Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As there are so many whingy threads on this forum I thought I'd start one.  On the road the other day I saw three road users who didn't signal properly.  Delivery motorcyclist who thought they'd check their phone mounted on the bars before doing a fast left turn followed by a driver who indicated as they turned - pretty common experience.  Then a hire bike on the next junction that turned left without any sign.  All I would have needed is a pedestrian walking out on their phone to complete the quartet.  Lack of signals meant traffic from the minor road was held back.

So, there is no refresher training for motorists and bikers.  Once they pass their test the only likely future training is a speed awareness course.  Few go for advanced training and sadly IAM is considered fuddy duddy by many.

There is a commitment to free cycle training for all, but not enough money, instructors or unfortunately demand to role this out across the country.

And not sure how much training there is for pedestrians, do they still do stuff at school?

Me?  I've done advanced motorcycle training, eco driving and cycle training.  It's all about sharing the road and none of this manufactured road wars that has become an urban myth.

And hats off to the cyclist in central London who just clipped me as I dashed out between cars who smiled when I apologized rather than the barrage of abuse a younger me would have given.

So let's make this an ULEZ/LTN/CPZ thread, and avoid this road wars nonsense.  I know it may be difficult.

(Inspired by a rather entitled motorist yesterday who was ranting about having to give way at junctions to pedestrians)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/329760-road-user-standards/
Share on other sites

Firstly I don't agree that there are lots of 'whingy threads' on ED Forum. There are lots of things in the world going wrong and it's positive to discuss it.

Coming back to Road User Standards, there's plenty to complain about  -  especially lack of enforcement regarding  frequent speeding, illegal use of car horns, ridiculously loud music from vehicles, etc etc.

One thing that happened to me this week - I was driving in East Dulwich on Monday. A person on a mountain bike sped past on the inside and bashed my wing mirror hard. He looked back but speeded up instead of stopping. I followed him, but he clearly didn't want to discuss what happened, so I couldn't follow without engaging in dangerous driving myself.

Was it deliberate or an accident? Has this happened to anyone else lately? Hopefully not a new sport in the area.

36 minutes ago, malumbu said:

So, there is no refresher training for motorists and bikers.  Once they pass their test the only likely future training is a speed awareness course.  Few go for advanced training and sadly IAM is considered fuddy duddy by many.

There is a commitment to free cycle training for all, but not enough money, instructors or unfortunately demand to role this out across the country.

And not sure how much training there is for pedestrians, do they still do stuff at school?

The first (and last) time on this forum I recommended advanced training for motorists (ADI/ROSPA), road training for cyclists and even re-introducing the Green Cross Code for pedestrians, I was told that my ideas were "stupid"! 

Clearly I was talking to people who aren't prepared to learn anything new because they believe that they already know everything 😞

Therein lies the real problem. 

Purpose of this thread is to discuss whether there should be training, and subsequent training, for road users.  Pretty clear.  If you don't have anything to say then don't.

Cheers Rich and FHC for sharing your thoughts.  One of my issues is this manufactured war between road users, perhaps the major parties have a vested interest in maintaining this.  It would be better to campaign to encourage better sharing of roads, and the right behaviours, road positioning, communicating, observing.  Equally as applicable to pedestrians.  I don't buy this personal responsibility stuff, as many are simply ignorant (not aware).  I genuinely did learn from public information campaigns of the past even though easy to lampoon.  Views Rocks?

There are so many areas of life where more education may be required. Littering is one example. Why is is it that up and down the country there is so much litter on city streets, in parks and on pavements? I never quite understand the seeming compulsion to just discard, wherever you happen to be standing or sitting, once used. Is it lack of education or just laziness or something to do with our national psyche? 

 

You can get behaviour change without a big stick, most dog owners pick up poo, few smokers smoke in front of children or in a house with none smokers.  More can always be done, cool people don't litter and drive, cycle and walk considerably.  Even cooler blokes leave the seat down

On this I agree, so it is a shame that the council seem intent on using sticks and not carrots in terms of CPZ etc..

In terms of cool people don't litter and so on. Judging by the amount of litter there must then be a lot of 'uncool' people around. We have to consider what it is that makes you 'cool' and why so many people apparently are not? Oh and most blokes leave the seat up.

Ex - good point about public campaigns as I don't recall many of these and I'm pretty receptive.  Government does do national campaigns eg self assessment and billboards and YouTube do have an impact.  Not aware of any campaigns on men leaving the seat down....As climate change and falling biodiversity fack the planet up what a shame it becomes a political hot potato what a shame we don't have an 80s Aids type campaign - don't let your children and their children die of our ignorance.

Back to the subject - I did the cyclists in a HGV cab a couple of times which is quite sobering.  Safe Urban Driving is where truckers and cabbies spen a day on push bikes, great if that was rolled out to all road users 

 

 

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...