Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,


Just thought I'd put a story out there, as it's really seeming like the East Dulwich Grove/Lordship Lane crossing is getting dicier and dicier...


There's no light for pedestrians, and you have traffic potentially coming through from 4 lanes and 3 directions, so you're always taking a risk there... But I had a bad experience a few days ago where I was crossing, along with 2 other pedestrians I must add, though because I had a pram I was that little bit slower (but always rush across!). A small, grey/white lorry with a long flatbed attachment (I think with dark blue writing on, and a scaffolding company) came speeding through to make the light, turning right onto ED Grove from the Goose Green side of Lordship Lane... They'd had a red until moments before, so the other pedestrians and I thought we had time to cross two lanes. They just made it across, but the lorry came to a screeching halt in front of me, blocking my way to the pavement, and proceeded to lecture me, without making eye contact, on crossing the road, using a few choice words to describe me and how to do it. All while blocking me, keeping me from being able to get out of the way of oncoming traffic coming from other directions onto ED Grove, and blocking the intersection with the back of the lorry.


This was pretty panic-inducing stuff, as I had a baby in a pram with me, not to mention about a million times less safe than having the gall to cross a 2-lane road that's not safe for pedestrians through no fault of their own. I only wish I'd had the presence of mind to take a photo of the driver/his lorry and report him, but was obviously just thinking about whether he'd plow into me and the pram if I rushed to the right and in front of him (he seemed that unhinged), or if I'd be hit by other cars in the centre of the intersection if I rushed behind him to get out of the way.


I understand that it's a busy intersection, and that a zebra crossing would slow things down, but maybe a pedestrian light/crossing or at the very least cameras for dangerous drivers would be a deterrent. It's always a bit hairy there, especially if you're elderly/handicapped/a child or parent with children and not as speedy as others, but this was honestly another level and pretty frightening, not just for me, but I'm sure for other drivers using LL and ED Grove.

I'm sorry you had a scary experience and glad you are both OK.

The traffic turning there does not have a traffic light, there is a pedestrian crossing light on lordship Lane for going straight on so don't be fooled by that.

I am personally completely anal when it comes to crossing the road, especially with children, so would always take the extra 5 minutes to walk up ED Grove to the zebra crossing.

It's hard to imagine a junction design more hostile to pedestrians. The red light is an active encouragement for traffic to speed up as it turns left from EDG or right into EDG, to avoid being cut off by traffic heading towards Goose Green. The junction box adds an urgency for vehicles to clear the junction quickly rather than give way to pedestrians. TfL and Southwark shrug and walk away, claiming nothing can be done. Far better to pepper the area with random double yellows and speed humps and ignore the evidence (CrashMap: 6 incidents at that junction in 5 years, which is more than any other junction on LL).
Yeah, it's no good and not working at all, really (bad urban planning!), and I'll certainly think twice about crossing there from now on... It seems extreme to have to walk an extra five minutes then backtrack again to cross a 2-lane road in a residential area, but I guess needs must, especially when you have road rage-filled builders driving around!
  • 1 month later...
It took me and two women with pushchairs 10 minutes to cross yesterday and tentatively too - even a bus pulled right up to the junction blocking everyone's view,it's a very dangerous junction with no facilities for pedestrians to cross. Amazed that no-one has been hurt! Has James Barbour commented on this problem?
I saw - and reported to 101 - a white van mount the kerb along EDG on the Goose Green side and race (35mph at least) to the junction with the park. The driver was obviously frustrated with the layout/slowness of the junction so decided to act so rashly. Would a roundabout work better?

PandG Wrote:

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

> It took me and two women with pushchairs 10

> minutes to cross yesterday and tentatively too -

> even a bus pulled right up to the junction

> blocking everyone's view,it's a very dangerous

> junction with no facilities for pedestrians to

> cross. Amazed that no-one has been hurt! Has James

> Barbour commented on this problem?


At least two people have been hit there, I read about it on this Forum.

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> Because they would rather spend the money making

> it easier for people with buggies to walk around

> the tress in Melbourne Grove.


Unfortunately, the council seem to have a 'he who shouts loudest' approach to prioirtising resources.

  • 2 weeks later...
I completely agree. Unless I am using one of the shops between the zebra crossing at the roundabout and the junction, I walk on the other side. Is there a way to petition the council for a proper crossing there? Somebody is going to get seriously injured there.

Just walked across it after a two minute wait and two false starts. Anyone not used to it or distracted is in serious trouble here as you have to look round 180 degrees for both directions on Lordship Lane and often indicator lights coming from the north are invisible in direct sunlight - not to mention coordinating that with traffic coming down the Grove itself. Add to that the design which seems to channel cars, lorries, and worst of all vans whose drivers seem disconnected from civic responsibility, turning right into the grove at ACCELERATING speed as they cut past any cars stationary for the lights when going south and you have a disaster waiting to happen. When I eventually dodged across (been jaywalking since I can remember) a mother and child were still left stranded on the other side.


I would also very much like to hear why the money spent on improving pavements in Melbourne Grove is a priority given this obvious death trap. It is worth remembering that this is a crossing for a busy PAVEMENT on a shopping high street and as it stands it is not even remotely fit for purpose. If Melbourne can get a petition for action then how do users of Lordship Lane get together on this one?

This issue has been going on for years. There's a thread from 2009 in which James Barber says he's met with council officials 'several' times:


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,337808,337816#msg-337816


And then it resurfaced in 2014 after a serious accident:


http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,337808,337816#msg-337816


In January 2015, James Barber said he'd requested a meeting with the 'head of council service for highways' but I can't find any references as to whether this meeting took place and, if it did, what was decided.


This problem is clearly not going away. Can we finally get some momentum behind progressing a solution please? James, 7 years' council inaction is clearly unacceptable. Especially when they're blowing hundreds of thousands on overpriced North Cross Road-type 'improvements' that barely deserve the description.

This has been raised before - signalling the junction of Lordship Lane with East Dulwich Grove.

Putting signals there would reduce capacity of the junction. To counter this no parking would be allowed from Goose Green to the lights outside the Coop. creting two clear lanes each way is likely to boost speeding.

This would allow two lanes of traffic required if we maintain capacity.

Why not reduce capacity and not removing parking?

Apart from the predicted increase in speeding when green, key stakeholders are TfL who operate and install all traffic lights - they wont agree capacity reduction, TfL buses who wont allow delays to buses.


We did have junction with different coloured surface and removing that at the natural crossing and the raised bump has been moved back and reduced angle. This has all contributed.


I have applied for CGS funds to improve this junction back to what we at least had before it was all round softened. SO far I've not been able to take Cllr Charlie Smith with me so nothing has happened yet.

A Hollywood scriptwriter would probably remark, 'Don't give me problems, give me solutions.'


Sounds to me like a load of people are finding any conceivable way to avoid solving this. Man created this junction, man can surely improve it to the point where people don't have to risk death just to cross a god damned road. Effective politicians are the ones who don't take no for an answer. Seven years of accepting no just isn't tolerable. We want this sorted, please make it happen before someone is killed.

No right turn from Lordship Lane? cars executing this manoeuvre delay traffic anyway.

The volume of traffic on Lordship Lane would then free flow, and pedestrians could

cross in safety, particularly buggy pushers, who are slower.

The problem with recommending solutions is that there are multiple considerations, technologies, standards and policies that have to apply. I do not think it is for us as endangered citizens to come up with the solution: that is why TFL/council have (or employ) experts. It is for us, via our elected representatives to make our feelings clear when endangered. What else are elected representatives for? They are, generally, no more transport experts than we are. It seems to me that our representatives are NOT there to say 'nothing can be done' but to say to those making decisions that a significant number of people they represent (not acting out of any particularised self-interest) say something MUST be done.


If TFL/council then say there is nothing that can be done then presumably our elected representatives will report back with their justification?

I was trying to find in the various threads if someone has made the argument against a simple zebra crossing set back a few feet across EDG. Can't find one. Is there one? I see plenty of such examples along the Kings Road and other major London thoroughfares, even with tight pavements and junctions between 2 equally busy roads.


People are going to cross this junction come what may. Given that, the issue is to allow them to cross more safely. Surely a zebra would accomplish this? If TFL have the illusion of free traffic flow down LL, this is only at the expense of pedestrian safety. Does TFL prioritise traffic flow over safety?

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...