Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If someone started a thread about a driver, a few pints to the good and on his or her mobile phone being a menace it would seem... appropriate


But to have a go at a person teaching their kids to cycle in traffic-dense situations? Something they are likely to need to be able to do? Wrong target IMO

If someone breaks my hand and sends me to St Mary's A&E in total agony (for various hours of x-rays etc and consequent loss of work etc.), then I reserve the right to break the wing mirror which broke my hand.


How do you do that with a broken hand, headbutt? (that was a joke)


Why are you being so antsy lately anyway?


Whoa there, I've disagreed with you on a couple of threads, not sure that makes me "antsy". On this thread inparticular, I am just saying what I think about the topic (non ED Specific by the way). The original thread made a point, drivers may have been the percieved danger, but it never said to scream at the cyclist rather than the driver, it never mentioned drivers, it was just a point about little kids on bikes in the roads. Other people have made it about cyclists Vs drivers.

If drivers aren't THE "perceived" threat then why is anyone screaming at the woman and her kids in the first place?


This HAS to be about drivers surely!


It's disingenuous to suggest this isn't about drivers FFS. If the OP is calling the cyclist a "STUPID COW" (her caps) then that is out of order. And if you think nearer 10 is more appropriate, well.. think it through... if they get smacked by a van or car at that age compared to 4 or 5....


Is a 10 year old more likely to be road-aware? Probably. Road-aware enough?? I doubt it


The roads are dangerous. And they aren't dangerous because of middle-aged women and their 5 year old kids on bikes. So if we want to solve the problem (make the roads less dangerous) we should be encouraging people to use them and punishing the people who abuse them more


If any driver says something "came out of nowhere" - they haven't been paying attention. If you are in a 30mph zone and looking at the roads ahead, in a built up area, with cars parked close together... well, you won't be doing 30mph - you will be doing a lot slower because you can't judge what is going to appear between cars. You won't be complaining about over-zealous traffic wardens, councils making money etc (not saying that's you btw Keef - it's just a recurring mentality amongst drivers - on this forum and... well, everywhere else in life I listen to them)

Dear God give me strength. Yes's cars are the danger, of course they are. But cars are there, and will continue to be there. My point is simply that, given the cars are there, I think the behaviour described in the OP is unwise. Can't say it any clearer, and not wanting to argue, just saying what I think, why can't you just accept that?
Because it's dangerous. Wrongly ,agreed, and car drivers fault but nevertheless dangerous, and personally I'm not gonna use my 5 year old kids as a point of principle as I think that's irresponsible. As it happens, I'd like to be able to leave my front door unlocked and in many countries you still can...not gonna do it in SE22. Shouting at the woman like the OP did is also wrong.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> in what way is it not ?

>

> You have written 5 posts of varying hysteria so

> far so before you go calling me names, tell me

> what I have done wrong here?



I haven't read any of your previous posts. I only took notice when you decided to take a stab at my post. I was simply replying to the OP, I haven't come here to join a debate.


What is wrong with you? You're reading my full list of posts because I simply implied that your stab at me was useless to this threads topic? Now you're accusing me of having a problem with you. You're making something out of nothing. Let it go.


Said what I had to say... That's all. Bye.

My point is simply that, given the cars are there, I think the behaviour described in the OP is unwise.


Keef - on the whole I disagree. I think the matter is one for parents to decide and not for the forum to adjudicate - and said so in an earlier post. However, your comment was a model of mildness and politeness.


What has surprised me (but probably shouldn't have done) is the vehemence of the vitriol poured against the family in question and the level of anger that the cyclist / car debate raises. Sean's general point that we should aim for both to use the roads together and sensibly has my support.

I'm reminded of the tragic case a few years ago of a 7 year old girl who was following her dads car on a quad bike. OK slightly different circumstances but the point is it was essentially putting the child in danger at an age when she probably wasn't fully aware of the dangers. It wasn't her fault nor the driver that killed her. I think the father might have been convicted but in the end everyone involved paid a terrible price.


I'd like to let my 4 year old ride on the road with me close by but there's no way I'm doing that in London. I often let him ride on the pavement (he hasn't maimed or killed anyone yet) while I cycle next to him on the road. But even that can be dangerous as I try to be aware of traffic and keep an eye on him.


I wish our roads were more suited for everyone to be able to use them safely and that people were better educated to respect the safety of others.

lenk Wrote:

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


> I cycle extremely defensively - basically

> presuming every driver is brain dead saves you

> from a lot of scrapes. In London they usually are.



This type of approach is also prudent when driving, walking and reading internet forums.

Okay, firstly, I agree it would be great if we were like these other countries, as I said when I agreed with Sean's option a. Secondly, I also said earlier that it is a parent's choice, and my posts have been IMO. I never supported screaming at the woman in any way, but as quids said, in SE London, as things stand, I think the behaviour is unwise.

Other countries is a red herring. I was on bikes from a very young age but in an environment that was comparatively safe, cul de sacs connected by paths to little school. Cycle paths and relatively wide safe roads and fewer cars to big school, so have been biking regularly since about six. All in a nice safe, newish town.


London is another kettle of fish, and due to the nature of its unplanned growth, huge levels of traffic with more buses and vans and higher incidence of nutterness than a nice suburban town, I wouldn't cycle regularly leave alone encourage my kids.


But like quids and keef that's my right I won't impose that view on others. The onus is of course on all of us to be responsible road users as Louisiana suggests, I disagree that she and lenk should be vandalising whatever the provocation but understand their frustration.


In my opinion th OP was not fulfilling her obligation, leaning out of the window, shouting and distracting or scaring the mother and kids. I do think the mum in question ought to rethink the wisdom of her actions and encourage learning those skills at a young age in a school playground or dulwich park, but I support her right to do so without aggressive judgmentalismm.


Society is so risk averse these days. Over regulation, H&S or the daily mail, I don't know who Is toblame but OP's behaviour is pretty awful.

Hindmans road is not exactly a busy road. It's a quiet residential street and as such one that should have a lowered speed limit. We cannot tell from the OP comments precisely what the cyclist was doing, that is a matter for conjecture and interpretation. The right for a mum to cycle with her kids is not in question. The wisdom of it may be questioned but the onus is surely on the drivers to drive safely. The title of the thread is "Drivers be aware.." Too right; drivers should drive with due care and attention at all times.

I am actually quite shocked that some people think it's OK for 5 year old kids to ride bikes on the road in London. Regardless of location, children have to be old enough to understand the dangers and have developed the necessary awareness, before taking to the roads.


It just seems pointless to me to say "wouldn't it be great if we were like other countries"... presumably referring to some Scandinavian cities with more modern infrastructure and better planning, or to rural locations. London will never be like that, it is a jumble of 100+ year old winding streets, it is too late to retro-fit cycle lanes. The concentration of population will not decline any time soon. And you are never going to tempt people away from cars without banning them outright.


When it comes to the safety of children, surely it's better to accept the situation for what it is, rather than musing about life in other countries.

i cycle everyday with my 6 year old who has been cycling to school since he was 4 1/2, with a helmet and high vis bib. I cycled on the road and he would cycle on the pavement. He woudlnt go fast, always stopped for driveways etc, slowed down to standstill when pedestrians would be coming. However I still use to get lots of abuse from people telling me he shouldnt be cycling on the pavement!?


he is now 6 and we do part pavement, part road where i feel comfortable that he can be seen and i always cover him when cars come past him.


as a parent it is very scary letting your child cycle on the road and i would much rather him cycle on the pavement however sick of the abuse i use to get from pedestrians.


I remember one woman shouting at him saying he was too old to ride on the pavement and that i should get a car!!!! he was 5 at the time !!! she definatly got a mouthful back from me!

I am going to throw in my twopence worth.


I cycle everywhere and always have. I used to sit my kids on my bike to take them to nursery until they could ride their own bikes and I did this mostly on the pavements because few roads seemed safe enough to risk taking a chance with my kid.


My youngest has only just started cycling on the roads behind me and she is ten, but she did get shit off idiot pedestrians for cycling on the pavement while I was on the road. I would just tell them to p!ss off and get on with my journey. My daughter loves rideing her bike, and loves feeling grown up enough to ride on the road - but, I only let her do it if the roads are not to dangerous, and she know to get straight onto the pavement if she is feeling nervous. I would not have had my kids on the road at 5 yrs old, but that's just me. If my daughter wanted to let my granddaughter ride on the road on her own bike, I'd tell her she was too young. I think the car drivers should be controlled more as they are dangerous and we should all be able to cycle safely on the road, but I wouldn't risk my kids life to make that point.


I do however take my granddaughter in a trailer thing that I pull behind my bike. It's a metal frame with canvas so is not flimsy, but wouldn't offer much protection if a car hit it. The one I bought is huge and from Germany, so is very visable and has a plag pole with a long home made hiviz flag on and loads of flashing red lights. Again I think we should be able to cycle where we want, but I am very aware of how many crap and dangerous drivers there are on the road, so I am very careful when I use my massive trailer thing to carry my granddaughter anywhere.


One last thing, how does the original poster know that the woman wasn't just letting her kids on the road for a short stretch, and wasn't putting them back on the pavement when the road was busier? Did the original poster hang around to see if her kids were doing the whole journey on the road or if they went onto the pavement?

thexwinglessxbird Wrote:

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

> OHMYGOD!!! Morag, It's so weird that you should

> bring this up! I was going to make a thread about

> this two weeks ago, it left me quite shook up &

> pissed off... I was on Northcross Rd, just about

> to cross that stupid area where Cristal Palace

> cuts through (there's a pub & a telephone box) had

> a crappy day & this woman on a bike & a little kid

> balancing infront came out from no where! She

> screamed at me, something like "look where you're

> going, stupid girl!" I was STUNNED. SHE is riding

> at full force with a kid (not even 5 years old) on

> the bike in the road & she's telling me to mind

> where I'm going?? It it even right that she should

> be riding this way?? The snooty cow!... I live on

> Hindmans Rd & I'm quite sure this is the same

> woman. STUPID

> COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A few issues from your post which are unclear-


When crossing CP Rd from Northcross Rd, traffic on CP Rd has right of way. Did you slow down or stop at the junction? (it just seems odd she would have screamed at you if so). Mention of your 'crappy day' and the tone of your post would suggest a degree of anger may have been affecting your judgement. It's not clear if were you on foot or driving at the time (but then there's no shortage of careless pedestrians either).


She was 'balancing' a toddler on the front of the bike- was the child sitting on the handlebars (which would have been illegal) or in a (perfectly safe and legal) front mounted child seat?


I ask this because it sounds like a scenario cyclists often encounter even when, from your description, they have right of way; still, they are often put at risk (or injured, or killed) by the inattention of other road users, who then refuse to take responsibility for their actions.


BTW, even at 'full force' it's unlikely she was exceeding the 20mph speed limit with a child on board and speed bumps and crappy road surface along that part of CP Rd.

dear thexwinglessxbird


the situation you are talking about i think was me. (however not the situation on hindmans road)


My take on what happenend was that you walked out into the road without looking and i had to severly brake and shout at you as you seemed to still not notice i was there. I am pretty sure though I didnt call you a stupid cow. As i recall you just carried on walking across the road as though nothing had happened


I wasnt going very fast - probably about 10 mph, my child was on a front mounted seat, with a helmet on and a seatbelt. perfectly legal. I sometimes drive down there in my car so you were lucky it wasnt that day or i would of knocked you over.


just so you know it made me upset and shocked aswell. because you didnt look properly when you crossed and you could of caused my child and me to fall off and i could of also hurt you. hopefully in future you will learn to look before you cross the road.


thank you muley for your view on the situation aswell - you are 100% correct on all of it


ps thexwinglessxbird i am not a snooty or stupid cow thexwinglessxbird

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...