Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone. It seems since the beginning of Covid I'm finding more people cycling on the pavements.

I'm not against cyclists but we only get kids learning and cycling along side parents who are on the road. But now I'm not only dodging scooters, dog mess and now I'm dodging bikes at speed whilst walking. The government pushed car owners into a tiny lane, made most bike lanes as big as a bus lane in Southwark yet cyclists go on the pavement. All the shops which have delivery collection such as Mcds,KFC,Pizzas and other restaurants seem to think park your bike on the pavement and then cycle on pavement. It's getting ridiculous and no one says a thing. Yet there is a big lane out on the road for them to use.

They say scooters cause accidents what about a bike.

Can the councillors not question Southwark about this?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/301711-cycling-on-pavements/
Share on other sites

It is easier said than done with young kids, especially as you need to get them to the park in the first place. Personally I'm not willing to let my 7 year old cycle on Lordship Lane so we either give up on the bike or there are stretches where he needs to be on the pavement.


I completely get your point, if there's a cycle lane, use it, and you certainly shouldn't be whizzing past people on the pavement and putting them in danger.

Adults of a certain ilk thinkg that because they are eitehr carrying tot (precariously but cutely) or shepherding them, they can ride on pavements, be it at night, day, when it's busy with lots of pedestrians or where it's a particulaly narrow stretch. It is called entitlement, selfishness or hubris, epithets they'd likely chuck readily and with a certain amount of venom at politicians, etc. whose own disregard for the rules somehow is different from theirs.

"I'm not only dodging scooters, dog mess and now I'm dodging bikes at speed whilst walking (...)" Totally agree. Add joggers, scooters, electric scooters, skateboards, electric skateboards, rollerblades etc. to the mix.


The pavements are - and should be - predominantly for pedestrians.

As a powerchair user I find cyclists on pavements scary. Young children with an adult are usually OK asadult will tell them to avoid me. However faast older cyslists send me into a panic as come, and dont know if coming towards me which side they will go,if behind me don't alwayas hear them.
What frustrates me is when you see people cycling on pavements on roads like Court Lane that have, ostensibly, been closed to traffic. The number of times I have been walking down Court Lane or only for a little cyclist to start ringing their bell to encourage me to move to one side as they and one of their parents cycle down the pavement.

Same in Dulwich Village, where money, time and effort has been spent on the *** (daren't say it) but cyclists still barrel through the lights - even the special, cycle-shaped ones - and cycle on the pavement from the Dog to the park, nearly always with requisite dog on lead or child in bucket seat, bobbing along, defying death in jaunty manner.

I don't make a habit of walking in bus lanes or cycle lanes so please don't think you can "just cycle safely because I am a responsible person" on footpaths. It is selfish and not necessary.

I've nearly been taken out twice by the same woman and her child on Woodwarde, in the closure times where there are no cars on the road to be seen. And there's another lady who rides her cargo bike down half moon lane on the pavement, again not during peak periods, and has forced me to step into the road several times without so much as a nod or a "sorry".

It's the ding ding of impatient cycling children and their parents approaching at speed from behind you on pavements and when there isn't a car in sight on the closed roads that really annoys.


Ding ding....bike coming through....move out of my way IMMEDIATELY....the problem is the actions of a few tarnishes the perception of everyone else.

This is sadly very dangerous at the moment. I?ve seen three different cyclists take nasty spills on court lane in the past few days. Each time it was male adult cyclists speeding over the traffic calming humps in the road.


The pavements and roads are covered in frost/ice in the mornings. Saw a little one slip down just this morning on the pavement as her younger sibling scooted and the childminder pushed the pram with an infant. All after they had emptied out of a car in the Court Lane cul de sac.


The hill is steep and icy. Pavements are meant to be for pedestrians. I?d advise parents who are cycling with their kids to have them get off and walk their cycles downhill. It isn?t safe especially in the morning. If the road isn?t safe for a stretch, then we were always taught to get off our bikes and walk for a bit till we could get back on the road.


Unfortunately, much of the parent/childminder and child cyclists and scooter groups I see are rushing around to get from one place to another and pretty oblivious to others on the pavements.


My favourite though is seeing the lovely parents parking their SUVs on Court Lane, popping the boot to retrieve a cycle or scooter and a dog and or a pram. This is then seen by the local ?Active Travel? and ?Clean Air? folks as somehow better for the environment and health of locals.

It is going to be very interesting how the Highway Code changes impact things. There was a lot made by the cycle lobby that they now have right of way at junctions etc over cars but what many failed to mention is pedestrians now have right of way over cyclists in the same situation.

I?m not a fan of SUVs either but if someone is parking on Court Lane with kids and bikes, there is a good chance that they are headed to the park. And herein lies the problem, lots of people, especially with kids don?t cycle on roads because there is insufficient cycling infrastructure to encourage people out of their cars altogether for local journeys. So they drive and add to the problem and so it continues. I can just about getting to Dulwich Park on a combination of quiet residential roads and LTNs but it?s still sketchy in parts and can be pretty stressful with kids in tow. I?m not sure which active travel supporters would seriously hail the example cited as an example of active travel to be celebrated, it?s a symptom of the problem they are campaigning against.


sand12 Wrote:

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

> This is sadly very dangerous at the moment. I?ve

> seen three different cyclists take nasty spills on

> court lane in the past few days. Each time it was

> male adult cyclists speeding over the traffic

> calming humps in the road.

>

> The pavements and roads are covered in frost/ice

> in the mornings. Saw a little one slip down just

> this morning on the pavement as her younger

> sibling scooted and the childminder pushed the

> pram with an infant. All after they had emptied

> out of a car in the Court Lane cul de sac.

>

> The hill is steep and icy. Pavements are meant to

> be for pedestrians. I?d advise parents who are

> cycling with their kids to have them get off and

> walk their cycles downhill. It isn?t safe

> especially in the morning. If the road isn?t safe

> for a stretch, then we were always taught to get

> off our bikes and walk for a bit till we could get

> back on the road.

>

> Unfortunately, much of the parent/childminder and

> child cyclists and scooter groups I see are

> rushing around to get from one place to another

> and pretty oblivious to others on the pavements.

>

> My favourite though is seeing the lovely parents

> parking their SUVs on Court Lane, popping the boot

> to retrieve a cycle or scooter and a dog and or a

> pram. This is then seen by the local ?Active

> Travel? and ?Clean Air? folks as somehow better

> for the environment and health of locals.

Rockets Wrote:

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

> It is going to be very interesting how the Highway

> Code changes impact things. There was a lot made

> by the cycle lobby that they now have right of way

> at junctions etc over cars but what many failed to

> mention is pedestrians now have right of way over

> cyclists in the same situation.


Rubbish, there is no priority for cyclists, all the new rules do is reiterate the need to treat cyclists with respect and don't cut them up or cut them off when they are vulnerable in the middle of the road (ie. treat them like a car).


You really need to stop relying on the DM for your information.


Rule H3:


"You should not cut across cyclists going ahead when turning into or out of a junction or changing direction or lane, just as you would not turn across the path of another motor vehicle. This applies whether cyclists are using a cycle lane, a cycle track, or riding ahead on the road and you should give way to them.


Do not turn at a junction if to do so would cause the cyclist going straight ahead to stop or swerve, just as you would do with a motor vehicle.


You should stop and wait for a safe gap in the flow of cyclists if necessary. This includes when cyclists are:


approaching, passing or moving off from a junction

moving past or waiting alongside stationary or slow-moving traffic

travelling around a roundabout?


As for pedestrians, the old rules said that a pedestrian should be free to cross as long as they have started to cross (ignored by some drivers who beep or ram you when crossing the road).


The new rules say that *waiting* pedestrians should be allowed to cross the road freely by stopping, zero chance of this happening with 99% of london drivers.

rachp Wrote:

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

> I?m not sure which active travel supporters

> would seriously hail the example cited as an

> example of active travel to be celebrated, it?s a

> symptom of the problem they are campaigning

> against.


The whole scenario has just been imagined for argumentative purposes. It's a straw man. 🤷‍♂️

Unfortunately, this is not near the court lane park gate. It is in effect a cul de sac on the other end of court lane down in the village. It is extremely dangerous at times as well when people are making three point turns in the limited space and dodging young cyclists as well as the speedy adults coming down the hill.


Some of these people are my neighbours and fellow parents in the village schools. So, it isn?t the beleaguered young mums trying to do the right thing by getting their kids to the park. You do occasionally see them, by the court lane gate, but usually they have prams or dogs.


The sensible thing to do would be to put in a CPZ around the Court Lane gate which I think is going ahead and the Court Lane Cul de Sac at school pick up and drop off times.


rachp Wrote:

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

> I?m not a fan of SUVs either but if someone is

> parking on Court Lane with kids and bikes, there

> is a good chance that they are headed to the park.

> And herein lies the problem, lots of people,

> especially with kids don?t cycle on roads because

> there is insufficient cycling infrastructure to

> encourage people out of their cars altogether for

> local journeys. So they drive and add to the

> problem and so it continues. I can just about

> getting to Dulwich Park on a combination of quiet

> residential roads and LTNs but it?s still sketchy

> in parts and can be pretty stressful with kids in

> tow. I?m not sure which active travel supporters

> would seriously hail the example cited as an

> example of active travel to be celebrated, it?s a

> symptom of the problem they are campaigning

> against.

>

> sand12 Wrote:

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

> -----

> > This is sadly very dangerous at the moment.

> I?ve

> > seen three different cyclists take nasty spills

> on

> > court lane in the past few days. Each time it

> was

> > male adult cyclists speeding over the traffic

> > calming humps in the road.

> >

> > The pavements and roads are covered in

> frost/ice

> > in the mornings. Saw a little one slip down

> just

> > this morning on the pavement as her younger

> > sibling scooted and the childminder pushed the

> > pram with an infant. All after they had emptied

> > out of a car in the Court Lane cul de sac.

> >

> > The hill is steep and icy. Pavements are meant

> to

> > be for pedestrians. I?d advise parents who are

> > cycling with their kids to have them get off

> and

> > walk their cycles downhill. It isn?t safe

> > especially in the morning. If the road isn?t

> safe

> > for a stretch, then we were always taught to

> get

> > off our bikes and walk for a bit till we could

> get

> > back on the road.

> >

> > Unfortunately, much of the parent/childminder

> and

> > child cyclists and scooter groups I see are

> > rushing around to get from one place to another

> > and pretty oblivious to others on the pavements.

>

> >

> > My favourite though is seeing the lovely

> parents

> > parking their SUVs on Court Lane, popping the

> boot

> > to retrieve a cycle or scooter and a dog and or

> a

> > pram. This is then seen by the local ?Active

> > Travel? and ?Clean Air? folks as somehow better

> > for the environment and health of locals.

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...