Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The standard of cycling on Crystal Palace Road this week has shocked me. I see that the "spine" words have been put on the road, so has the spine route only just been launched? Maybe the wording / cycle signs are giving cyclists a false sense of security that it's a cycle path rather than a busy residential road? Or maybe I've just witnessed more than my fair share of idiots this week.


In my walks up and down the street this week I've seen many, many cyclists with no lights on, including one who zipped through a narrow gap when a car was reversing into a space. Another yelled rudely at a lady who was crossing the road with her young daughter (and to be fair, I think they'd started crossing before the cyclist came around the corner). They fly across East Dulwich Road when the lights are red, both when the pedestrian crossings are on green man, or when East Dulwich Road has priority. And they seem to ignore the no-right-turn into East Dulwich Road, which is a hazard for oncoming traffic that wouldn't expect anyone to be turning right there. (OK, it's a pointless no-right-turn, but it's been there for years and everyone is used to it).


I guess most of these people are just passing through and would previously have been on Lordship Lane or Peckham Rye. It won't be long before someone complains that it isn't safe and results in more restrictions for local road users.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/299919-crystal-palace-road-spine/
Share on other sites

Don't...I just got off the train at North Dulwich and there was one lady in our carriage who was not wearing a mask - annoying enough I am sure you'll agree. She then proceeded to unchain her bike from outside the station and then cycled off with no helmet and no lights on Red Post Hill to the traffic lights and the on to Dulwich Village. A car trying to turn left at the lights nearly took her out as they had no way to see her as she had no lights. Some cyclists are an accident waiting to happen.
I'm sorry you had that experience. As someone who is a cyclist and cycles with family locally, I always dislike poorly behaved cyclists. I am similarly dismayed by the aggression of many car users towards cyclists following lockdown, its certainly gotten worse. I hope you keep an eye out for the more respectful bikers too! Happy walking 😊🚲🍃

You're absolutely right Rockets, there are bad eggs who drive cars and ride bikes, I've seen some silly pedestrians too.


Some people only see the bad cyclists though, and I can't for the life of me understand why that is...


By the way, if you are worried about hitting a cyclist as they are not lit up, wait until you hear about these 1.5 tn lumps of metal people have started leaving on the side of the road everywhere :)

People only see the bad cyclists because it is bad behaviour that could have bad results for cyclist and anyone unlucky enough to come into contact with them. Standard, acceptable behaviour is the base so nobody need comment on it.


I cannot understand cyclists who don't have light on their bikes, front and back, nor a bell. (Likewise, so many pedestrians, sometimes walking kids and dogs, have no reflective strip or badge etc. - stoopid.)


The upwardly mobile ones who go through red lights, especially en masse, but even when with kids as passengers is not a good look. And those who still insist on cycling on the pavement especially when new lanes, signs, crossings etc. have been put in for them is a particular bugbear.


Rules of the road are for everyone - including pedestrians - so yes, I do get miffed when others don't value their own lives as well as mine and others.

"Some people only see the bad cyclists though" - of course - you don't go to the cinema and remember the dozens of people sitting quietly and enjoying the film; you remember the two idiots who chatted and texted all the way through the film. The problem is that the number of cyclists hammering down Crystal Palace Road and weaving in and out of traffic and pedestrians has definitely increased lately. It's not all cyclists, but it's certainly more than it was and I'm not sure if it's the general return to work, or the designation of CPR as a cycle route that has done it.


And I agree that there's bad motorists around too - only yesterday I was just starting to overtake a stopped bus on East Dulwich Grove when the car behind me decided he/she could get by more quickly and overtook me while I was pulling out to overtake, nearly taking my front wing out. Shortly after that, a moped rider dashed across the entrance to Copleston Road while I was turning into it, across the pavement / pedestrian area and then the wrong way down the Oglander Road one way system.


And while we're on it (!) I don't understand why so many motorists won't pull into a space between cars on their side of the road when I've stopped there so that we can pass each other. Grrr.


So yeah, not just cyclists, but my point was about cycling on Crystal Palace Road getting worse, and I think it's a fair one.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I wasn't asking why is it some people see the bad cyclists, but not all the good ones?

Your cinema analagy works well to rebutt that, but it wasn't my point.


Moreso, why is it that some people see and complain about bad cyclists all the time, but much less so about bad motorists. Noted that you then go on to detail some poor car driving that you've seen. But it seems that there is a cohort that notice and complain about bad cycling much more readily - and this is in inverse proportion to the harm caused.

CPR Dave sums it up well. Although I agree with DuncanW that a bad driver could be a greater harm to a pedestrian, bad cyclists (not all cyclists) are a bigger menace on a day to day basis. Yes, I've seen cars driving through red lights on pedestrian crossings, but not dozens of cyclists, every day, every time I cross the road (which is how it feels sometimes).


There's also the case that motorists, good and bad, are always seen as the bad guys and, in the eyes of the various councils, cyclists are often put on a pedestal (granted, for some good environmental and traffic reasons). London has done a lot to make cycling safer over the past few years, often to the detriment to road and pavement space. So I think that pedestrians and motorists feel particularly aggrieved when bad cyclists flout the rules that are supposed to keep everyone safe, including cyclists.


A good example of this is the cycle superhighway up through the Blackfriars area. Buses now stop on the road side of the cycle path, so passengers have to cross the cycle path (which is VERY fast moving and you get shouted at) or walk up to the pedestrian crossings, just to get to the pavement. The pedestrian crossing has little traffic lights with bikes on, low down, so there's no excuse for not seeing them. Yet a large number of cyclists still charge through when pedestrians are crossing. Generally speaking, motorists don't shout at pedestrians to get out of the way when they are crossing the road and drive at them at full speed, but a lot of cyclists do.

@CPR Dave - are you taking the p**s or actually being serious?! "Cyclists are most often the biggest menace". I can assure the reason I don't let my young children play in front of our house is the likely threat of being killed by a driver... ...not a cyclist.


So, I guess, if you ignore:


1. The pollution that cars cause (I think there is another thread about 250 pages long about this - so best not go into detail here),

2. The fact that they kill c2000 people in the UK per year

3. The fact that they injure c150,000 people in the UK per year

4. The fact that every single road is given over them to park along on both sides - when did you last see a road without cars?

5. The traffic queues that they cause.


Apart from that I guess bikes are the biggest menace!!! Bangs head repeatedly on desk :-)

Walking, driving and cycling around, I?m constantly wondering how people passed their driving test (if indeed they have). This includes the imbecile who couldn?t do a three-point-turn on Townley Road last week and nearly hit a lady walking on the pavement. Utterly fed up to see cyclists blamed for everything all the time when the standard of driving around here is piss poor.

Let's be honest

It's not bad cyclists, it's not bad motorists, it's not bad pedestrians


It's simply because everyone feels time pressured and short cuts / risks are taken which then highlights an issue (be it bad overtaking, jumping a red light... )


There's no easy fix but in the 60s and 70s there where public information films about being respectful to other road users (these also included the green cross man / tufty) and maybe we all need a reminder that we all share the road and none of us own it ...


Now where's Steven Spielberg when you need him)

The latest TfL public info film got cancelled lest it upset certain people. https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/transport-for-london-pause-new-see-their-side-after-backlash-against-advert

Poor feelings MIGHT have been hurt so it was taken off air. All that money wasted...

@Spartacus - yes, but the effect of the bad ones is shockingly disproportionate. Just because everyone loves a good hyperbolic statistic:


Globally:

1. There are 1.35 million road deaths every year

2. Road deaths are the eighth highest cause of death for people of all ages

3. Road deaths are the number one killer of those between the ages of 5-29.

4. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists make up more than half of all road deaths (these road users are collectively known as vulnerable road users).


(https://www.brake.org.uk/get-involved/take-action/mybrake/knowledge-centre/global-road-safety)

Absolutely agree that the effect of bad drivers has much worse consequences than bad cyclists and this story (that someone posted elsewhere) highlights the absolute worst of some drivers. But it also demonstrates there are bad eggs on both sides and you can see that there were moments that both could have behaved better and de-escalated the situation.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/14/motorist-jailed-for-running-over-cyclist-who-spat-on-his-car?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2kdScweEgMq3rQIIPlOYqvs9ImMM3NiU_rmhRln4WEcSA7T4LQ6hqg27k#Echobox=1639485222


Cyclist hits car and cycles off

Car driver goes to remonstrate with cyclist about the damage caused to his car

Cyclist spits on man's car

Car driver loses it and uses his car as a weapon and, deservedly, goes to prison.

Frankly posts about bad cyclists don?t help. All they do is feed the anger of people with very little brains who think that the road belongs to them because they?re in a big metal box. Roads belong to everybody, everybody should be able to use them safely. True that cyclists should have lights. But so do cars. And they often don?t or think they need full beams and fog lights. 🙄 We can go on like that for ever. Frankly we all need to stop being dicks.
I wasn?t talking about your post, CPR Dave, which I hadn?t even read. Jumping the red at ED road is mind blowingly stupid. But for each cyclist doing this, there will be a pedestrian jumping in front of a bicycle or a car. Why this obsession with cyclists when cars and pedestrians are no better?

That's just rubbish. You *might* have seen one or two people doing that (although I doubt it).



CPR Dave Wrote:

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

> Cyclists have never bothered to stop at the red

> lights at East Dulwich Road. I've seen several

> rows there between cyclists going through red and

> pedestrians trying to cross the road with young

> children on a green man.

I see it every single day. Some go straight through across the road, some try to pretend they are pedestrians and cross in the direction of the green men, and there is one particular lady who cycles up the dropped curbs to go round the corner on one red light and then continue her journey off the the next dropped curb onto the road.


Every single day.

Yeah I had a cyclist yesterday go through red light on EDR while the ?pedestrians cross? walking man light was on for me and my dog.

He shouted me to get out of his way, but the other cyclists (I think, two of them) going through red at the same time didn?t shout at me.

It?s not all the time but it?s not rare either.

I am both a cyclist & driver & think like the other when I am out.


Last night, I was walking down upland, crossed the road & glanced behind me to make sure there were no cars. Out of nowhere (I'm not sure I would call him a cyclist, more of a guy skulking around on a bike) passed me with a glare. I said to him, "how was I supposed to see you? You are wearing black and have no lights?" He turned back & I was hit with a torrent of abuse. He told me he would box my face in. I answered back with a sharp comment not to be intimidated by him. When I reached North Cross Road, he was then on the pavement coming my way, so I crossed the road to avoid him.

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...