Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Understood Rendel!

>

> I think given what has happened in the last three

> months bicyclists are going to have to accelg

> finding safer alternative routes if they cant

> cross these bridges safely. It's for the greater

> good.


I suspect the barriers will be added to most bridges at which point alternative routes will be somewhat hard to find for cyclists. There's no other way for us to cross the Thames. On some bridges now, there are more bikes than cars at rush hour so perhaps we'll all have to think of the greater good and I hope most drivers will try to be more patient and avoid squeezing by riders on these narrower lanes. A sign or two like the use in roadworks to remind any others might be useful. Many of the pavements are also busy so even dismounting to cross isn't going to be easy.


I was looking at the segregated path on Vauxhall Bridge and thinking that the little kerb isn't going to stop anyone determined to cross it and I am not sure it's wide enough for those concrete blocks. It is a pity that the barriers weren't put on the outside as rendel says. Then again, these are apparently a tactical solution so perhaps anything more permanent will have a bit more thought. It's worth the LCC calling it out as a danger just to ensure whoever is deciding on future plans is aware.

ianr Wrote:

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

> The Southwark public notice announcing the Rye

> Lane plans is available at

> http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3

> 116/frequently_requested_traffic_orders. The

> actual TMOs are attached to the response to

> https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/en/request/traffic_

> management_orderplan_for. Or is the actual

> cycleway later than 2010?


Thanks for these leads, Ian.


I'll follow them up at the weekend.


I may even find out which Southwark Council employee was responsible.

I must say (sorry a bit off topic) that I can't really see the point of them anyway - the last two outrages have taken place partially on bridges so we must protect the pavements on bridges...there are many other areas of London with large vulnerable crowds, unless it's planned to barrier all pavements in the centre of town it has a whiff of stable door and bolted horse to me.
I have, frequently. I've also walked down Whitehall, around Trafalgar Square, through Bank etc at that time where there are just as many targets. I'm not trying to complain about efforts to keep us safe, I'm just saying I think any psychopath will simply go elsewhere and you can't wall off all of London's busy pavements.

Yes, rode over both Blackfriars and Vauxhall bridges yesterday and noted the ludicrous siting of the barriers inside the cycle lanes. The new entrance and exit bollards are absurd too, to stop even the narrowest car getting through (say a Smart ForTwo) they could still be 150cm apart, they're much closer than that. The most ridiculous setup is at the north end of Blackfriars, where three massive boat-shaped bollards have been dumped in the centre of the cycle lane with two more either side, with just enough space for one cyclist going in either direction. That must be chaos in rush hour, anyone tried it?


I know we have to protect against attacks, but this is way over the top and, it seems to me, pointless, defending the bridges on the basis that they've been used before. I mean, I rode over Westminster Bridge on Saturday, yes now an attacker can't get at pedestrians on the bridge, get over the bridge and there were massive crowds in Parliament Square with nothing to stop them being mown down. Similarly, they can't get at pedestrians on Vauxhall Bridge, on Sunday they could have gone on a few hundred yards and found massive unprotected crowds waiting to get into the India vs SA game at the Oval.


It seems cyclists are bearing the brunt of new measures when it's cars that have done the damage - I haven't seen a single preventative measure to slow or check cars on the road. If they were sensible and effective of course one would be obliged to support them, however inconvenient, but they seem to me ill thought out, kneejerk measures which will have little if any real effect on public safety.


I've written to TfL about this, will post if any worthwhile response is forthcoming.

The difference between the bridges and places like parliament square is that the traffic lights all around parliament square, the oval etc, and all the associated traffic congestion make it impossible to get a car up to the sorts of lethal speeds the terrorists managed to achieve on Westminster and London Bridges.


To say that the barricades will have "little if any real effect on public safety," is nonsense. Let's see how many more terrorists attacks are carried out in London by driving a car across a bridge and into a crowed of pedestrian. I think you know that it simply won't happen ever again because of these measures.

^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning during rush hour - was total chaos.

The queue backed up almost halfway.

There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern end who was there to presumably make sure no-one was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone.

Made me wonder what would have happened if the terrorists had used a bicycle instead of a van - perhaps all cycling would be banned?

Vehicular traffic is completely unaffected.

I get the need to protect people but this is poorly thought out, poorly executed and actually puts more people in danger of being hurt IMO.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The difference between the bridges and places like

> parliament square is that the traffic lights all

> around parliament square, the oval etc, and all

> the associated traffic congestion make it

> impossible to get a car up to the sorts of lethal

> speeds the terrorists managed to achieve on

> Westminster and London Bridges.

>

> To say that the barricades will have "little if

> any real effect on public safety," is nonsense.

> Let's see how many more terrorists attacks are

> carried out in London by driving a car across a

> bridge and into a crowed of pedestrian. I think

> you know that it simply won't happen ever again

> because of these measures.


Yes, quite possibly there won't be another attack on the bridges ? there'll just be an attack elsewhere. There are plenty of places where tourists gather that it would be possible to get up to a killing speed, especially with modern cars which accelerate so fast. On Sunday morning, for example, Westminster Bridge and Whitehall were almost devoid of traffic but there was still a large crowd, it wouldn't take much for a terrorist to work out the optimum time for an attack. When I say they will have little if any real effect on public safety I'm not claiming that the measures themselves are ineffective, I'm simply saying that attackers will select different targets: these sort of murdering psychopaths are hardly going to say oh dear, we can't make an attack on the bridges any more, let's call the whole thing off, are they?


And even if having barriers on the bridges is absolutely essential to public safety, there's still no reason for them to take away provision from cyclists when far more sensible and just as safe alternatives (which, incidentally, wouldn't inconvenience motorists at all) are available.

Beulah Wrote:

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

> ^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning

> during rush hour - was total chaos.

> The queue backed up almost halfway.

> There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of

> London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern

> end who was there to presumably make sure no-one

> was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone.

> Made me wonder what would have happened if the

> terrorists had used a bicycle instead of a van -

> perhaps all cycling would be banned?

> Vehicular traffic is completely unaffected.

> I get the need to protect people but this is

> poorly thought out, poorly executed and actually

> puts more people in danger of being hurt IMO.


Thanks for the information, I haven't sent my email to TfL yet so I will include that.

Beulah Wrote:

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

> ^I rode over Blackfriars Bridge this morning

> during rush hour - was total chaos.

> The queue backed up almost halfway.

> There was some ex-squaddie fat head - City of

> London PCSO type - near the gates at the northern

> end who was there to presumably make sure no-one

> was hurt - he was just shouting at everyone.


It was chaos yesterday afternoon too. I was on a 45 bus that took 20 minutes to crawl from Southwark Station to the bridge. Got out, walked and caught the 45 ahead of the one I was on.

The intent of terrorism is to disrupt and dismay. To change the way of life for ordinary people. If you consider what is happening to our roads, what already happens at airports and what we can take on board planes and so on, it is difficult to argue that the terrorists are not succeeding. True, we are far more p*ssed off than terrified, but we are definitely disrupted. The only good things are that an intent to create internal hatreds has only had a muted success - although the extent to which Brexit is a terrorist achievement would be an interesting one to argue..

taper Wrote:

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

> I went over Blackfriars this morning. As Beulah

> says, utter chaos. Three light changes to get

> through. It seems fine at the south end.


That's the other daft thing - they've blocked off the left turn onto the sliproad for the Embankment for the sewage works or whatever it is they're doing (which are going to take over a year, apparently - I wrote to ask if they couldn't have just left a small cycle lane open but no reply) but left the lights as if it's still open! As I don't usually cross at rush hour I get off and push over to the new, "temporary" cycle lane on the north side of the road, it's quicker than waiting for the lights. TfL, having given us unprecedentedly good new provision, seem hellbent on taking as much of it away as possible.

  • 2 weeks later...

Just for information:


Dear Mr Harris


Thank you for your online form of 12 June about the security barriers that have been installed on Vauxhall, Westminster and Blackfriars Bridge.


I'm sorry for our delay in responding to you.


The Metropolitan Police has installed barriers to increase security on London's busiest bridges. We are working with them to ensure that these barriers affect cyclists as little as possible and facilitate safe pedestrian access, while ensuring the security of all road users.


I understand that Blackfriars Bridge has been raised as a particular issue as the restriction on cyclists is quite severe and cycling groups have become involved. I have passed your concerns for each of the bridges to our teams working with the Police.


Please be assured we will investigate if any improvements can be made.


Thanks again for contacting us. If there?s anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can call us on 0343 222 1234 and we?ll be happy to help you.


Kind regards



Serena Richardson

Customer Service Adviser

Transport for London Customer Services

  • 2 years later...

I don't cycle much, not least because I am stressed by pedestrians walking in front if me eyes buried in a mobile. Then they complain that it's my fault for cycling on "pavement".

If i could find a way that avoided Rye Lane and the bit near Peckham Library.....

Cycling along Rye Lane is fine as long you go at an appropriate speed and obey the traffic lights. The buses manage to pass through there without colliding with pedestrians but invariably you see angry impatient cyclists overtaking buses on the pavement / oncoming cycle path at speed on both sides of the road.


This morning I was overtaken by 7 cyclists whilst stopped at the red light atvthe Primark end of the bus lane, all of whom had to avoid pedestrians crossing on a green man.

There is a short survey on Southwark Cyclists website about the impact of the Rye Lane closure for those who may want to fill in.


https://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/your-experience-of-the-rye-lane-closure/


Cycling on Rye Lane is getting worse every day. The designated cycle path is absolutely not fit for purpose for cyclists and pedestrians alike. Too many temporary traffic lights and buses further down make it an unpleasant cycling experience. Using Bellenden Road instead is an option but I find that it only really works well when heading north into town due to the one-way system.

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...