Jump to content

Recommended Posts

just got back from Lidl in Peckham and there was a young man stuck under the rear wheels of a large tipper truck that had been turning left into Bellenden rd from Peckham rd Bike was crushed he seemed ok but trapped.

Sorry to upset anyone but just compounds the need to be careful if you find yourself alongside one of these lorries.

I saw the truck and the crushed bike, too (the chap was not there any more).

Has any one seen what happened?

Did the truck driver swerve to the left without signalling? Did the cyclist try to undertake him while he was turning?

Other than signalling in advance, I don't really know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid cyclists!

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> I saw the truck and the crushed bike, too (the

> chap was not there any more).

> Has any one seen what happened?

> Did the truck driver swerve to the left without

> signalling? Did the cyclist try to undertake him

> while he was turning?



Really? What if the truck (as has been detailed in several inquests on those killed in this sort of instance) had a clear view of the cyclist ahead but instead of letting him go ahead across the junction tried to speed up and cut across him.


> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really

> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid

> cyclists!


That's as daft a statement as it's possible to make. Truck drivers have no responsibility to avoid hitting cyclists beyond signalling? Incredible.

They've started work in earnest on the old Highshore school site and I spotted four large dumper trucks parked nearby this morning on my way to work. I'm expecting the same with the work going on for the new Heath Centre and school on East Dulwich Grove. A definite need for heightened awareness from all.

@flocker spotter, do you know what actually happened? I don't. If you do, please clarify.


What do you mean by 'pretty basic stuff'? Maybe the driver swerved to the left, without signalling, and hit the cyclist who couldn't have known the truck decided to turn at the last moment. Maybe the driver had signalled well in advance, and the cyclists didn't notice it or decided to risk it anyway. The possibilities are endless. Again, do you have any reasons to believe one of the many possibilities is more likely?


@Rendelharris, specifically what steps, other than installing CCTV on the sides, and those 'stay back' signs, do you think truck drivers should take to look out for cyclists? If the driver had a clear view of the cyclist, then he's a bloodthirsty assassin and I don't think there is much to comment. Why do you mention it? Do you have any reason to believe this is what happened? I struggle to see the relevance of mentioning evidently stupid and criminal behaviour by a category of road users unless you know specifically that is what happened; the world is full of idiots, every category of road users has its fair share, what does mentioning generic idiotic behaviour achieve?


On a related note, it still beggars belief how many cyclists and motorcyclists fail to understand that they must stay the hell back from large vehicles. I am not a truck driver - I say this as a motorcyclist. We road users on two wheels (and 3, counting the Piaggio Mp3 and the like), regardless of whether we have an engine or not, are the most vulnerable road users, and must ride accordingly, i.e. defensively, which means assuming that all the other road users are brain-dead idiots ready to kill us for no reason other than their idiocy. I ride a powerful and loud (not illegally loud, but clearly louder than a bicycle) motorcycle, which means that, compared to a pushbike, I am more likely to be seen and/or heard, and I have an incredibly better chance to accelerate away from an unexpected danger. Yet I always stay the hell back from big trucks and the like. I overtake them only if the road is straight and they couldn't possibly turn anywhere. Why on Earth do not all cyclists and motorcyclists do the same? No, this does not mean minimising the responsibility of the truck drivers who behave with criminal negligence: it means accepting the banal truth that we are the most vulnerable and must behave accordingly, taking the necessary precautions.

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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


>

> @Rendelharris, specifically what steps, other than

> installing CCTV on the sides, and those 'stay

> back' signs, do you think truck drivers should

> take to look out for cyclists? If the driver had a

> clear view of the cyclist, then he's a

> bloodthirsty assassin and I don't think there is

> much to comment. Why do you mention it? Do you

> have any reason to believe this is what happened?

> I struggle to see the relevance of mentioning

> evidently stupid and criminal behaviour by a

> category of road users unless you know

> specifically that is what happened; the world is

> full of idiots, every category of road users has

> its fair share, what does mentioning generic

> idiotic behaviour achieve?


You love to accuse me of putting words in your mouth, so I won't do that. These are your exact words:


> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really

> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid

> cyclists!


How does this not imply that any cyclist is to blame for any bike/HGV collision as long as the truck signals? Your many posts on here prove that you are fanatically anti-cyclist, I just wish you'd be honest about it rather than pretending you're not. There has been an accident with a left turning truck wiping out a cyclist, you weren't there, nor was I, but you have assumed it's the cyclist's fault. It's worth repeating once again what you said:


> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really

> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid

> cyclists!



You are beneath contempt.

Hubby was a cyclist so as a car driver I am very wary when driving of other cyclists. Coming up from LL to the Plough traffic lights, I indicated and was in the correct lane to turn left into Barry Road. Just as the lights changed a cyclist drove up on my nearside and proceeded to cut in front of me to go straight ahead. I spotted him at the last minute and slammed on the brakes. There are many good cyclists who are aware of what is going on around them, but unfortunately many are utter wallies.


Hubby has been a cyclist since a teenager (now in his 60s) and remembers very clearly being taught you stay behind other vehicles and give them enough space to that if the indicate a turn you have time to stop. Also never go alongside a large vehicle as they cannot always see you in their mirrors.

@rendelharris, you continue putting words in my mouth. You really can't help it. I specifically asked if anyone knew what happened. I said the possibilities were endless, that maybe it was the cyclist's fault, maybe it was the driver's fault, we just don't know. I specifically said:


> Maybe the driver swerved to the left, without signalling, and hit the cyclist who couldn't have known the truck

> decided to turn at the last moment. Maybe the driver had signalled well in advance, and the cyclists didn't notice it

> or decided to risk it anyway. The possibilities are endless. Again, do you have any reasons to believe one of the

> possibilities is more likely?


Please enlighten me: how is this assuming it was the cyclist's fault? I shall be looking forward to your explanation.


Just to be clear: I was commenting about my experience of the road in general. I cannot comment on the specifics of the case because I do not know what happened; again, maybe the cyclist was at fault, maybe the driver was at fault, I have no idea, and I have no reason to believe one hypothesis is more likely than the other.


If a truck signals well in advance, I find it extremely stupid and irresponsabile if a cyclist or motorcyclist undertakes or overtakes the truck. I repeat, I say this as a motorcyclist. Does this make me... what? A fanatic? Of what? Why? I repeat, I say this as a motorcyclist, and I think that anyone on two wheels, regardless of whether they have an engine or not, who does this is an idiot who puts his/her life at risk. Again, what is so outrageous about this opinion? You don't agree? If not, why? Do you think it is wise for a cyclist or motorcyclist to undertake or overtake a large vehicle which has signalled? Please elaborate.


I am not a lawyer nor a policeman. I honestly do not know what the law says about a cyclist or motorcyclist who undertakes or overtakes in those circumstances. I am simply a motorcyclist who has been both cautious and lucky enough never to have an accident in about 10 years of riding. All I know is that, regardless of what the law may or may not say, undertaking or overtaking a large vehicle which has signalled or just before the road turns left or right is extremely stupid and irresponsible.


> You are beneath contempt.


Personal insults are the last resort of those who cannot reply to very specific and detailed points.

@rendelharris, as usual you avoid replying to very detailed and specific points. Congratulations.


You accused me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. I showed when and how I said I had no idea what happened, nor whose fault it was. Is it too much to ask that you acknowledge you were wrong? Probably yes, right?

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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

> @rendelharris, as usual you avoid replying to very

> detailed and specific points. Congratulations.

>

> You accused me of saying it was the cyclist's

> fault. I showed when and how I said I had no idea

> what happened, nor whose fault it was. Is it too

> much to ask that you acknowledge you were wrong?

> Probably yes, right?


So did you or did you not say this:


> Other than signalling in advance, I don't really

> know what a truck is supposed to do to avoid

> cyclists!


If you didn't then I'm happy to have a debate with you. If you did then you're not worth my metaphorical breath. And you did say that, no words being put in your mouth or anything else.

Thanks for posting L&W. My youngest son and I went past this moments after it happened and have been wondering how he was ever since. Poor guy - so glad to hear he's ok.


L&W Wrote:

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

> Leg injuries, but not life threatening.

>

> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/peckham-cras

> h-cyclist-rushed-to-hospital-after-collision-with-

> a-lorry-in-peckham-high-street-a3517221.html

@rendelharris, you accused me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. I never did; in fact, I showed very clearly how I said I had no idea whose fault it was. Are you ready to admit you made a mistake, yes or no?


You accused me of being a fanatic. I explained very clearly why, as a motorcyclist, I consider cyclists and motorcyclists who don't stay the hell back from large vehicles as idiots who are putting themselves in great danger - danger which could be easily avoidable. To reiterate: I talked about a category I belong to myself. Does this make me... what? An anti-me? I asked if you agree or not and why; I asked what is so fanatical about this statement. Your silence has been deafening.


As for your other question, yes, I did say that I am not sure what truck drivers can do, other than signalling well in advance. To be clear, just in case there is any doubt, this does not mean drivers should close their eyes, signal, and then turn with their eyes closed. Of course they must pay attention, drive sensibly, etc... all common sense stuff every road users should always be doing. What I meant was that I don't think there are specific 'silver bullets', magical solutions.


Some of the larger vehicles play very loud recordings: "this vehicle is turning left/right". This clearly helps, but I am not sure it would be indispensable if other road users paid attention to the signalling lights. I have not seen a single large vehicle without the customary "stay back" sign, which helps, even though it would be totally unnecessary if the roads were not so filled with idiots. I suppose some vehicles will have smaller blind spots than others, but I'd still expect the blind spots of large vehicles to be significantly bigger than those of a car. I know there are initiatives to give truck drivers the perspective of a cyclist, eg by getting truck drivers to cycle in central London for a day. I think this helps; in fact, as a motorcyclist, I strongly believe all road users should go through the experience of riding in central London on two wheels, whether motorised or not; however, I do not think it would be a silver bullet. The only thing I can think of which would make a big difference would probably be installing CCTV on the sides of the vehicles to eliminate most of the blind spots, although it would be interesting to understand if this is permitted or if the law would consider watching what happens laterally a distraction.


Of course I may be wrong. I am not a truck driver and have no experience whatsoever driving large vehicles. I fully appreciate there may well be other things I have neglected to consider, which a truck driver should specifically do, and which would make a material difference. This is why I asked you what these could be. If I made a mistake, I will gladly admit it. So I ask you again: what are these other steps that truck drivers should take? If you were a truck driver, what exactly would you do before turning left, if there is a non-segregated cycle lane?

DulwichLondoner Wrote:

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


> Of course I may be wrong. I am not a truck driver

> and have no experience whatsoever driving large

> vehicles. I fully appreciate there may well be

> other things I have neglected to consider, which a

> truck driver should specifically do, and which

> would make a material difference. This is why I

> asked you what these could be. If I made a

> mistake, I will gladly admit it. So I ask you

> again: what are these other steps that truck

> drivers should take? If you were a truck driver,

> what exactly would you do before turning left, if

> there is a non-segregated cycle lane?


Oh God, I don't know what on earth a truck driver could do! Stop, check down the side of their vehicle, see if there are any vulnerable road users on their inside before turning left, stay back any time they see a cyclist ahead of them...no, that's madness, obviously. Go and have a look at the coroner's reports into most of the recent HGV/cyclist deaths over the last few years and see where the blame was apportioned.


What would I do if I was a truck driver before turning left? Make f0cking sure I wasn't going to run over a cyclist, that'd be a good thing to do, no?

I notice that you still cannot admit you made a mistake in accusing me of saying it was the cyclist's fault. Oh, well...


You have also not explained what would be so fanatical in saying that cyclists and motorcyclists should stay back from large vehicles. Oh, well...


What you have described (stop, check, etc.) is just responsible, common sense behaviour that should be followed by every road user. Have I maybe ever said that drivers should turn without checking? Come on, I know that putting words in my mouth is your favourite pastime, but this is ridiculous.


I don't have access to the coroners' reports of HGV/cyclist deaths. Do you? Are they public record? The only public record I know of is a report by the Metropolitan police or TFL (the MET does the classification; I don't remember which body publishes the report) classifying collisions into a number of categories; I remember that, for cyclists, a significant number of collisions fell into the category of the collision described in this post, but I don't remember reading any statistic on whose fault it is. Do you have any data on this? Bearing in mind, of course, that single cases are utterly irrelevant and statistically meaningless.


TFL has a 'safer lorry scheme', which is about installing specific mirrors, which provide a greater field of view, and side guards to protect cyclists from being dragged under the wheels in case of a collision.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/deliveries-in-london/delivering-safely/safer-lorry-scheme.


Large vehicles have big blind spots. If al cyclists stayed back from large vehicles, overtaking them only well away from bends and turns, the number of collisions would plummet.


At intersections like those between Bellenden road and Peckham road it is sensible for any driver, especially those of large vehicles, to come to almost a complete stop before turning. Not doing so would of course increase the chance of hitting a cyclist in the blind spot. Whose fault it would be if this were to happen would of course depend on the specific circumstances; nothing changes the fact that staying back from large vehicles reduces these risks considerably. In other circumstances, instead, like changing lane before turning, coming to a complete stop is neither feasible nor desirable, because it would block the traffic creating a number of other hazards.


On a related note, more training would help. It is not feasible (although I would consider it appropriate) to require some kind of licence for cyclists, but it should be in everyone's interest to provide more training, eg in schools or at the workplace. Let me make an example with motorcycles: in the past you could ride certain motorcycles with just your car licence, as many continental Europeans still can (I think up to 125cc). The UK abolished that and introduced the CBT (compulsory basic training) as a requirement for holders of a car licence to ride 125cc scooters and motorcycles. The change was prompted by the high number of deaths among inexperienced riders, which apparently plummeted after this measure was introduced. I say 'apparently' because I do not have specific statistics. I am sure some of those deaths were caused by other road users, and of course losing control of a motorcycle is easier and more dangerous than losing control of a pushbike, still, the concept that letting inexperienced road users on the road is dangerous, and that training reduces the danger, seems rather reasonable and straightforward.

I am glad the poor cyclist is OK and hope his injuries aren't life-changing. Let's not speculate on blame until we have more information.


However, I would say that I am a very careful cyclist and try to give large vehicles a wide berth wherever possible. I don't scoot down the side of them and if they stop beside or behind me, I move forward so that I'm not in their blind spot. But I've had a couple of close shaves with HGVs - both when their drivers chose to overtake me at stupid points on the road. On one occasion, if I hadn't heard the engine revving to accelerate and chosen to brake and stop, I'd probably be dead as the trailer's rear wheels would have swiped me off my bike. Just as there are reckless or naive cyclist out there, some professional drivers also leave a lot to be desired.

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...