation; no one was gunning it through the lights or anything."


It's this attitude that fosters dangerous road use by both vehicles and cycles. Rules are rules. End of.

Rendleharris wrote

>>Still, good to know that the boys in blue have got their priorities straight, not as if nearly 10% of cars in SE London are being driven without any insurance...


True but it's a case of targeting groups in small batches rather then trying to solve all crime across the capital in one go. This week cyclists breaking the rules, maybe next week uninsured drivers... Sadly the police are stretched thin and it's a case of targeted operations, normally following a complaint from the public or a directive from higher up...


Personally I think it's a good thing to target cyclist as their light jumping antics will get one of them Killed one day soon and then who gets the blame ? The cyclist for jumping the light, the driver for hitting s cyclist or the police for not enforcing the rules ?

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

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

> " Yes yes I know rules are rules and all that

> crap, but no harm would ever come of that

> particular situation; no one was gunning it

> through the lights or anything."

>

> It's this attitude that fosters dangerous road use

> by both vehicles and cycles. Rules are rules.

> End of.


Not only that, but it antagonises people and further harms the reputation of cyclists as a larger group.

There are lots of discussions on here about particular streets, junctions, crossings etc. and one thing that is clear is that perception of risk and historical statistical risk are often very different - lots of near misses and not feeling safe generally does not necessarily correlate with actual accident numbers. Just using accident data, I suspect any enforcement exercise targeting cyclists would be less efficient than almost any comparable exercise targeting motorists. On the other hand, it's never going to be helpful if one section of road users are essentially immune from enforcement - there needs to be some deterrent.


So, some targeted enforcement activity specifically in relation to cyclists is probably a good thing, to make people actually safer, and so that they feel safer. The problem with doing it at this junction is that (as already observed) the underlying problem is the design and layout, so handing out tickets for a week or two is unlikely to achieve anything much at all.

The the condition of the cycle lane is terrible - it's falling apart with missing kerbs stones filled in with tarmac. The whole thing is poorly designed, including the lampost that sits right in the middle of the start of the lane from the crossing. When you put lanes on pavement as shared space, you encourage cyclists to share the whole space.

I think the best thing is to redesign that bit of Rye Lane and get rid of the hardly-visible cycle path, or refit it with a kerb so that it is seen only as a cycle lane. That area is confusing to pedestrians, some of whom I have seen apologetically get out of the way of speeding cyclists, thinking wheels have priority!

(On a separate note, having a child on the back of your bike or chaperoning them does not allow parents the right to cycle on footpaths, which will confound a fair few mummies and daddies.)

alice Wrote:

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

> commuter cyclists in a pedestrianised area does

> not work. Couldn't they track it through the bus

> station somehow


It's not a pedestrianised area, it's a bus and cycle only road - it's badly designed and needs sorting out but Rye Lane is not a pedestrian only area.

I would prefer to see them tackle the persistent loiterers who congregate in the area drinking high strength larger and seemingly only able to communicate in swear. Also one of the "shops" on the other side constantly noise pollutes, one can't even make out what the ludicrous sounding lyrics are, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were vulgar and similarly influencing any passing impressionable youngsters in an undesirable manner.

Lucky me. Been on holiday for a week so missed being tugged by the OB. They have done this in the past. Yes we are a bit naughty but in the scale of things it is pretty near the bottom. The Council people were out doing it the other day so I told them to be useful and stop the pedestrians aimlessly walking across the cycle lane. But at the end of the day it is not a bad route and I never witness any rancour between pedestrians and cyclists (more likely to get bike on bike).


Now, I'd already started thinking about more pressing issues before looking at the post above. But why don't they do more useful things like... catch criminals.... of more relevant do a few fines for cyclists without lights. Ideally a warning first for idiots like me who at this time of year forget that the nights are drawing in.


They could also do the buses for mounting the cycle lanes and the numerous double line parkers.


And those idiots on quad bikes and motorbikes.


And the people who bloke the path by the library selling stuff or doing God bothering.


And every other miscreant whilst they are at it.


This started as a gentle post and now I've become Angry of Mayfair. And I was so chilled after my hols too...

malumbu Wrote:

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


> But why don't they do more useful things like...

> catch criminals.... of more relevant do a few

> fines for cyclists without lights. Ideally a

> warning first for idiots like me who at this time

> of year forget that the nights are drawing in.


Second that in spades, the number of people in dark clothing on expensive bikes with black helmets who can't be bothered to spend ?10 on a couple of flashing LEDs...suicidal. Noticed my rear light battery had expired the other day, late at night, walked nearly a mile until I reached Greendale cycle path, not from any sense of virtue but because I don't want to end my days as a chalk outline on the South Circular...

That bit at the bottom of the lane is ridiculous. It just doesn't flow, which makes it tempting to cut the corner.


As has been said, the "cycle lane" itself needs marking out and also repairing. I had no idea you could cycle there until I actually started riding. I'd happily walk along the pavement/path without realising.


Understand it needs sorting, but I'd be better if they listened to calls to them re men in cars deliberately driving towards cyclists threatening to knock them down!!

I've ranted about the cycle lane before - even if it was bright orange I am sure that it wouldn't make a difference. But to be fair I've walked into other cycle lanes in the past as it doesn't seem to be in our culture, for example like Denmark and the Netherlands.


As for the kink at the end, it is a pain and does't flow, but then nor does that daft contraflow/gyratory at the Elephant. My main point is that I've not seen any bother between cyclsts and pedestrians in Peckham beyond the odd middle class do-gooder campaigns about our speeds on the canal path. The only conflict I had was when another cyclist got so close to me I clipped a pedestrian - I was the only one bothered as I wished the other cyclist a nice day. Not.


Given up on the damage. Road is too narrow so buses mount the cycle path. Raised it with Southwark but their reply was "am I bothered"


I'd defend cyclists to the hilt but then realised that it seemed to be cool to wear black, on a black bike with no lights.

Ooh, ooh, thanks for the heads up! I find that bit tricky to negotiate- having inched my way through the pedestrians and other bikes at the crossing I admit I often then find my way over the path to the cycle path bit as to follow the cycle path around seemed very awkward. I didn't know I was doing a crime!


I find Rye Lane can be a bit of a minefield with pedestrians, other cyclists (generally more scary than the pedestrians as they weave around me and over take me with little space), motorists and buses.


I take it very slowly and constantly watch for people stepping out, particularly in amongst parked buses.


If the cycle path was painted green like the rest of it that would help pedestrians be more aware maybe? Before I started cycling I was guilty of walking out in the way of cyclists as I hadn't anticipated they would be coming down there.

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...