Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Chick Pea Wrote:

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

> Voyageur Wrote:

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

> -----

> > 'I will also continue to break the law by

> cycling

> > on the pavement when I believe my life may be

> in

> > danger on roads that are designed without any

> > thought of cyclists safety.'

> >

> > Yup - and nobody is going to stop you eh? It's

> > akin to talking to a brick wall. My only hope

> is

> > that you get hit with enough on the spot fines

> to

> > deter you.

>

> Hi V - it is perfectly possible and safe to cycle

> on the pavements but only when the pavement is

> pedestrian free and wide. Also Lady D is female so

> as far as I'm concerned that means she is a better

> ie more concientous rider than the male - yeah I

> am biased but that's based on expereince.

>

> Talking about cycle lanes, I noticed a few months

> back whilst driving to Crystal Palace Park that

> Southwark have installed an innovative new cycle

> lane along Dulwich Wood Park. Basically the

> pavement was widened and the outside edge coloured

> green with a white line that demarks pedestrian

> and cycle usage - cyclists ride on green bit.

>

> It's not all black and white.

>

> Edited for third time to add: I am not advocating

> pavement cycling just accepting that it is not

> always dangerous!


You're never going to get just the 'considerate' cyclists on the pavements unfortunately - the aggressive w*nkers are the one that cause the problem.



Lady D, this is the first time that I've been accused of making rediculous statemts. I can quite safely say that I go out of my way not to make rediculous statemts. Making rediculous statemts is something that I try to avoid. In fact it is part of my life's philosophy not to make rediculous statemts.


Or were you actually accusing me of making ridiculous statements? Perish the thought that I might not come up to your exacting debating standards which are very evident on this thread.

ZT, smart people can make stupid comments. Pointing out that a comment is rediculous, lame or stupid isn't insulting the person who made it. Even I, with my brain of Einstein, have made the occasional stupid comment which is usually subsequently pointed out by my kids.


Admit it was a crap analogy, swallow it and move on, is my sage advice.

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> "Changing the dominance of motorists in general,

> who are in turn dominated by the aggressive and

> dangerous motorist would not only benefit

> cyclists. It would have a beneficial effect in

> everyone else, as explained above quite a few

> times."

>

> I disagree.

>

> It wouldn't benefit those who have no choice but

> to use buses.


Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it would mean a less crowded public transport system as a whole.


> It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who would

> have to spend even more time trying to second

> guess whether erratic cyclists;


Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less congestion and journey times would decrease. Also there would be fewer cars on the road so it would be less likely there would be a collision with another car. Car-car collisions are considerably more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the safest road users in terms of the risk they pose and at being at fault in collisions. This is unsurprising as they are more at risk of being injured themselves so will behave in a safer fashion.


> -were going to pull out suddenly without

> signalling,

>

> - were going to weave dangerously in and out of

> traffic,

>

> - were going to shoot up the inside of you as

> you're trying to turn left,

>

> - would come shooting across a junction through a

> red light,

>

> - will suddenly ride off of the pavement and on to

> the road in front of you,

>

> - will cross the road from pavement to pavement

> without looking if any cars are coming (this one

> is hilarious- not only are they riding on the

> pavement, they still manage to annoy motorists by

> crossing without looking),

>

> - are cycling at night with no lights wearing dark

> clothes.

>


Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers do. They are the safest group of road uses in term of the collisions they cause and the risk they pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will be more reckless and more dangerous in a car.


> It wouldn't benefit pedestrians who already have

> to dodge enough cyclists on the pavement or

> 'share' multi-use tracks where cyclist believe

> they are king and don't have to consider

> pedestrians, or dodge cyclists sppeeding through

> red-lights.

>


Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to pedestrians? safety than a car driver does.


A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle instead means less population, less congestion, faster and safer journeys for everyone else.


>

> All of the above I see happen many times each

> week.

>


I see car drivers break the law many times every single day.


> This happens a lot already- an increase of

> cyclists, without extensive and serious education

> for cyclists is only going to increase this

> anti-social behaviour.


Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the driving test - this more than non-cyclists.

Most of those and mine have been posted on this(?) and other threads.


I agree we should all quote the authority for our posts (including the primarily anecdotally inclined anti-bike contingent) but it is a pain in the arse continually digging them out. I'm on my phone, so will perform a search later including links to the EDF posts where we've had to make all of these arguments many times before.


I'm attempting to enlighten, educate and change perceptions about something important to me, so, much as its a pain in the arse, I will get on it when I get a chance over the weekend. Unless of course any if the other bright sparks who are in this with me want up search their posts for evidence that they have also posted countless times before.


I really need a Dropbox document with all the links in one place.

Chick Pea Wrote:

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

> Can you please post the source of those statistics

> Henryb?


I will - I don't have it all to hand but I will collect and post back. I don't have time right now. As Lady D says it mostly here already or go any cycling website.


Just for the record I don't condone reckless cycling wherever it it - some cyclists are dangerous there is no doubt. However cyclists are not a monstrous other group of people who have a death wish and hate everyone. They are pretty much an even cross section of society who have just decided to get to A to B in a healthier, cheaper, less polluting and mostly quicker way.


Whenever I see a cyclist acting like a d*ck I think to myself - it is better they are on a bike or in a car or HGV?

I agree Chick Pea.


I was just being a smart arse and trying to get across the notion that it does get a bit tedious constantly having to respond to insccurate anti-cycling statements.


I do think, however, in general, the anti-cyclists are more often guilty of unsourced, purely anecdotal arguments which is frustrating if you set out your reasoned (i hope) arguments which are fully referenced.

henryb Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "Changing the dominance of motorists in

> general,

> > who are in turn dominated by the aggressive and

> > dangerous motorist would not only benefit

> > cyclists. It would have a beneficial effect in

> > everyone else, as explained above quite a few

> > times."

> >

> > I disagree.

> >

> > It wouldn't benefit those who have no choice

> but

> > to use buses.

>

> Incorrect. Buses are mostly held up by cars. More

> cyclists would mean less car congestion and bus

> journey would be quicker as a consequence. Also it

> would mean a less crowded public transport system

> as a whole.


Buses are not held up IN BUS LANES at the BUSIEST TIMES by cars, as CARS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN BUS LANES


>

> > It wouldn't benefit existing motorists who

> would

> > have to spend even more time trying to second

> > guess whether erratic cyclists;

>

> Again incorrect. They would also benefit from less

> congestion and journey times would decrease. Also

> there would be fewer cars on the road so it would

> be less likely there would be a collision with

> another car. Car-car collisions are considerably

> more dangerous and damaging for car drivers than

> cycle-car collisions. Cyclists as a group are the

> safest road users in terms of the risk they pose

> and at being at fault in collisions. This is

> unsurprising as they are more at risk of being

> injured themselves so will behave in a safer

> fashion.


At no point have i mentioned accidents, collisions, deaths. I'm talking about inconsiderate behaviour, irritating and making things more difficult for other road and pavement users. You can argue the point about accidents etc with conviction, but i don't see too many people arguing about accidents, injuries and death. Your statistics say nothing of incosiderate behaviour.


>

> > -were going to pull out suddenly without

> > signalling,

> >

> > - were going to weave dangerously in and out of

> > traffic,

> >

> > - were going to shoot up the inside of you as

> > you're trying to turn left,

> >

> > - would come shooting across a junction through

> a

> > red light,

> >

> > - will suddenly ride off of the pavement and on

> to

> > the road in front of you,

> >

> > - will cross the road from pavement to pavement

> > without looking if any cars are coming (this

> one

> > is hilarious- not only are they riding on the

> > pavement, they still manage to annoy motorists

> by

> > crossing without looking),

> >

> > - are cycling at night with no lights wearing

> dark

> > clothes.

> >

>

> Cyclists break the law a lot less than car drivers

> do.


When was the last time you saw a policeman pull up a cyclist for anything except for going through a red light? Just because police statistics show more motorists breaking the law, a cyclist is almost never pulled up for any myriad of (admittedly small) laws.


They are the safest group of road uses in term

> of the collisions they cause and the risk they

> pose to others. A cyclist is a lot less dangerous

> to pedestrian and cars drivers than another car

> driver is. Someone who is reckless on a bike will

> be more reckless and more dangerous in a car.

>

> > It wouldn't benefit pedestrians who already

> have

> > to dodge enough cyclists on the pavement or

> > 'share' multi-use tracks where cyclist believe

> > they are king and don't have to consider

> > pedestrians, or dodge cyclists sppeeding

> through

> > red-lights.

> >

>

> Pedestrians are more likely to be killed on

> pavement by a car than by a cyclist. More

> pedestrians are killed and serious injured by car

> drivers jumping red lights than by cyclists

> jumping red lights. A cyclist poses less risk to

> pedestrians? safety than a car driver does.



agsin, "killed", "injured" etc...not my argument


>

> A car driver deciding to not drive and cycle

> instead means less population, less congestion,

> faster and safer journeys for everyone else.

>

> >

> > All of the above I see happen many times each

> > week.

> >

>

> I see car drivers break the law many times every

> single day.

>

> > This happens a lot already- an increase of

> > cyclists, without extensive and serious

> education

> > for cyclists is only going to increase this

> > anti-social behaviour.

>

> Cycling is not anti-social. Making an unnecessary

> car journeys in an over crowded, polluted city is

> anti-social. 85% of cyclists have passed the

> driving test - this more than non-cyclists.


I'm all for people stopping unnecessary car journeys, but that's not the issue here. Some cyclists are anti-social, i didn't say CYCLING was anti-social.


Apologies for capitalising, but, you've twisted, exaggerated or stubbornly ignored nearly all my points from that long post to suit your argument.


The thread, points made and replies are all getting too confusing and muddled. I shall agree to disagree (until something says something i can't resist replying to) :-)

pablopuncheur Wrote:

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

> This debate should really be about responsible and

> considerate road users versus inconsiderate and

> irresponsible road users. The mode of transport

> they choose is irrelevant. A bad driver has more

> in common with a bad cyclist than they do with a

> good driver.

>

> Some folks just seem to think that the world

> revolves around them and you should bloody well

> get out of the way whether they're a pedestrian,

> cyclist or motorist. Unfortunately these debates

> always end up into peds v cyclists v motorists and

> we just go round and round in circles.


This puts it very well IMO. Was inspired to post following meeting a cyclist on the pavement coming towards me - him turning off London Road onto Wood Vale. Where the cars park up it gets pretty narrow and was fully expecting him to bowl past or keep coming (which drives me nuts). But he didn't. He stopped, waited for us to go past, then did the same again to let someone else come through with a pram. No fuss, no stress. And because he was so obviously respectful, someone walking the same way as him stood aside and let him cycle through. If every cyclist/pedestrian interaction worked like this, there would be a lot less stressing on both sides I suspect.

Henryb- is your wish that more people get out of their cars and on to their bikes?


Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for example, most people are in their cars because they need to be, whereas everyone else is already on a bike or on public transport.

At the risk of catching boatloads of flak...can I just say that we lived in Tokyo and I've got the mama-chari bicycle to prove it, and the reason why so many cyclists and pedestrians can get along together on the pavements there is plain old consideration for others. No one speeds, pedestrians look out for bikes and give way, and everyone gets where they are going safely. I cycle on the pavements here when I feel it is too unsafe or, frankly, inconsiderate, to drive on the road. If the pavement is practically empty, why should I slow down traffic or worry about cars passing me within inches on a narrow road. I go slow, I give way and if there is ever a situation where the pavement is too busy or too narrow for me to fit, I get off and walk it. On my current bike I take up no more room than a mum pushing a pushchair.


I just think everyone - motorists, cyclists and pedestrians - should try to think of others a bit more instead of their perceived right to the road/pavement/etc.

jesska Wrote:

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

> At the risk of catching boatloads of flak...can I

> just say that we lived in Tokyo and I've got the

> mama-chari bicycle to prove it, and the reason why

> so many cyclists and pedestrians can get along

> together on the pavements there is plain old

> consideration for others. No one speeds,

> pedestrians look out for bikes and give way, and

> everyone gets where they are going safely. I cycle

> on the pavements here when I feel it is too unsafe

> or, frankly, inconsiderate, to drive on the road.

> If the pavement is practically empty, why should I

> slow down traffic or worry about cars passing me

> within inches on a narrow road. I go slow, I give

> way and if there is ever a situation where the

> pavement is too busy or too narrow for me to fit,

> I get off and walk it. On my current bike I take

> up no more room than a mum pushing a pushchair.

>

> I just think everyone - motorists, cyclists and

> pedestrians - should try to think of others a bit

> more instead of their perceived right to the

> road/pavement/etc.



great post :-)

titch juicy Wrote:

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

> Henryb- is your wish that more people get out of

> their cars and on to their bikes?

>

> Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for

> example, most people are in their cars because

> they need to be, whereas everyone else is already

> on a bike or on public transport.



What constitutes 'need' rather than 'want'?

LadyDeliah Wrote:

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

> titch juicy Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Henryb- is your wish that more people get out

> of

> > their cars and on to their bikes?

> >

> > Because, I think at busy times, rush hour for

> > example, most people are in their cars because

> > they need to be, whereas everyone else is

> already

> > on a bike or on public transport.

>

>

> What constitutes 'need' rather than 'want'?


I'm thinking mainly of commuters going into town- which although covers a good chunk of morning traffic, i appreciate it's not all traffic.

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...