Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are a number of threads current or recently so which have commented on the various road works, changes in regulation etc., proposed changes in lay-out in and around East Dulwich (excluding those by e.g. Thames Water, annoying but presumably necessary) all of which have had, or are having, the effect of making the lives of motorists more complex and difficult, often not (even) to the benefit of other road users (such as cyclists). I think of endless road-works rarely completed to time, or design, the dropped kerbs ? yellow lines debacle, the extension of yellow lines in residential streets and so on.


Mr Barber (inter alia) has been the first to challenge any suggestion that there is any pattern, or intention, in these, even when he is frequently the progenitor or cheer-leader for them, or at the least seems to take an age to address them effectively (dropped kerbs) even when he is diligent in many other aspects. He is, of course (and entirely reasonably) an overt champion of the cycling fraternity. He has also championed (whilst often appearing not to) moves to institute CPZs in the area ? and most recently moves to physically block a residential link road between two A roads in the area.


Even the unbiased ED-er (I am not) might see some sort of pattern emerging which is clearly anti-car and which is about either/ and driving cars (and car ownership) out of ED and/ or moving to create a climate where local charging of car ownership will be welcomed, or at least let slip through. That this is being achieved by piecemeal disruptions and changes may either be fortuitous (the left hand not knowing what the even lefter hand is doing) or might be all of a pattern to achieve an end.


Rather than letting debate emerge on various different threads, as things happen, I thought I might offer a consolidated thread where concerns, or otherwise, might be discussed.

This city is suffering hugely from air pollution, much of which is caused by motor vehicles.

London is also growing in population through in migration.

The likely result is that if we keep the present levels of car ownership through the coming decades, 1. the roads will be unable to cope and 2. the levels of pollution will be impossible to cope with and death rates will rise.

The obvious solution is for more people to walk or cycle, neither of which causes pollution, plus use of public transport.

The Dutch have achieved this since they went down the same track from the mid-70s and look how pleasant their cities are now.

I have a car but find I use it less and less, finding it more convenient to walk, cycle or catch the bus or train.

Surely this is sensible?

Not a very hidden agenda:


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200107/transport_policy/3623/our_cycling_strategy_cycling_for_everyone


Southwark's transport policy is explicitly pro-bike and walking, and anti car. Most of what is being done re roads reflects that policy, at least in part. No conspiracy.


Where planned works aren't completed on time, I think we can be fairly sure it's cock-up, or to be more accurate incompetence.

Totally agree with Jeremy. All for getting people out of their cars, but you have to have decent alternatives available. Get the tube, Boris bikes an some decent segregated bike lanes and then, by all means, start making it more difficult for people to use their cars.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I would agree, but I advocate the carrot instead

> of the stick. i.e. proper cycle infrastructure,

> increasing public transport frequency/capacity

> (and no, bloody buses don't count).


That's the problem with the current policy, the alternatives are awful. I think you need both. The congestion charge is an example of the stick, and it works well. I remember what central London was like before that.


I genuinely think that improving public transport in London in the short and medium term sticks on one big problem - cash. The cost to improve the infrastructure now is so enormous that no-one can contemplate it. We can already see how the price of travel is outstripping inflation whilst delivering a worse service.


I am surprised at the shock that policy is aimed at penalising vehicle transport in London. Surely we need to be discouraging vehicle use as much as possible. Making it smoother just increases the amount of traffic on the road. It's a zero sum game.

Fair point about the congestion charge "stick". Although making driving a pain in the ass for the sake of it just seems absurd to me.


Clearly there is money to improve the transport infrastucture, the crossrail project is a huge undertaking and they're already talking about a North/South Crossrail 2. This is exactly the kind of thing that will make getting around London easier for everyone.

The policy seems especially surprising when funds are appropriated from the greener cleaner safer project whilst there are parts of Southwark that are dirty, polluted and unsafe.


I would think residents in some parts of Southwark where there is near squalor must be appalled that the council can find money to reduce car use in streets of privately owned houses costing a million pounds or more.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Fair point about the congestion charge "stick".

> Although making driving a pain in the ass for the

> sake of it just seems absurd to me.

>

> Clearly there is money to improve the transport

> infrastucture, the crossrail project is a huge

> undertaking and they're already talking about a

> North/South Crossrail 2. This is exactly the kind

> of thing that will make getting around London

> easier for everyone.


I don't think it's for the sake of it. It's to cut the number of vehicles down which has to be a laudable aim. I don't really see another way. Do you see one? I'd be interested in alternative views on that.


Cross-rail is exorbitantly expensive. Through the roof expensive. And it's only designed to help increase capacity in line with the projected increase of numbers of people crossing London. You would have to multiply that a lot of times to start eating into the poor transport infrastructure in London generally. We'll be paying for things like Crossrail and the high speed link to Birmingham and the North for decades. They won't be doing many of those, that's for sure.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> The policy seems especially surprising when funds

> are appropriated from the greener cleaner safer

> project whilst there are parts of Southwark that

> are dirty, polluted and unsafe.

>

> I would think residents in some parts of Southwark

> where there is near squalor must be appalled that

> the council can find money to reduce car use in

> streets of privately owned houses costing a

> million pounds or more.


Is a pro-walking, running and cycling policy really that surprising?


Your second point makes more sense but I don't see it as being linked to the first one. I presume you are talking about the Melbourne Grove debate but that's very much a local issue. By the way, I don't necessarily see the benefit in closing off Melbourne Grove.

Problem is that I don't believe many people drive in London for fun. Deliveries, tradesmen, taxis. People with stuff to transport or working unsociable hours. A boot full of shopping and two kids in the back. Lack of feasible transport links to certain destinations. These people will still drive even if you turn the roads into an obstacle course.

Otta Wrote:

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

> Some people need a car. Most people however only

> claim that they "need" their car, whereas actually

> it's more accurate to say they like their car.


Well the main reason for most of us is simply that it's convenient and a great time saver. Doesn't make you a petrol-head. I only use mine at weekends, but for journeys out of London, and also things like runs to Sainsburys/B&Q/Ikea/etc, it's a very useful thing to have indeed. But prefer public transport for travelling into town, or walking locally.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Otta Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Some people need a car. Most people however

> only

> > claim that they "need" their car, whereas

> actually

> > it's more accurate to say they like their car.

>

> Well the main reason for most of us is simply that

> it's convenient and a great time saver. Doesn't

> make you a petrol-head. I only use mine at

> weekends, but for journeys out of London, and also

> things like runs to Sainsburys/B&Q/Ikea/etc, it's

> a very useful thing to have indeed. But prefer

> public transport for travelling into town, or

> walking locally.


Think I'm the same.


But my little Toyota is really cheap to run and only ?20 car tax.

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...