Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Some of you might be interested in taking part in some research that Dr Rachel Aldred is carrying out at University of Westminster. It is called the near miss project and they are asking people who cycle to fill in an online diary during one day between 20th October and 2nd November, recording all their cycle trips on that day and any near misses or similar that they experience. They hope to use this (alongside other methods) to find out how often these incidents happen, what causes them, and the impacts they have.


You can sign up here: https://nearmiss.typeform.com/to/fvylyd


and there's more information about the project here: http://nearmiss.bike/

That's really interesting. Speaking as someone who has had a near death experience (from being hit by a vehicle, Near misses that are very scary and depressingly frequent. The other day for instance a driver was coming head on at me (at speed) as he wanted to drive his car over a middle of the road speed bump.

I'm entirely quoting Donnachadh McCarthy on Southwark Plans (not) for protected segregated cycling


Spineless, cashless, protectionless.....

Southwark Council has produced a new cycling "strategy" for "CONsultation".

I confess to almost never having read such a vacuous gooey pile of nothingness in years!! 8-(

Their main innovation is to propose slashing bike routes through parks, creating unnecessary friction, instead of actually installing segregated cycle lanes on the roads.

They have drawn a marker through the centre of the borough and called it the southwark spine - it is a cycle "route" not a protected lane.

There is no map of all the LCN network and no mention of all the routes that have removed with latest Peckham & Nunhead Plan.

There is no proposal for protected left hand turns and a tiny pot of money. ( the money for the entire borough (they do not say how many years the budget is for) which is about a fifth of what they are spending at the moment on tarting up Camberwell Green) and enough to pay for one busy junction to be done properly...

At this rate it will be the year 2,500 before Southwark kids can get the right to cycle as safely as Dutch kids. grrrrr

The battle goes on -

http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s49335/Appendix%201%20Cycling%20strategy.pdf

This, for example, is quite radical, I think:


"Car ownership and use has continued to decrease in Southwark. The dramatic fall in motor traffic levels in the last

decade provides the opportunity to reallocate road space to cycling, including along the Principal Road Network, and walking. TfL's analysis of cycling potential in Southwark showed that 47 per cent of trips made by motorised vehicles could be cycled.


Reallocate road space: There is an opportunity to reallocate parts of the carriageway to cycling. This will involve some difficult decisions but we will be mindful of congestion impacts, particularly for buses. This should not have an impact on the walking network and any improvements to the cycling network will need to take into account pedestrian use, and the dual need to create a cohesive, direct, safe, attractive, comfortable and easy to navigate walking environment.

Well, yes, I would agree with that, but this is a consultation document and on page 32 it cites examples of (lightly) segregated routes in London as well as Copenhagen as examples of best practice.


It is true, however, that the best practice examples aren't referred to in the examples of what might happen in Southwark. ie not concrete examples of segregated cycle lanes etc.

Agree OP with your points. I'd say some of them apply to motorists treatment of other motorists actually - hate when drivers put everyone at risk just to basically move one car in front and save, maybe, a second?


And I'd add that when a driver is doing the right thing by a cyclist as you outlined , it would be helpful if other drivers did not toot/ get all aggressive because we are not overtaking the cyclist...

Pedestrians and cyclists do not mix, even in parks, unless the lanes are completely separate and not just a lined-off section of a walkway.

Today in SE22 I saw two lots of magazinified parents - daddy up front with baby/toddler in a basket, mummy at the back and the other kid riding in between - on the pavement.

Having a child cycle with you doesn't allow you to break the law. (They sped off too quickly before I could tell them.)

agree with a lot of what is said here. I driv,cycle & walk - locally and in town and it AMAZES me the disregard for cyclists that many drivers have.


What people just dont get is: what would be a scraped wing mirror or a bumper-scratch with another car, could mean death to a cyclist.


I used to average a near miss about once a week (I dont commute regularly anymore) . Looking at mobile phones was the biggest cause of this.



I find it incredible (although not surprising) the lack of vision of TFL and LA's on this. Cycling works for congestion, pollution and obesity......why are we still pi55ing around with half baked cycle schemes. But it will only work if cyclists are safe.


It needs something VERY bold and radical. Dedicated streets, a solid netowrk of routes (that are not just painted roads with cars on them) and very tough policing of bad driving (and cycling)


I know many countries use a system of "presumed liability" when it comes to cyclists and pededtrians (http://www.roadpeace.org/change/fair_compensation/stricter_liability/)

I did read a while back (although cant find the source right now) that this resulted in a massive reduction in cyclists deaths in France.

Please bring your families to this demonstration on November 15th

PROGRAMME


12 noon ? Gather at Bedford Square, WC1B

1:00pm ? Procession leaves

2:00pm ? Die-in & rally at Marble Arch:

? placing the coffin

? wreath laying

? die-in

? rally

3:00pm ? End.


People are being hit by drivers of cars and buses every single day in london. They are dying and having life changing accidents. It is almost instantaneously preventable if we tweak design and modify habits. For some unfathomable reason TFL and a range of politicians would rather set us at each others throats than spend allocated budgets to build great infrastructure.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/woman-cyclist-crushed-under-tipper-truck-at-ludgate-circus-dies-in-hospital-9806200.html


http://stopthekilling.org.uk


THE 10 DEMANDS

1. Stop the Killing of Children


? set up a national, multi-billion pound programme to convert residential communities across Britain into living-street Home Zones and abolish dangerous rat-runs.


2. Stop the Killing of Pedestrians


? establish a national programme to fund pedestrianisation of our city and town centres, including the nation?s high-street, Oxford Street.


3. Stop the Killing of Pensioners from excessive speed


? introduce and enforce speed limit of 20 mph on all urban roads, 40 mph on rural roads/lanes and 60 mph on all other trunk roads.


4. Stop the Killing of Cyclists


? invest ?15 billion in a National Segregated Cycle Network over the next 5 years.


5. Stop the Killing by HGVs


? ban trucks with blind spots by making safety equipment mandatory and strictly enforce current truck-safety regulations, to reduce levels of illegally dangerous trucks down from estimated 30% to less than 1%.


6. Stop the Killing without liability


? introduce a presumed civil liability law on behalf of vehicular traffic when they kill or seriously injure vulnerable road-users, where there is no evidence blaming the victim.


7. Stop the Killing from Lung, Heart and other Diseases caused by vehicular pollutants


? make it mandatory for particulate filters that meet latest EU emission standards to be fitted to all existing buses, lorries and taxis.


8. Stop the Killing at Junctions


? introduce pedestrian crossing times long enough for elderly disabled to cross. Legalise filtered junction crossings by cyclists with strict legal priority for pedestrians and carry out urgent programme of physically protected left-hand turns for cyclists.


9. Stop the Killing from Climate Crisis caused by CO2 emissions


? all transport fuels to be from truly environmentally-sustainable, renewable sources within 10 years.


10. Focus on Life!


? Transport governance must make safety and quality of life the top priority. Reform all council transport departments, the Department of Transport and Transport for London into Cycling, Walking and Transport Departments with formal pedestrian and cyclist representation.

As a cyclist I find most drivers are pretty OK. This has changed a lot down the years from my cycle dispatch days back in 1542, when literally I'd have cars try and ram me off the road, because they thought I shouldn't be there.


There is now just a minority of drivers - and in my experience 4 x 4 drivers aren't any worse than anyone else - who just don't seem to get that a bike is a road vehicle, same as car, and not some weird form of moving pedestrian. Like all big social changes in London, I think it is simply a matter of time before that minority largely disappears.

The way to sort out the Spine is mostly not segregation, but getting rid of rat runs. A few strategically placed bollards and fire gates along Crystal Palace Road and Eynella Road, for example, to keep through traffic on Barry Road and Lordship Lane where it belongs; rework the Bellenden Road / Lyndhurst Way gyratory so that one side is "mostly cars" and the other is "mostly bikes" (basically return the whole thing two-way, with bollards under one or other of the bridges and more where the "bike" road meets Peckham Road). Once you get north of Peckham Rd it's quiet roads all the way to Burgess Park anyway.


Will be interesting to see whether the council is brave enough to try something like that. I'd love to see them prove Donnachadh wrong.

James Barber are the police going to enforce the rules of the road to the many Dulwich Cyclists that do not stop at Zebra crossings, red lights, do not indicate or even look around them when changing direction, mount the pavement when it suits them to aid their journey, ride without lights etc in dim/dark conditions, ride two/three abreast when not appropriate......and so on.

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...