Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just because you have experienced it doesn't mean it happens as often as you claim it does, either. But I cede the field, if you're determined to insist that the pavements of ED are thronging with mad packs of kamikaze cyclists, so be it. I must be really lucky in the times I go walking not to see any.
You're using extreme examples but these things are daily regular occurrences. Just a few each day is more than enough. I use the ED Road junction several times a day at differing times from really early till really late so have come to expect it. Lots of occurrences in the newly bus free Rye Lane too, particularly at the lower end where they are currently working on the road.
Funny thing, I've just walked a 3.5 mile loop through the middle of ED - including through the junction you mention - to go and feed a friend's cat. I kept an eye out; middle of rush hour so I counted (give or take a few) around seventy cyclists. One was riding on the pavement - a six-year-old girl with mum riding in the road alongside. To be completely unbiased, I saw several light-jumpers (almost as many as I saw jump the lights in cars) but the swarms of pavement-riding maniacs were conspicuous by their absence. Having a day off, maybe?
Today I sat outside a cafe in Dulwich Village and saw two cyclists on the pavement. Yesterday I saw three. It happens and it's annoying and selfish and very, very rarely necessary. I also saw pedestrians crossing unsafely and cars speeding. It's not just one group that's acting badly.

I quite often see cyclists on the pavement.


What really pisses me off is when it's a grown man and there's virtually no traffic on the road.


WTF?


Timid cyclists in the rush hour cycling on the pavement I can understand (a bit).


Off topic, but I was on a 185 today and a cyclist was nearly run over by the bus. She began to step off the pavement with her bike without looking, and the bus was literally (and in this case I literally mean literally) about 30cm from her. She wasn't at a crossing. She just didn't look to see if there was anything coming ......


I was looking out of the top deck window and I'm amazed (and relieved) I didn't witness a very nasty accident. She saw the bus just in time .....

malumbu Wrote:

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

> But to return to the subject, someone has already

> done this for you https://road.cc/content/news/234564-six-our-favourite-anti-cycling-rants-and-complaints-2017

>

> I wont paraphrase the stories and the clue is in the title


The title being "Six of our favourite anti-cycling rants and complaints from 2017". I don't know what the article says; I opened the link just to post the title.

And here's another one (link to the Daily Mail)


https://road.cc/content/news/213909-10-most-hysterical-anti-cycling-daily-mail-headlines


The best title is Precious Moaning and Tetchy - Cyclists are the new women


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420957/LIZ-JONES-Precious-moaning-tetchy--cyclists-new-women.html


And here goes the quote


As my taxi driver, taking me to the first London Fashion Week show on Friday morning, remarked (as several cyclists cursed him loudly with added hand gestures, for pulling over, which he did carefully): ?Cyclists are the new women.


?Never pay for stuff, always moaning, and get really upset if you pull out quickly.?


In their defence I expect that journos don't believe the crape they have to write, and may well do it tongue in cheek, albeit that it is very offensive.


Anyway thanks for this thread, it has taken me away from Brexit and filling in my tax return

malumbu Wrote:

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

> This morning I saw the great big yellow and orange

> fire ball come up over the horizon.

>

> Then later these droplets of water fell from the

> sky.

>

> Then it all went dark.

>

> Biblical or what? Did anyone else see anything

> amazing?


At it again? Your posts are bonkers most of the time - why bother?

My apologies if my posts are unclear. Essentially I don't understand this irrational hatred of cyclists.


I cycle 80 to 100 miles a week. Most of the time without serious incident. I see well behaved cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers, vans drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers. All sharing the space courteously. At times I share a joke with some. At times having a disagreement, but long ago learning how to avoid road rage being the vulnerable party.


If I were to rank those who are most likely to cause me an issue, probably young males in hot hatches, but not exclusively. Not routinely bus drivers, white van drivers, or cabbies. Those on scooters doing the knowledge used to be annoying but not so much nowadays.


Once every so often I shout at a fellow cyclist for not looking or inicating, or being on the phone and not showing any attention, or the worst of red light jumpers ie cycling 15mph with people crossing. I'm more likely to shout at someone with no lights, or luminosity at all if driving "please get some lights"


The biggest danger by far to cyclists is pedestrians just walking out without looking.


So onto more serious matters we are killing the planet. Selfish drivers who consider they can drive what they want, whenever they want, where they want and how they like are a major contribution. I'm happy to take a few naughty cyclists as collateral in order to get more of us out of our cars.

malumbu Wrote:

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

> The biggest danger by far to cyclists is

> pedestrians just walking out without looking.


Yeah, interaction between pedestrians and cyclists seems a little problematic, particularly in central London.


I think in reality we need a bit of behaviour modification on both sides. Pedestrians DO need to be more careful... I think a lot of us rely too much on audible cues, instead of looking properly. But at the same time, it's not reasonable for cyclists to turn into side roads at full speed, and shout at any pedestrians who happen to be crossing at the time. (Drivers are taught to give pedestrians right of way in this situation... cyclists need to do the same).

Biggest danger of death and serious accident is in deed motorised vehicles (my apologies as a scientist with a good grasp of evidence and stats). Higher likelihood of collisions in an urban area is with pedestrians,walking out without looking often distracted by headphones/a mobile screen. I try and anticipate both but a driver on a mobile phone is usually obvious from positioning and the like. Walking around Covent Garden the other day 90% of people seemed to be looking at their phones (OK that was a pedestrianised area)
That?s why I feel the cycling ?community? (I?m assuming such a thing exists, as it were) is the best forum to address the issue. Pressure from one?s peers is more likely to be effective than any pedestrian or driver yelling at them.


As @rendelharris said in the post below the one I've quoted, there isn't really such a thing as a "cycling community" anymore than there is a driving community or a train-travelling community. You often get some shared interest type stuff, especially on social media and you might all share a "moment" when your train breaks down and people are forced to start talking to each other(!) but once it's sorted, you all trot off without a care in the world. you've had a breif bonding moment but it's not a "community".


I don't really get the red light thing either - anyone jumping a red light (whether it's a pedestrian nipping across between cars, a cyclist nipping across during the joint red phase etc) - so long as they're not directly harming anyone it's generally not a real problem. No-one wants to be hit by a car or bike, no-one on a bike wants to hit anyone else either and as traffic lights are generally put there to control the large heavy lumps of vehicle, they may not always be suited to controlling people - be that people on foot, on bike or on skateboards. After all lots of countries allow cyclists to turn right on red (and USA allows it for cars too) or to treat red lights as a give way and there are not hoards of people being knocked flying nor hoards of cyclists ending up dead.


Sometimes it can actually be beneficial - there was a wonderful in-depth study in Germany where cyclist behaviour was observed for a while at several junctions and it as noted that there were hundreds of red light infractions but none of them resulted in any danger to the cyclists or to third parties and it was also noted that motorised traffic generally flowed better when the cyclists simply got out of the way in advance. Situations where large groups of cyclists obeyed the lights (the classic "everyone else has stopped so I will too") actually resulted in slower traffic flow ovrall as everyone got going again when the lights went green. That's why those cyclist advanced stop boxes should really only be used in conjunction with advance light phases for cyclists (as at the JAGS / Alleyn's junction on East Dulwich Grove).

I didn't say I did it, I posted several reasons as to WHY people jump lights (and actually it applies to pedestrians nipping across on the red man, cyclists RLJing and drivers RLJing. The MANNER of RLJ is very important. Pedestrians and cyclists will (generally) look all ways, ensure it's safe and then "nip through", perhaps only to a mid-way traffic island. Drivers RLJing (generally) do it by what is politely termed "amber gambling" where you see the light change and floor it.


Clearly there's a vastly different level of danger to both the RLJer and any other road users to those various cases of RLJ. Ultimately, traffic violations (by drivers, cyclists and pedestrians) are the result of poor infrastructure that eithr enables that behaviour or in some cases actively encourages it. If you've got a set of lights at a crossing where you have to stand for ages, you'll be more likely to "nip across" through a gap in traffic than if the lights changed more regularly or gave a longer crossing period. Same with cyclists. If the lights change at ocne and the big HGV behind you starts to turn left, it stands to reason that some cyclists might voluntarily choose to self-remove from that danger by "anticipating" the lights a bit.


You can mitigate that by intorducing what should be there already - advance traffic phases for cyclists.


Similarly when you see a cyclist on the road instead of on a cycle path. Rather than thinking "bloody law breaker, he shoud use the bloody path that my taxes have paid for" it might be an idea to examine WHY the cyclist is not on the cycle path. Chances are it's becasue it's shit in which case it's again a failing of the infrastructure, not a failing of the cyclist. It's a fascinating topic actually - mix of psychology and traffic engineering.

Wow. So many straw man arguments that plainly there?s no point with you.


Whatever mate, whatever...red lights are the law of the road and nothing you can say will change that. If I?m crossing on a green an a cyclist comes through on a red then I?ll remind myself that you said it?s ok.


ETA - I find the idea that a road user - of any hue - can be trusted to jump a red ?when it?s safe? as it were to be laughable in its thoughtlessness. If you?ve done it once you?ll do it again, and again, and then one day you?ll do it when it isn?t so safe...

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...