Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Thank you to everyone who stopped to help me when I was hit by very well know Pizza delivery moped on the zebra crossing on Peckham Rye/ The Gardens on Sunday evening. It is great to know that there are so many good people in the area.


I remember getting off the 63 then waking up on the crossing having my leg bandaged. Happy to report that after 23 hours in King's A&E I am on the mend. The young driver also ended up in A&E, as his breaks had failed. He said that he had also been hurt on on the same bike a week before, but the company in question didn't seem to bother. I have no doubt these delivery companies put their drivers under pressure to deliver and put profits over the driver and the public safety.


I for one am off food deliveries for good


Helen x

All for profit.


Yes, well, that is what living in a capitalist society is about. For most actual businesses profit is the key motivating factor. Profit, IMHO, is fine - there are issues about excess profits, of course, where market power allows you to exploit your suppliers (labour and goods) or your customers, but there is legislation to address this. Not always with much muscle or teeth, of course.


It is taxes on profits which (partly) pay for much of what we value in life, as well. Without profits you don't get some types of tax income.

The moped/ driver should have been insured - so there should be a claim on the insurance. If the moped wasn't insured then you may have a claim against the employing company. Even where the brakes failed (i.e. it was not driver error) there is an insurable claim. As you were quite severely injured the police should also consider prosecution if it can be shown that the moped was not properly maintained. (They should do anyway, but they tend not to bother when injuries are only slight, in my experience). However actions against two-wheel drivers always seem more difficult against those on 4 wheels.

Strewth Penguin, are you an apologist for big business?


They pay piece rate. They do not properly train their delivery people. Don't even ensure that theyuse lights at night let alone follow the highway code and the law.


Very much the unacceptable face of capitalism. A responsible government would address some of this.

Depends on what company you're talking about. Domino's has employees that are paid hourly rates plus maybe some kind of per delivery incentive, and the bike is provided by the employer. Deliveroo, Just Eat, Uber Eats etc - "gig economy" bullshit where the rider is supposedly an independent contractor, and the rider rents or buys the bike.


Whatever it is - the bike should be in good condition and ridden carefully.

Good point DKH, it's a shame we as consumers can't put more pressure on these businesses. If they were using slave labour we'd be up in arms. But most don't care about either the employment conditions, or that this contributes to road safety. Phew, just about kept to the topic.

He said that he had also been hurt on on the same bike a week before, but the company in question didn't seem to bother.


Reading the above it suggests that the rider was on a bike supplied by a third party - possibly the company for whom he was delivering Pizzas, possibly a delivery company. In either case, if the bike was faulty causing an accident then it is an Heath and Safety Issue - being an accident at work which must be reported. The driver being himself injured; the accident clearly did need reporting as a legal requirement - even where he was being treated as self-employed - the 'workplace equipment' was faulty (allegedly).


A company with faulty equipment not keeping an (accurate) accident register is breaking the law.


There are existing remedies within legislation to take action here, although the driver would be better placed for support if he was a union member (the union does not have to be 'recognised' by an employer to actively support a member in need).

If it’s domino’s, forget it!

They don’t give a toss!


I once had hand towel bits in my pizza, the attitude of the manager was shit to say the least!

(The blue paper towels you generally use to dry hands with)

I asked the manager if they use them in store, initially she didn’t want to tell me, but eventually told me they did!


I know someone who used to work in the dulwich branch, when I told them what happened, they told me the dulwich branch was the worst for hygiene!

Good point DKH, it's a shame we as consumers can't put more pressure on these businesses. If they were using slave labour we'd be up in arms. But most don't care about either the employment conditions, or that this contributes to road safety. Phew, just about kept to the topic.

 

It’s easy to put pressure on them - just never use them.

Likewise re not using them, but I’ve not even had a delivered takeaway from the local Chinese, etc. for at least 25 years and have never ordered an Uber or Lyft, etc. I think they’re exploitative though I know others say they’re a good form of self employment.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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