Jump to content

Recommended Posts

louloulabelle Wrote:

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

> 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.


Actually enforcing rules of the road is mentioned in the plan as is persuading the police to adopt a more relaxed attitude to pavement cycling (for children and vulnerable people)

They have a few of those in the City - routes where cycles join in pedestrian areas to quickly cross roads which are on dangerous one-way systems. I was very sceptical when they first started out - I wasn't sure that pedestrians and commuter cyclists (as opposed to kids and tourist/barclays bikers) would commingle well. I've been surprised though. Cyclists slow right down to give way to pedestrians - I haven't seen one collision in a couple of years since they started, everyone in the same bit of space. I certainly haven't seen any accidents publicised in that time. There's a couple going from Southwark Bridge to Cheapside that I use every day.

"? 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. "


I can't understand this, my understanding regarding uk law is innocent until proven guilty, and as someone that has to

Drive as part of her work, i think it would be grossly unfair for me to be automatically liable in the case of a cyclist causing an accident or more likely a genuine accident and automatically be found guilty/liable if I couldn't provide 'proof', not always an easy thing to do!surely I should also be innocent until proven guilty even if driving a car!

Also in this scenario the phrase 'victim' could also apply to a road user whether driving a car or riding a cycle.

I think there are bad drivers and bad cyclists and those are the ones any changes or laws should be aimed at, not a blanket law on any and all!

They're talking strict liability for insurance purposes. They've done this in other cities (Rome did it with motor scooters) and found that deaths and injuries were significantly reduced. You are basically saying if you are in a collision with a more vulnerable road user (whoever that might be - cyclist, pedestrian, horse...), it will affect your insurance.


If you take cyclists out of the equation and just look at the amount of pedestrians who are killed and injured in the UK every year - especially children - where motor vehicles are to blame you really have a couple of choices. You either significantly increase the criminal penalties for the offences (meaning stiffer sentencing with all that means), or you give people a financial incentive to drive a lot more carefully. The latter approach has seemed to work.


There are plenty of civil laws in the UK which are strict liability, these are matters of public policy and make sense. And I also agree that there are plenty of bad cyclists, I see them every day. And pedestrians for that matter. And car drivers. This is South London after all.


When pedestrians make mistakes they tend to hurt themselves. When cyclist make mistakes they tend to hurt themselves, and, rarely, other cyclists and pedestrians. The last government stats for accidents by motor vehicles (2013) give the following figures - deaths 1,713, serious injuries 21,657 and casualties 186,370. Have a look at the last figure. If you are going to incentivise any group to act more carefully, it has to be motor vehicles, especially in London.


By the way I tend to cycle into and out of work (around St Paul's to East Dulwich), walk plenty and drive some evenings for short journeys, and weekends. So I'm all three.

@rodneybewes - they're not really pavements though, more pedestrianised areas that you're allowed to cycle through (in that they don't usually run alongside a road). There are exceptions (indeed some in Southwark - Dulwich Common on the S Circular springs to mind), but they're only justified when you have a wide, lightly used pavement and a very fast busy road.


Presumed liability means "presumption" not "automatic", the onus is on the operator of the heavier vehicle to prove they were in the right. This also applies to crashes involving lorries and cars, and those involving cyclists and pedestrians. It's sensible because whoever is operating the larger and more potentially dangerous vehicle should be exercising the greater responsibility.


@Dulwichgirl82, as someone who has to drive for their work, please can you try & get away from the idea that there is such a thing as a "genuine accident". Somebody made a serious mistake, every time. Not, by any means, always a driver; but someone did, and someone likely got badly hurt (or at least had to waste a perfectly good afternoon sorting out a smashed headlight or wing mirror) as a result.


Incidentally, the main reason why airliners don't crash in the West anymore (well, pretty much) is that the aviation authorities adopt exactly this approach. No accidents, only preventable mistakes. Same goes for the rail network, at least since the spate of accidents at the start of the millennium. Yet seven or eight Jumbo jets full of people die on the roads every year in the UK alone.


@aquarius moon the problem with allowing pavement cycling (apart from OAPs finding it intimidating and unpleasant) is that pavements don't have priority over side roads. So on a dense street grid like ED it's a frustrating, tiring, stop-start experience (and according to some cycle instructors, actually more dangerous than cycling on the road - highest likelihood of getting hit is at junctions), whereas if you're on the major carriageway you can just flow.

I have to disagree, of course there are genuine accidents, things that can't be predicted or stopped. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try but a surprise skid, a car/bike malfunction that couldn't be predicted etc. And in reality probably in many cases mistakes by both parties causing accidents which on a luckier day would have just been a near miss.


As I said we should all try and be better, but I feel blaming one side more than an other is not really a solution, in an ideal world cars and bikes would have some form of separation to be prevent these accidents, where I agree sadly the cyclist is likely to come off worse.

@wulfhound - this is true, although my point is more that there are places where pedestrians and cyclists share the same space with little or no issue. I'm much more in favour or segregated cycle space for mass transit at the expense of cars. Except in the case of kids - I don't think we should be putting them anywhere near roads and have no problem with them on pavements at all.


@dulwichgirl82 - it's not really a question of blame - in my experience cyclists and car drivers are just as poor as each other. It's back to the stats though. Poor car/bus/lorry driving leads to thousands of deaths and injuries every year, you have to focus your attention there if you want to improve safety.

Re your post Dulwichgirl82;


You mention "genuine accidents, things that can't be predicted or stopped"


1) a "surprise" skid - you were going too fast and/or are poorly trained to drive the vehicle


2) car/bike malfunction that couldn't be predicted - no! - poor maintainance or poor original design!


3) in reality probably in many cases mistakes by both parties causing COLLISIONS which on a luckier day would have just been a near miss. .....................


What is wrong with taking responsibility for your actions?


4) "in an ideal world cars and bikes would have some form of separation to be prevent these COLLISIONS where I agree sadly the cyclist is likely to come off worse" -


a) we need less motor vehicles including cars - leading to better health, better air quality, less pedestrian and cyclist casualties, clamer and happier streets


b) much less chance if 20mph is enforced on low traffic roads and motor vehicles segregated on higher traffic roads with enforced limits over 20mph

Dulwichgirl82 Wrote:

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

> I have to disagree, of course there are genuine

> accidents, things that can't be predicted or

> stopped. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try but a

> surprise skid, a car/bike malfunction that

> couldn't be predicted etc. And in reality probably

> in many cases mistakes by both parties causing

> accidents which on a luckier day would have just

> been a near miss.


Genuine accidents are vanishingly few in number. I've been involved in a handful of crashes, witnessed a lot more, and every time somebody (sometimes me) screwed up. But people adopt a "shit happens" mentality and then wonder why 2,000 lives a year continue to be lost. Some might call that an acceptable price to pay for business as usual, I'm not one of them.


> As I said we should all try and be better, but I

> feel blaming one side more than an other is not

> really a solution


It's not about blame, it's about taking responsibility when you bring more speed, power and mass to the situation. That applies equally to cyclists in parks (those who ride fast around small kids and dogs are as bad as any inconsiderate motorist) and on greenway paths, drivers on the roads and truckers on the motorway.


> in an ideal world cars and

> bikes would have some form of separation to be

> prevent these accidents, where I agree sadly the

> cyclist is likely to come off worse.


That's what they're planning to do in parts of Central London over the next year or two, and on those roads (where they need to keep traffic moving and there isn't any alternative route) it's the right thing to do. Out here though things are a bit more nuanced - you can't really put in a separated bike lane along Barry Road, Peckham Rye or Lordship Lane (not without losing a lot of parking or taking from the common, at least) so the Spine route plans to use back streets. But that in turn means that through motor traffic has to be kept on the above mentioned main roads, to keep conditions on the back streets quiet enough that an 8yo can ride it.

jack'n'danny Wrote:

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

> I walked it there......much safer than using the

> roads which after all were built for Cars.


*ahem*.


http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/



http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/__data/assets/image/0010/356851/lordship-lane-00634-640.jpg

I've been cycling for about 15 years now to and from work, I have noticed a drop in aggressive driving I have to say, the ones I have encountered seem to be those people who seem to have a default setting of aggression.... like the black cab driver who pulled out of a junction I was going across, causing me to swerve into middle of the road, calling me a *f@cking cyclist* when I had right of way ( I just shouted "uber" back) And yes I also see the odd bad cyclist and kamikaze pedestrian who should know better too, But a bad driver is the one who is going to cause most damage to someone (A wayward cyclist or pedestrian crossing without taking much notice will normally come off worse in a car collision)

I tend to have got awareness through experience, I now avoid hot spots and use cycle routes that take me around congested areas and though parks, may add 5 minutes to a journey, but I feel safer.

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> jack'n'danny Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I walked it there......much safer than using

> the

> > roads which after all were built for Cars.

>

> *ahem*.

>

> http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/

>

>

> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/__data/assets/image/

> 0010/356851/lordship-lane-00634-640.jpg


Lovely picture of Lordship Lane, no bikes!!! And glory be, not one "Hipster"

jack'n'danny Wrote:

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

> Lovely picture of Lordship Lane, no bikes!!! And glory be, not one "Hipster"


Wonder when that was? Pre-trams... so pre-WW1? I bet some of the regular posters on here could tell us a tale or two about those days...

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...