Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Oh of course the government instructions have said its ok so the virus will avoid you if are on permitted exercise. In less populated areas going for a run could be done without many interactions. The pavements of Lordship Lane do not fall into that category. If you have to run why not go to the parks where you can be avoided. As for your 'small minority', you cannot fit on most pavements and keep 2m apart. your reaction times to do so are less with joggers especially if it requires one of you to go in the road which it does. In 10 minutes out my window there were 45 instances of people passing within 2m of people they werent with. it is a significant number that could be avoided.

No Mako, the virus won't miraculously avoid me when I am running, anymore than it will when I am out walking or buying groceries... a bit lost as to what point you are trying to make there.



KK - that's fair, but have people said that exercise should be limited to jogging, I haven't seen that on this thread - have I missed it?

AylwardS Wrote:

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

> A suggestion for indoor exercise is to play a

> YouTube video and Wal/ jog /run on the spot. This

> link to a run round Central Park has been posted

> on a Facebook group I?m on

>


> e=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1tyulAMsyNEcx9n5gu10JBDaWcEQ

> ev-iTf3NiGed2LjCuJ3pNpvKRi-g8

>

> A playlist of music on your headphones while

> working out was another suggestion


I'm doing Couch to 5K from home, jogging on the spot replacing jogging in the streets

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> No Mako, the virus won't miraculously avoid me

> when I am running, anymore than it will when I am

> out walking or buying groceries... a bit lost as

> to what point you are trying to make there.

>

>

> KK - that's fair, but have people said that

> exercise should be limited to jogging, I haven't

> seen that on this thread - have I missed it?


The more you reduce interactions the better for everyone. You do not need to be pounding the pavements. All interactions you make jogging are entirely avoidable. People will die due to unnecessary encounters with joggers. Yes more will die from shopping but that is essential and not just 'because I want to'

I have a son who has had an operation on his lung.I am terrified of going out and have stayed indoors because of people's inability to understand how serious this is. I would love to go outside for a walk but don't. It's a luxury I can't afford.
I go out jogging in the evening after 8pm. Hardly anybody about, eerily quiet, and the only people you do see are either out for exercise too, or walking their dog. The roads are empty, so if you do see someone coming your way, it's easy enough to just run in the road and give them a couple of meters space. So... I think it's safe and I'm unapologetic TBH.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

> I go out jogging in the evening after 8pm. Hardly

> anybody about, eerily quiet, and the only people

> you do see are either out for exercise too, or

> walking their dog. The roads are empty, so if you

> do see someone coming your way, it's easy enough

> to just run in the road and give them a couple of

> meters space. So... I think it's safe and I'm

> unapologetic TBH.


I don?t think you?ve read the rest of the thread. No one is suggesting that people doing what you?re doing should be apologetic. The thread is about people who aren?t following the guidelines when they?re out jogging. And they most certainly should be apologetic but more crucially, stop behaving anti socially, ignoring govt and WHO directions and putting peoples lives at risk because of a sense of entitlement. If you?re not apparently agile enough - as some people are laughably using as a justification, as if a jogger?s momentum is as unstoppable as a bullet - to swerve and distance yourself from others while out jogging then you must stay at home. It?s as simple as that.

If you stay 2 metres away from others you can jog outside.

If you don?t, you must stay at home.

?If you?re not apparently agile enough - as some people are laughably using as a justification, as if a jogger?s momentum is as unstoppable as a bullet - to swerve and distance yourself from others while out jogging then you must stay at home.?


The point was that walkers are inevitably often caught off-guard, meaning they are out of control of their ?safety space?.

They have little time to react, is all.

That is, react to someone potentially infecting them against their will.

You know, the disease that kills people, that one, get it ?!

No-one is saying all walkers are cripples nor that joggers run at 1,700mph (speed of a bullet).

If you don?t agree with the proposition, no need for ridiculous extremes !

Though they are funny.

Kid Kruger I think we?re saying the same thing. If you?re out for a walk and respecting the 2 metre rule, it?s not ok for joggers to bear down on you panting and puffing and passing you by 30cm. Some joggers have tried to justify this behaviour by explaining that if you?re a jogger and you?ve got a bit of a wind up you and are really enjoying your momentum then it?s impossible or simply too much of an ask to expect them to compromise their momentum in order to adhere to the guidelines. The ?if you?re having a really great run it?s kind of tricky to be having to factor in whether you?re invading people?s personal space yeah?? Unless you?re Usain Bolt attempting to break the 100m world record or extraordinarily mal coordinated this is a complete nonsense. If you are walking and a jogger comes up behind you then it?s their responsibility to maintain a 2 metre distance from you and not be breathing down your neck.

What I dont get is why can't joggers walk to the park and then jog?

My boyfriend jogs and thats what he's been doing.

Frankly I dont get why joggers have to jog down the pavement huffing and puffing in our faces-I'm 60 and need my daily walk but its become quite stressful because of the inconsiderate few who choose to jog down the pavement (twice today I was the one who stepped into the road in order to maintain the 2m distance) and also those who cycle down the pavement.

its strange how oblivious some people can be to how serious this is-keep your bloody distance from strangers when you are outside your own home whether inside a shop on the pavement or on the street-someones life could depend on it.

Absolutely. Every walk I go on is an elaborate ballet of zig zagging around, walking in the middle of the road where safe, crossing the road multiple times a minute if necessary. In my experience the people who appear oblivious to this and just power on as if wearing blinkers and like no one else exists while people either scatter in their path or worse, don?t notice their approach until they?re right next to them and an infection risk, are joggers. I like to exercise - I like to jog - but it hasn?t occurred to me that this means I?m not included in the rules. It?s mental.
experienced this yet again this evening on pavement at Peckham Rye- runner on phone running straight at my son and I, forcing us into road, and we still weren't quick enough to make the 2 metres. Ran on oblivious.Cant a runner be alert and just run on the spot till correct distance is negotiated between those involved? Dare I suggest its time the government made a specific appeal to runners and cyclists , and /or the local police,(who I've seen turning up the other evening at the Rye), were more " on it ". Apologies in advance to the many who are observing the guidelines, but these threads have shown it is a maddening and dangerously persistent problem with a significant proportion of runners that just isn't going away.

OK hello sailor, with you now and completely agree x


hellosailor Wrote:

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

> Kid Kruger I think we?re saying the same thing. If

> you?re out for a walk and respecting the 2 metre

> rule, it?s not ok for joggers to bear down on you

> panting and puffing and passing you by 30cm. Some

> joggers have tried to justify this behaviour by

> explaining that if you?re a jogger and you?ve got

> a bit of a wind up you and are really enjoying

> your momentum then it?s impossible or simply too

> much of an ask to expect them to compromise their

> momentum in order to adhere to the guidelines. The

> ?if you?re having a really great run it?s kind of

> tricky to be having to factor in whether you?re

> invading people?s personal space yeah?? Unless

> you?re Usain Bolt attempting to break the 100m

> world record or extraordinarily mal coordinated

> this is a complete nonsense. If you are walking

> and a jogger comes up behind you then it?s their

> responsibility to maintain a 2 metre distance from

> you and not be breathing down your neck.

hellosailor Wrote:

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

> I don?t think you?ve read the rest of the thread.

> No one is suggesting that people doing what you?re

> doing should be apologetic.


I don't agree, someone is saying "there's no excuse if you have a garden". Which I find absurd. It's all about avoiding crowded areas and times of day, and giving everyone plenty of space.

Yup. There are joggers on this thread and another near identical thread on this forum explaining how it?s really rather tricky to traverse other people if you?re really ?in the zone? on a good old run. These same individuals, we have to assume, manage - somehow - to press the wait button at a pedestrian crossing and jog on the spot for a second rather than helplessly dart into the path of a juggernaut because they?re so lost in their own momentum that they can?t take steps to avoid being killed instantly.

Essentially what these people need to do is just to take a moment to consider that the lives of people who they don?t know are as important and valid as their own.

Would you sprint across a road without checking if there was a risk to your life even if it slowed down your run? No.

Do other people feel the same about their own lives? Yes.

hellosailor Wrote:

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

> Yup. There are joggers on this thread and another

> near identical thread on this forum explaining

> how it?s really rather tricky to traverse other

> people if you?re really ?in the zone? on a good

> old run. These same individuals, we have to

> assume, manage - somehow - to press the wait

> button at a pedestrian crossing and jog on the

> spot for a second rather than helplessly dart into

> the path of a juggernaut because they?re so lost

> in their own momentum that they can?t take steps

> to avoid being killed instantly.

> Essentially what these people need to do is just

> to take a moment to consider that the lives of

> people who they don?t know are as important and

> valid as their own.

> Would you sprint across a road without checking if

> there was a risk to your life even if it slowed

> down your run? No.

> Do other people feel the same about their own

> lives? Yes.


Exactly.

I don?t think it?s helpful to pit pedestrians against runners. It should be about everyone treating each other with respect and following the government guidelines. I?m a runner and go out of my way to do so carefully, I cross the road if I see pedestrians ahead, run into the road or a drive if I need to avoid someone and if that?s not possible to do so safety whilst running,I stop entirely and move out of someone?s way. The govt guidance is clear that daily exercise is permitted and it?s essential for physical and mental health so it would be a shame to ban it entirely. Most people are being respectful but I?ve seen bad behaviour on both sides. I saw a male runner spitting in dulwich park yesterday, I was absolutely horrified. But I?ve also seen families walking 3 or 4 abreast on the pavement making absolutely zero effort to make space or go single file. I?ve seen mums with toddlers weaving all over the middle of a path making it impossible to pass safely, even when I?ve asked I have been ignored. We just all need to be a bit more self aware. Blanket fury at a whole group is dangerous and unhelpful. There?s nothing wrong with ?joggers? in and off themselves, it?s thoughtless people that are the problem. I think London is probably just too densely populated for so many people to be out walking / exercising so often the stress isn?t coming from individual behaviour but just being confronted with how difficult it is to be outside and avoid contact.
You hit the nail on the head with your last sentence. For those in densely populated areas relinquishing lengthy exercise sessions outside of the home are a sacrifice we should all try to make for now. It is quite simple really. You have not said this, but others seem to feel justification for pursuing their individual exercise agendas is supported by the fact that not so many people are out exercising. A stance I really cannot get my head round.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

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

> hellosailor Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I don?t think you?ve read the rest of the

> thread.

> > No one is suggesting that people doing what

> you?re

> > doing should be apologetic.

>

> I don't agree, someone is saying "there's no

> excuse if you have a garden". Which I find absurd.

> It's all about avoiding crowded areas and times of

> day, and giving everyone plenty of space.


Presumably you agree that fewer interactions less than 2m means less infections and less deaths and less terrified pedestrians, and more people less scared to do their shop for fear of these interactions. Presumably you agree that if you exercise in your garden then interactions are reduced therefore lives saved. Doesnt seem that absurd to me. If you have to jog, do in parks. I see literally no need to do it on narrow pavements in busy areas such as lordship lane beyond selfishness and self entitlement.

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...