Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Idiots guide to road safety budget allocation based on first year rate of return. Which is based on statistics and not who shouts the loudest.


Cost to society of road traffic accidents by severity at 2005 cost rates


Damage only ? ?1,590 (Damage only are not always reported to police)

Slight injury - ?18,130

Serious Injury - ?179,210

Fatal ? ?1,558,290


Ok, let us assume there have been 8 damage only and one slight injury at this junction in the last 36months.


Step 1; Cost of accidents over last 36months


(8 x ?1,590) + (1 x ?18,130)


Average cost per accident = ?30,850

Annual cost per year = ?10,283


Step 2;


The road safety engineer will now examine the collisions and decided how many could have been prevented by engineering measures; obviously not all of them can be prevented from reoccurring but for case we assume that they will be.


I think people have decided there are two options for this junction being signalisation (design and build costs approx ?120k) or softer measures such as improvements to sight lines or banned movements (design and build costs ?35k).


%FYRR (signals) = (?10,283 x 100) / ?120,000 = 8.6%

%FYRR (soft measures) = (10,283 x 100) / ?35,000 = 39%


This is very simplistic as we have assumed all future accidents will be prevented but as pointed out signals have their own inherent risks and the softer measures don?t always work.

I will, hand on heart say I hate nothing more than speed bumps, particularly the ones which even take the bottom off 4x4's, however, on this occasion, I really cannot see why Barry road does not have a raised four way 'bank' at the junction of barry / Underhill as it does at Goodrich / Barry. Surely a simple way to slow people down while maintaining traffic flow in other areas.


I have previously wondered from a legal standpoint, that if authorities have been lobbied about a dangerous junction and there was a subsequent death, if this could be used to pursue the authorities for corporate manslaughter or gross negligence?

Just a thought....

I parked in this road two weeks ago for about 20 minutes as I was waiting for my daughter who was visiting a resident.I noticed that drivers were driving at high speeds down this road and overtaking where the roads were narrow. I was so concerned that I got out of the car to make sure it was clear for my teenager to cross, so i am not surprised to hear of these accidents.

if authorities have been lobbied about a dangerous junction and there was a subsequent death, if this could be used to pursue the authorities for corporate manslaughter or gross negligence?


In a word...no.


Drivers are the cause of accidents not roads.

That's a grey area. Some road design has been proven to be the cause of accidents.


This article is has particular relevance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/264395.stm


There seems to be a reason why Barry drivers think it's fine to charge down this section of the road. Maybe it's the green traffic light giving a false sense of priority; maybe it's the white lines in the middle of the road, like the ones you get on fast A-roads. Maybe they're just impatient.


Likewise, there seems to be a reason for Underhill drivers to pull out in front of Barry drivers. Maybe it's the tree and car-obscured sightlines; maybe it's the fact it's just a 'give way' and not a 'stop' junction. maybe they're just impatient.

The East Dulwich Police Safe Neighbourhood Team have spent an afternoon earlier this week out with the speed gun.

Nearly everyone one was driving within the 30mph limit the 6 cars that weren't were very close to the 30mph and drivers very apologetic.


The Police have stated that many people think vehicels are actually travelling much faster than they actually are.


Last night at the Dulwich Community Council they made an offer that if any residents would like to try the speed gun alongside estimating vehicles speeds they'd be very welcome. For East Dulwich if you'd like to try this contact me direct to work out numbers and a useful time.

James - The issue is not perhaps the speed travelled, more the speed you are allowed to travel at that particular point?

To my earlier thought about a raised 4 way hump like the Goodrich/ Barry crossing. I don't hear about this area being the same blackspot although of course the road is wider / trees fewer. The raised hump at Underhill / Barry would slow traffic by approx 10mph to 20mph which is no bad thing and would maintain the 30mph limit on the rest of the road.

Just a thought for you - it would seem the electorate and local residents would like to see action and some form of traffic calming at this point. Could be a strong campaigning point with good local support. Not that i am playing politik or anyfink.

Ok - I must be imagining all of the crashes that I see from my window then? I must also be wildly wrong in my estimations of speed that cars travel up and down the road that I see "speeding" on a daily basis.


Lets all bury our heads in the sand then about this junction - and hope that this problem goes away shall we?


On a side note and slightly cynical; It is also ironic that when you are pulled over by the police they do not take the same attitude "The Police have stated that many people think vehicels are actually travelling much faster than they actually are."

I think they're called 'tabletops'. You could get the same effect with a raised zebra crossing, like the one on Peckham Rye outside the electrical shop cafe. That would kill two birds with one stone, by also removing the green traffic light, which, in my opinion, makes Barry drivers think it's all clear from all directions.

Could be a strong campaigning point with good local support.


James made the pint earlier that the process by which road/ traffic improvements are considered is such that only data is a consideration, not public/political perception.


I must also be wildly wrong in my estimations of speed


Yes you probably are. The police stood there with a speed gun. How more accurate can you get. If the police pull anyone over for speeding it's because they have an accurrate reading, or camera footage that proves they were speeding.

I agree that positioning of the pedestrian crossing might be a factor. It certainly would distract drivers attention away form the junction and to the lights. It seems to be there to serve the small parade of shops too.

The Police were there in the afternoon, when there would have been a lot of traffic on the road - a natural calming measure. Later on in the evening and during the night, early morning, when most of the crashes I have seen occur, the road is clear, meaning some drivers will speed up and race down the road.


I know how what a speeding car looks like and I see it all the time on this road.


Speed in this case is only a contributing factor - there are other reasons as to why this junction is unsafe. To focus primarlity on speed is a mistake.

Hi trentk69,

I've arranged a meeting with local Police and council officers end of next week.

I'd encorage you to experience using a Police speed gun - you've nothing to lose and I suspect you'd find it interesting. Let me know if you're interested.


Hi kford,

'tabletops' or 'raised junctions' are incredibly expensive. Typically ?50,000 to ?100,000. The collission rate doesn't justify that level of expenditure compared to other collissions locations. Also Barry Road is a busy bus route and passengers wouldn't welcome many more of these along Barry Road.

One suggestion was to slow vehicels on Underill and Upland Roads approaching Barry Road so I'll ask officers about whether this relatively cheaper devices would help.


Hi cate, DJKillaQueen,

I'd be keen on 20mph. We did have a scheme in flight for the southern end which needs chasing. If it fixes the Etherow/Barry Road junction then perhaps it should be extended northwards.

Speed isn't the only issue here though - these recent accidents were caused by stationary vehicles pulling out on moving vehicles. That bus probably wasn't speeding, as there is a stop not far away.


Just tackling speeding motorists (of which there aren't that many, according to your speed gun survey) will not make this junction safe.


I'm convinced the answer lies in better sightlines - an even cheaper option involving double lines of yellow paint extended 30m up Barry Road.

Hi kford,

We've certainly had one set of double yellow lines painted extending sightlines already at the start of the year but so far they don't appear to have done the job.

I'll ask officers whether more double yellow lines would make a difference.


Our local Police sgt. suspects that the speed cushions on side roads encourage people to drive down the middle of the side roads and do this at speed. If a contributing factor then humps across the whole side roads would help.

I agree with Kford and have stated so for many years both on here and directly to the council. Nothing seems to be done about giving drivers coming out onto both Barry and Lordship Lane better sightlines, especially as half of Dulwich appears to be driving urban tanks. As well as Underhill and Barry, Upland and Barry is bad too. Meanwhile, Goodrich and Lordship Lane is truly a case of taking a risk with one's life when edging out, that's why I always drive down to Heber, where there's a much clearer sightline. Mr Barber, I'm prepared to spend this weekend painting a few double yellow lines at the relevant danger spots.

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...