Jump to content

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Penguin68 said:
2 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

So in summary, people want to discourage bicycles.

Has anyone, anywhere on these pages, argued that.?

I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing and using a little comedic licence, but it's not far off:

6 hours ago, Happyme5 said:

I do not wish for cyclists to have more routes   crossing the road is impossible already.  Cyclists seem to think they can just take over roads

There are people saying they don't want bike lanes. and all over this section, suggesting that cyclists represent an almost unique and singular danger to pedestrians (obviously they can pose a danger, but one that is several orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by motor vehicles, which people seem to be completely blind to).

And of course, the same people obsessed with speed limits for pedal bikes, are the same that complain about police enforcement in relations to motor vehicles.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
5 hours ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I mean, obviously I'm paraphrasing and using a little comedic licence, but it's not far off:

There are people saying they don't want bike lanes. and all over this section, suggesting that cyclists represent an almost unique and singular danger to pedestrians (obviously they can pose a danger, but one that is several orders of magnitude smaller than that posed by motor vehicles, which people seem to be completely blind to).

And of course, the same people obsessed with speed limits for pedal bikes, are the same that complain about police enforcement in relations to motor vehicles.

I think using comedic licence to spread distortions of what has actually been expressed is just spreading lies with a smiley face.

Which posters have said they don't want any enforcement against cars that break the law, but do want enforcement against bicycles? 

Who has said they only want speed limits for pedal bikes?

Perhaps you were just insinuating all that for comedic value too?

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
On 18/02/2025 at 16:02, malumbu said:

So do you also think that there should be no new cycle paths until cycling standards improve?

No, I don't think cyclist behaviour should be a criterion. But I do believe that cycle lanes, which occupy limited road space exclusively, should be allocated based on volumes of usage, especially for routes which do not reflect main commuter routes, and additionally, where there are cycle lanes then cyclists should be restricted to use those only, and not additionally spill out into lanes used by powered users. Oh dear, restricting cyclists - that won't go down well... 

  • Agree 1

The least used cycle lane which I've seen is the one that runs along Sydenham from the roundabout at the top of the hill with the junction of Kirkdale to the other end with the junction of Crystal Palace Parade. I have never seen a single cyclist use it, what an absolute waste, of infrastructure and money. Seems some have no common sense and just follow the lead of oh, let's put a cycle lane in, even though no one will use it. Utterly ridiculous. Well done Lewisham Council, who I presume are responsible for it. All it actually does is reduce valuable road space and slow down traffic. 

And if the intention is to slow traffic to a snail pace, mission succeeded, if it is to annoy and frustrate other road users and passengers, mission accomplished. Did it save a life or make a difference, no, it's just inconvenient to everyone else. 

3 hours ago, jazzer said:

The least used cycle lane which I've seen is the one that runs along Sydenham from the roundabout at the top of the hill with the junction of Kirkdale to the other end with the junction of Crystal Palace Parade. I have never seen a single cyclist use it, what an absolute waste, of infrastructure and money. Seems some have no common sense and just follow the lead of oh, let's put a cycle lane in, even though no one will use it. Utterly ridiculous. Well done Lewisham Council, who I presume are responsible for it.

Sydenham Hill is under Southwark, rather than Lewisham, all the way to the roundabout at Crystal Palace parade.

I doubt very much whether this is being measured at all, by anyone and particularly not Southwark. They've put it in to meet the needs of their lobbyists, no doubt at significant cost (let alone on costs to those disrupted by it) - job done! It's just anecdotal that many people who use that road haven't seen any cyclists using it (indeed any cyclists full stop). However I don't use it during any morning or evening rush, the most likely time for use, so I can't be definitive. That's not a road I would like to cycle for the uphill sections, even when I wasn't a pensioner. 

It strikes me that a better solution would be to place the cycle lane in the green, making it a more enjoyable experience then cycling up a road, and completely segregating it from buses thus increasing safety for all. 

Granted a small amount of the green space will be sacrificed but it does reduce conflict between cyclists and buses using the same space and possibly a more enjoyable cycling experience.

But I guess that's too radical for the council

  • Agree 1

I just don't think more "cycle lanes" are the answer.   Better planning and forward thinking with proper planning / as I have said and legislation that makes us all as safe is needed.    Individual so called road improvements don't work for anyone. Eventually we will all be forced to use public transport or cycle.  Which really does not work for everyone.

Cycling is still very much a niche activity.  I'd like it to be the norm for many, but this is not going to happen without massive political change and investment.  Even in the Netherlands, where around half of commutes under 5km are by bike, 3/4 of overall journeys are by car,  Around 2% (DfT National travel survey) of journeys are by bike in the UK.  There are around 250 miles of cycle routes in London compared to over 9000 miles of roads.

So, no, were are not going to be forced to cycle.  And if we are encouraged to use public transport even more through soft and harder measures that is a good thing.

 

Edited by malumbu

If people are not going to start cycling in great numbers then it is hard to justify investment in further infrastructure when we have a cost of living crisis.
 
We also need to consider why more people are not taking to cycling. I think it is a combination of factors- geography, weather, crime. How are you going to change those?

  • Agree 1
Skip to main content
Peckham Rye Gyratory: Drop-in Session
26 February 2025 • 16:00 - 19:00
 

From "Peckham Rye Gyratory bus improvements"

Go to the project

large_611ec6ac-d8ec-4a4d-9108-41cfae5446

Your chance to come and view plans and discuss the proposals one-on-one with Project Officers.

Event date: February 26th, 2025 from 16:00 to 19:00.

26th  February 

16:00 - 19:00

 

Troy Hall

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
On 24/02/2025 at 08:09, first mate said:

If people are not going to start cycling in great numbers then it is hard to justify investment in further infrastructure when we have a cost of living crisis.
 
We also need to consider why more people are not taking to cycling. I think it is a combination of factors- geography, weather, crime. How are you going to change those?

More people have been taking to cycling. it's also worth investing in improvements to infrastructure for existing buses, pedestrians and cyclists, which this schemes seems to do.

On 18/02/2025 at 21:47, first mate said:

I think using comedic licence to spread distortions of what has actually been expressed is just spreading lies with a smiley face.

I haven't 'spread lies' what a ridiculous and offensive thing to say. There are people on here saying they don't want bike lanes / more routes for bikes and that 'Cyclists seem to think they can just take over roads'. The ambivalence to cyclists (often outright hostility) across this section of the forum is well documented. 

You have also said multiple times that you think cyclists are dangerous and called for the use of bikes to be more strongly regulated. You have even said:

"...if there were much greater numbers of cyclists I'd probably stop cycling. On the few occasions I have been out cycling and there have been lots of other cyclists on the same route it has felt quite dangerous and unpleasant"

For me to paraphrase that as some people not wanting to encourage more cycling, is hardly a stretch. It's certainly not 'spreading lies'.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • 2 weeks later...

Getting back to the topic at hand the final day for submissions is this week so please respond asap.

 

I've lived on the Dulwich, Peckham & Nunhead sides of the park over 20 years so feel well qualified to say that the plans though noble in aim, are ill thought out and will be inferior to the current layout in many respects.  The major issues I can see are;

  • Peckham Rye North East side rarely has delays of note, however closing it off for a bus lane to speed up journeys is disingenuous.  I see 3 reasons why.  Vehicles heading south will have less spread, leading to the backing up all the way to Rye Lane & Copeland road (All busses).  Vehicles heading north from Nunhead Lane, will only have option to turn up Peckham Rye west side (especially with Scylla plans) already the busier side, causing greater flow towards East Dulwich Road junctions between the two Park lights.  This section will be so busy that will also counterintuitively cause bus times (37, 484) to be slower.  Traffic crossing right will also have knock on issues for ED Road (West to East) where currently no real issue exists.
  • These plans cause all residents of Whorlton & part of Scylla to be isolated and forced to head north to the gyratory (right across the proposed lane)creating another unnecessary load, and again counterintuitively creating slow downs for the busses (37, 78 343, P12)
  • If there are roadworks on East Dulwich road, that we have seen a lot of in the last few years, then there is no redundancy in the system, causing all modes of transport to again be adversely affected.

I'm often a pedestrian, cyclist & motorist across this junction so am all up for real improvements, especially a resurface of the road.  Though this plan is anything but that, please make your thoughts known to Southwark today. 

https://engage.southwark.gov.uk/en-GB/projects/peckham-rye-gyratory-bus-improvements/surveys/new?phase_id=ee1dc2ef-9b4e-42af-b211-62cebdfe9fa7

Thanks

Edited by Listen up
  • Agree 1
4 hours ago, Listen up said:

Peckham Rye North East side rarely has delays of note

Then why do you think that directing this small amount of traffic up the west side would cause tailbacks all the way to where the road splits and beyond?

4 hours ago, Listen up said:

These plans cause all residents of Whorlton & part of Scylla to be isolated and forced to head north to the gyratory

If heading south along the west side of the rye there is a very small diversion turning right and going round, instead of left and straight on. If travelling north it makes no difference. If travelling east you’d go via Nunhead lane as now. It’s a tiny difference, to a small number of private journeys, in order to  speed up buses carrying a far greater number of people

4 hours ago, Listen up said:

If there are roadworks on East Dulwich road, that we have seen a lot of in the last few years, then there is no redundancy in the system, causing all modes of transport to again be adversely affected.

How is this altered by these changes? You don’t say and I don’t see it.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1

Overall there is a lot of good in this proposal, however the thing that I cannot understand is why the council uses two road signs and two different terminologies to represent the same concept:

  • Bus gates, with the blue road sign, indicating that only buses, cycles, emergency vehicles and taxis can enter at certain times
  • Road closures, with the red road sign, indicating that cars and motorcycles are prohibited at certain times

These two essentially represent the same thing, but I find it very confusing to have two sets of signs. The red sign which points to a prohibition / warning seems much more appropriate in order to inform the behaviour of drivers of cars and motorcycles.

That aside, I'm not sure the bus gate adds anything as the bit that currently gets very busy is the stretch of Peckham Rye close to Nigel road. It makes navigating the area harder without making much of a positive contribution (except fines). 

It also seems a shame that the cycle lanes at the top of Peckham Rye and on East Dulwich Rd are not connected. 

It would be good to see some more planting, especially the northern bit where they are removing two trees. This part of Peckham Rye is all concrete and pretty sad. 

And finally, I'd really like to see the council about the stretch of Peckham Rye in the town centre, which seems to be in much more urgent need of TLC than the one being addressed in this consultation. 

Screenshot 2025-03-11 at 17.44.49.png

  • Agree 1

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...