Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,


Did anyone see a man running away from Bellenden Road, just near the junction with Choumert Road about 0945, today 14th May? I saw some pretty cowardly behaviour when a skateboarder _on the road_ had an upset and caused a lady on a scooter some pretty nasty damage. Had there been another vehicle around, it could have been much worse.


The guy in question was skateboarding fast down Bellenden, when he sort of "flipped" the skateboard which went flying under the wheels of the lady's scooter who was unlucky enough to be behind him. Fortunately she (the motorcyclist) wasn?t very seriously hurt, but was cut, bruised, and pretty shaken. Unfortunately, the bike however had been damaged, and when she suggested he was liable he said he would provide his name but he wouldn?t pay for the damage. When the motorcyclist got on the phone to the police he ran off. He was in his early 20s, white, reasonably well spoken, about 5?10, with a maroon sweatshirt, and a skateboard with fluorescent yellow top.


Having seen this, I chatted to the lady and heard all of the above, and it turns out that she probably can't claim because she's only got third party insurance. Pretty bad that someone should wind up hurt and out of pocket because of some ones reckless arrogant stupidity, and cowardly behaviour to run off, and not just man up and offer to pay what he could.


Anyway, be careful out there. :-/

pinecone Wrote:

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


> Pretty bad that someone should

> wind up hurt and out of pocket because of some

> ones reckless arrogant stupidity, and cowardly

> behaviour to run off, and not just man up and

> offer to pay what he could.


Indeed, and if you have their details, there's nothing to stop you suing them for the damage regardless of your insurance.

He shouldn't have been skateboarding on the road. That was an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully the description above is good enough that someone will know or recognise him. More and more road users are now attaching cameras to their vehicles and it's not hard to see why.
A skateboard is not a vehicle. It's completely stupid to use it on a road, especially when vehicles are using that road. Vehicles are required to have insurance. Some cyclists also have insurance (just in case they cause an accident). It's not ok to cause an accident and run off. If a driver does that, it's a criminal offence. He's liable at least for the damage to the scooter.

There is the following bylaw in Southwark....


Skateboarding etc


3. No person shall skate, slide or ride on rollers, skateboards or other self-propelled vehicles on any footway or carriageway in such a manner as to cause danger or give reasonable grounds for annoyance to other persons using the footway or carriageway.

Pokertime - you're right. How dare he ride on the road, he should know his place and it's not holding up upstanding tax-paying motor vehicles. And per your bylaw, he shouldnt have been on the pavement either. Ban skateboards. And bikes. And pedestrians. Then we can have more space for cares and motorbikes to get around safely.


(we can't understand the circumstances from one post, but it sounds like the scooter was too close to the "vehicle" in front and couldnt stop in time when he fell off. Had she been in front and a lorry behind, then I dont think we'd have the same reaction)

All we know for facts is the scooter was behind the skateboard, could have been in the middle of the lane and not directly behind preparing to overtake, anything really. We then know the skateboard "flipped", so could have gone directly backward, sideways, or at any angle between them. We also know the skateboarder wasn't in control of the board.


Not long ago there was a phase when I went past a lad every day, presumably on his way to school, on a unicycle. The situation described by the OP was one I dreaded every day and I sympathise with the scooter rider.

PokerTime Wrote:

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

> There is the following bylaw in Southwark....

>

> Skateboarding etc

>

> 3. No person shall skate, slide or ride on

> rollers, skateboards or other self-propelled

> vehicles on any footway or carriageway in such a

> manner as to cause danger or give reasonable

> grounds for annoyance to other persons using the

> footway or carriageway.



That doesn't say that you can't skate in the road though, it just basically says don't act like a moron. I won't comment on how he was skating because I didn't see it, but if he just came off his board accidently then that's no different to a cyclist coming off their bike.


He shouldn't have run off, but we don't know how he was being spoken to and he might have just gotten scared.


PokerTime Wrote:

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

> A skateboard has no brakes. It has only limited

> control. Yes it's pretty stupid for someone to

> skateboard down a road that motor vehicles and

> cyclists are using. That's all I'm trying to say.



A skateboard does have a brake of sorts, and a half decent skater can control their board more than well enough and stop very suddenly if need be.

These days I wouldn't dream of skating down a road, as it's been a looooooong time since I was a regular skater and I'd probably end up on my backside or worse. But when I was a teenager I'd happily skate in the roads (not busy roads like say Barry, and definitely not main roads) and don't believe I was a danger to any other road user because I could control my skateboard well.

Fair enough, but the police are really there for criminal matters, and I can't see anything up to the point when he ran away which could be construed as criminal.


It's an offence to not share your details after an accident, but to dispute liability or not to agree to pay unspecified damages at the roadside is not.


And as other posters have observed, the road user who goes into the back of the other is normally the one held liable.

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> Why was she calling the police anyway?

> Had a crime been committed?


I'd guess becasue someone who had (in her view) caused an accident which was going to cause financial loss was saying they were just going to leave it and walk away and not pay, and she wanted help to resolve it. In addition the OP says she was cut, bruised, and pretty shaken so calling the police seems not unreasonable to me.


Once he did run off then the crime is potentially Failing to stop / report an accident although I'm not sure if it could be brought to bear against a skateboarder.

As far as giving personal details goes, I don't think he falls within s.168 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as he's not a rider of a bicycle; nor within s.170, unless you can prove (I think you cannot) that he was the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle. I think he may have caused, or have been behaving in a way likely to cause, a breach of the peace.
He would be classed as a pedestrian so if there were blame to be assigned it would be under those terms. The only course of action for the scooter owner would be through civil avenues I think, that is providing he would be worth suing. She needs a name and address to do that of course. The police would have been able to help in that respect if he hadn't run away.

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...