Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I totally agree with Simon, The most obvious exit route would be to turn right into Colyton Road but this would take them passed the school, so presumably this is why this route has been chosen. As for Everyman comments I was sitting in sationary traffic this evening heading South on Forest Hill Road when I witnessed two near misses with cyclists having to ride up the centre of the road and even worse children trying to cross behind a stationary bus. I have lived near Forest Hill Road for Twenty Five Years and have never seen or heard of an accident on the old crossing and it certainly never casued the the problems the lights have in such a short time. Surely the whole point of change is to improve the environment not to take backward steps. Fine if its a short fix, but there is most definately a need to restore the orginal crossing on completion. People have also mentioned consultation, surely this is not only to mention it at Community Council meetings for the usual few activists to decide upon but for the local community to have a voice.



Mrs Y

I have been reluctant to chime in on this one - I am undecided myself. I can think of several badly phased traffic lights on many a road around routes into ED and by badly phased I mean "not helping anyone - driver/pedestrian/bus"


But I do happen to use this particular junction in question and can see everyman's point as well. I like to think I don't need a helping hand from over-zealous lights but I have crossed that particular junction a few times and thought I had "been lucky" with respect to dodgy interpretation of the crossing in it's current form. So I think something needs to be done around there - just not sure the light-phasing is it


Then again drivers who take the "I am frustrated so it's not my fault if I get aggressive to people around me or drive recklessly which may endanger people's lives" should either take a chill pill or not drive. There is a bigger world than your journey to and from wherever.

I may be missing a trick here but surely the easiest way to deal with this issue would have been to "temporarily" close the pedestrian crossing at this point in the road (if my memory serves me correctly there are two alternative crossings within 20 metres or so of this spot).


It seems that the root problem is that effective town planning would involve setting out the streetscape to allow for the free and safe movement of all modes of transit (people, cars, buses, bicycles etc.) whereas in reality much of the decision making by local government in these areas is "politicised" to meet an agenda (e.g. we are pro-bicycle and anti-car etc.) resulting in ineffectual results as town planners impose "solutions" that work in their political theory but fail in reality. In this case I'm sure that Southwark would find it politically unacceptable to contemplate a solution that might be conceived to inconvenience pedestrians (i.e. ask them to walk 20 metres to the next crossing) and hence we end up with a situation where all other modes of transit are disadvantaged (with the consequential negative impact on the local environment in the form of increased pollution, noise etc. and as some comments have indicated greater danger to cyclists who attempt to jump the resultant traffic queues.)


Unfortunately, many of the services charged to local government a similarly blighted by such "politicised" thinking which results in their delivery being sub-standard. I remember reading the Walworth Road Project consultancy documents produced by Southwark in which it was stated that the leading factor in decision making were the views of the London Cycling Campaign. All very nice in theory until you remember that the majority of people travelling down Walworth Road probably do so by bus, not on a bicycle. As a result the narrowed road space (left behind after the pavements have been widened) means that in reality rather than a utopian space in which bicycles freewheel down empty streets we have the reality in which harried cyclists struggle along with a line of slow moving buses trapped in a crawl behind them (unpleasant for the bicycle rider and annoying for the bus passengers!) I am not of course suggesting that views should not be taken and considered from all relevant sources, however any decisions need to be lead by the practical needs of the situation (which in London, as I said from the outset means to keep everybody moving, freely and safely) not the utopian dreams of Ivory Tower planners.


Afterall, as I believe the tag line of a Honda advert once ran: "aren't we all just trying to get someplace!"

everyman Wrote:

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


>

> And, Asset, as for the idea that queueing causes

> frustration and reckless driving so that's why the

> lights should go I would suggest that as traffic

> lights are not uncommon sight in any London

> commute then if someone is going to be affected by

> one more set they really shouldn;t be at the

> wheel. But hey, let's pander to them rather than

> think about the safety of lcoal residents.



There is a big difference between being held up in excessively long queue and stopping for a few minutes at a red light, wouldn't you agree? Most people who drive accept stopping at red lights for an acceptable time but aren't we talking here about extremely long hold-ups?

the new lights create a damn load of traffic congestion. It took me ages to get home last night on the 63. Why are they there for f*cks sake?! If there's going to be any accidents, it'll be me hurling myself out of the window of the top deck of the bl**dy bus.

Walking is very stress-relieving. By the time you get to these lights you'e nearly home anyway. Hop off a stop earlier adn you will avoid the problem, get that little bit fitter and be less stressed


(I'm not saying the traffic lights shouldn't be re-phased - just offering practical solutions. )


I know people can say "well why should I just because..." etc and that may be true but it's not going to help. Walking helps. Trust me

Walking is good for you. We are designed to walk and be active. Sitting on a slow-moving bus with a driver who doesn't understand that amber lights mean slow down and passengers you'd prefer not to be with is stressing. You might not think it is, but it all adds up. I walk as much as possible and wouldn't think twice about walking from the Upper East Side to LL and back again a few times each day. As for the road to-do, I suspect the lights are a fixed feature for a good few years, unfortuunately. (And not having a zebra x-ing means that in order to keep up my pace when running and not stop, I have to run around the electricity generator a couple of times to wait for the green man.) Nero
Which is why roundabouts are the answer in many, many cases. Each road leading up to it should have a zebra crossing, and all car drivers will know they will not be held up unnecessarily (ie just because the light is red, even tho there's no traffic crossing his path). We tried hard for this at the Peckham Rye SE15 junction with East Dulwich Road but the council ignored us. Have any of you emailed either or both of those two email addresses I listed (I think top email of this second page)? If everyone did that they may take note, as you who wrote regarding the 37 bus route made clear.

Evening,


Just a quick update, I have received an acknowledgement from Southwark's call centre following my recent email. Let's hope it gets to the right department before the new Harris Academy is built. On a more positive note it appears the lights have been re-phased as the South bound traffic seemed a little lighter tonight. Here's hoping!


Mrs Y

I signed up for the ED forum just so I could put my two-penny worth in about those traffic lights. I am relieved to hear they are a temporary measure. Traffic statistics show that junctions do not become safer because traffic lights are installed. It may be counter-intuitive but road safety engineers know that drivers take more care at junctions where they have to think about the crossing rather than it being timed for them. Roll on the end of the water works, I say!

And I notice you didn't stop at the traffic lights thread athome - good stuff


These particular lights seem to be especially annoying to most people (I still hate the ones on top of Dog Kennel Hill the most) but have you got any link to those stats you quote?

More traffic-light reports after the weekend.

Utterly ridiculous. Groups of puzzled-looking pedestrians standing for what seems like an eternity by their 'wait here' point just to get across a few feet of road that was perfectly safe to cross previously. Everyone is looking at each other on this and that side of the road with that 'wtf is going on?!' look.


The most stupid thing about it is that when there were no lights, driver drove more carefully because yes, there were zebras there, but more likely because here was an uncontrolled junction which required a tiny amount of common-sense driving they didn't want a prang. Now there are lights. And as everyone knows, in London, Green means safe to go. Yellow also means safe to go. And red also means safe to go if you get get up against the bumper of the car in front fast enough.

So even if you're a pedestrian waiting at crossing with very little car activity going-on, you don't want to cross in case someone comes hurtling down in a car, and seeing a yellow light, puts their foot down in order to beat it whilst forgetting to put their indicators on.

FOR INFO:


I raised the following with Southwark Council:


"There is some concern that these temporary lights could become permanent.


Is there a fail safe mechanism that will ensure their removal unless positive action is taken to make them permanent ? or, as I fear, is it the other way around?


That unless positive action is taken to ensure their removal then, inertia and general bureaucratic laziness will result in them becoming permanent."




I received the reply below:



"I have been passed your e-mail and asked to respond to the query


The lights are temporary and funded both for the installation and the ongoing maintenance by Thames Water while the tunnel works for the ring main are in progress.


At the end of this period the lights will be removed unless a case is made for their retention on the grounds that the arrangement is better than reverting to the previous arrangement.


To establish this will require monitoring of the usage plus consultation with interested parties including the Community Council. If it is decided to keep the lights then the maintenance cost will pass to Southwark as part of its payment to TfL covering all the traffic lights in Southwark.


Thames Water works are due to complete in March 2010 but we expect the lorry usage to diminish before so the lights will be being review about the end of 2009"

Andrew Downes

Street Scene and Transport Infrastructure Manager

London Borough of Southwark

0207 525 2091

>>These lights will be kept, mark my words.<<


I agree wholeheartedly. The argument the Council will employ for retaining them will be along the lines that as everyone will after two years be used to them being there, it would be dangerous to remove them....

The traffic lights are creating delay and frustration, without any apparent return in improved safety. This morning, 10 minutes was added on to my bus journey from Forest Hill Tavern to Peckham Rye Station. This was not only caused by a traffic queue from Forest Hill Tavern to the lights, formerly a clear run, but also larger numbers of people at each bus stop. The lights seem to be spacing buses out to such an extent that it is most likely doubling numbers of people picked-up at each stop, thus causing more delays. I can't believe that anything but temporary lights would have been put in-place for 'water board works'. I am wondering whether the lights were put in as one or more fatal accidents took place at this junction. I've lived here for 6 years but have never seen any issues. Does anyone know?? If this is this case, it might just be a matter of re-timing the lights, rather than removing them. That might just ease the congestion everyone seems to be suffering from, whilst giving us the saftey we all need. I will lobby the council with this view.

These ights are great as we have to use the junction to take the kids to school and back again. Crossing Forest Hill Road has always been a nightmare in a car. Even if the lights go I do not want the raised entrance to Colyton Road back as it can be quite dangerous if you are on a motorbike due to the way you have yo approach it.


I say keep them.

So far the ratio for / against is about 3 / 50. It's in everyone's interest to ensure Southwark council does either remove the lights o/c of the Thames Water engineering or conducts a proper consultation about their possible retention.


If we become lazy or complacent they will certainly become a permanent feature.

I agree - if everyone who has posted on here emails the relevant people at the council then at least we should get a proper consultation at the end of it to decide whether or not they stay.


Personally I think they're ridiculous: dangerous for cyclists, time wasting for car users and no safer for pedestrains. The least the council could do is change the timings so that the main road lights stay green for longer than 25 seconds (I timed them this morning!).

Was listening to a report on radio 4 the other day about a town in Denmark where the mayor has decided to remove ALL traffic lights and give cars, pedestrians and cyclists equal right of way in all situations - following a similar scheme elsewhere that REDUCED accidents.


Why are we moving in the opposite direction!? Is it some weird idea that we need to try to put people off driving by making it more inconvenient?

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...