Jump to content

Recommended Posts

the junction is very dangerous. What do we have to do to have a traffic light there? or perhaps a round about to cross it safely by car. It is so dangerous. when you think it safe to go across with your car, then some onelunatic whizzes around like madness. How can we make it safe for everybody?

At the very least we need a STOP sign putting up there, like the one at the north side of the junction of Goodrich Rd with Barry Rd.


I do remember the council running a survey some years back to ask people what modifications they would like to make traffic safer in this area. One of the 'improvements' that came out of the survey was the speed sign on Barry Rd just down from the junction with Ethrow St. Although several people highlighted the junction to which you refer, nothing seems to have been done in that vicinity.

As a daily user of this junction, I don't think a stop sign would help at all. The problem is not cars failing to give way, it is due to the complete lack of visibility. The raised junction which has recently been installed does help a little, but on days where there are cars parked on Barry Rd right down to the junction it is near on impossible to see if there is anything coming down from the church unless you edge out onto Barry Road.


Traffic lights would help, but I don't think they'll ever be approved as apparently the accident stats aren't that bad for the junction (which I find surprising!).

Why people have to drive so fast in a residential area like that? What is all this rush about? just to be a millimeter in front of another person?

Traffic Lights would be ideal because it would allow at least people on the other side of Underhill road to cross without been in danger from cars coming through Barry Road.

Who can help to have these traffic lights installed?

Hi Marlene,

traffic lgihts are installed by Transport for London and the London Mayor Boris Johnson is damant he wants less traffic lights not more. They typcially cost ?50k and a lot of disruption.

The collissino rate art this junction doesn't warrant traffic lights. We have worse crash locaiton in East Dulwich - namely Lordship Lane shopping area.

What Pickle said, I use that junction daily and visibility is reduced to sometimes 40ft due to vans or tall vehicles parked near junction, cars coming down Barry could still hit me at perfectly legal speeds.

I have to inch out and still get dirty looks from drivers for doing so, but there's no other way at that junction.

I used to use Sylvester Rd junction but that seems to get less respect from drivers as it's not a crossroads.

Shocking junction.

As said in above posts and on previous threads, visibility is still poor and people drive too fast along Barry Rd. I don't think there is any issue with the drivers on Underhill Rd not stopping.


Depsite the recent improvments, I still find myself almost playing 'chicken' just to turn left. If I need to turn right (i.e needing both lanes to be clear) then I avoid this junction altogether and end up using a rather circuitous route.


James, I would be interested to know if any of the council members use this junction during busy periods. If they did, then I'd be surprised if they themselves didn't find it a hair-raising experience. If they don't use it, then may I suggest they give it a try?

Am a regular user of this junction and have never had an issue turning left or right. It's not ideal , but it's a junction that crosses a busy main road, so perhaps not for the "faint hearted" (who may be happy with traffic lights at every junction!). Not all junctions in ED can be completely benign and free of any risk and there are many junctions in London that are a lot worse.. The crash stats do not seem to indicate it is really problematic, so people are clearly dealing with it. I just don't think there is really a big problem to solve and would suggest the scarce money for traffic improvements is spent elsewhere where it is needed.

How can the cost of 50K to install traffic lights be justified? It is astronomical.

As someone else has said there are many vehicles parked closed to this junction on both sides of the road and visibility is difficult.. Obviously you need to take the necessary precautions, looking on both sides before moving, but precautions are never enough when a lunatic drives a bolid along Barry Road so fast as I have seen it last Saturday. Don't we pay road taxes to be kept safe as well? Where are speed cameras in Barry Road?

This argument seems to run and run. I have been driving across the junction for over 20 years now - I have never come across a situation when someone travelling along Underhill has shot-out carelessly into Barry - so all the focus on slowing down/ making more awkward the Underhill bits of the junction is fruitless.


There are just two causes of problems here - the visibility at the junction is poor, which forces drivers travelling towards Lordship Lane in particular to have to pull out slightly into Barry to check if the route is clear; and drivers coming along Barry from the Plough end in particular - where there is a clear run - pick-up speed, certainly to the allowed 30mph and often (it seems) somewhat above that. Because entry into Underhill, from both sides, has been artifically restricted (because everyone in traffic wants to blame Underhill drivers) and because there are often buses waiting to cross, this means that drivers crossing often get caught on Barry because they can't access Underhill, and an 'unexpected' car is now racing towards them from the Plough end.


Almost everything done to 'ease' the problem has in fact exacerbated it - the humps and the narrowing simply mean that cars attempting to cross Barry (or enter Underhill from Barry) are even more held up than if the way was clear.


Remedies are, put simply, to (a) improve visibility and (b) reduce Barry speeds. Remedies are not to increasingly seal-off Underhill making exiting and entering it from either side even more problematic.


And the building works on the corner are't exactly helping either, although hopefully they will onlly be temporary - but (I haven't seen the plans) once the buildings are occupied the parking/ cars entering and exiting Underhill at the junction will just make life worse.

Statically it is far from being anything like a most problematic juction in the area. Yes there is reduced visability...so use the skills required to negotiate that type of juction. Being a poor driver is not an excuse for not being able to negotiate tricky junctions I'm afraid.

DJKQ wrote:-


Being a poor driver is not an excuse for not being able to negotiate tricky junctions I'm afraid.


Once again demonstrating the evident fact that the 'blame' for problems at the junction is always placed on those crossing from Underhill - poor (i.e. excessive speed) driving on Barry is always relagated to 'not really a problem'. But it is. As is making the entry and exit from/ to Underhill even more problematic by road narrowing and raised tables.


Of course we all have to be careful driving, but that doesn't mean that the junction (a) isn't also a problem and (b) that that problem is entirely the responsibility of drivers moving into or out of Underhill to address exclusively. You can't, on your own, address a narrowed entry which forces you to hover in Barry if someone commits, after you have, to occupying or blocking the way into Underhill. That's particularly true for those turning off Barry into Underhill who may not be able to have full vision into the road until they turn, and then block one carriageway of Barry until Underhill clears.


This matters because (as it's status of bus route suggests) Underhill is a significant crossing point of Barry, rather than just being 'any old' residential road.

I have to completely agree with Penguin on this one. The recent works have made this junction worse by restricting the flow of traffic.


The raised entry and exit seem to have done nothing, and I find this junction even harder to use now, especially coming out of Underhill and turning left onto Barry.


Admittedly, I have not seen any crashes since the work has been done, but it is just a matter of time.


There was a period earlier this year where there were crashes here on an almost weekly basis. The stats may say that this is not a problematic junction, but this is due to most of the crashes not being reported (lack of injury?), but this does not mean that the numerous crashes that I witnessed here did not happen.


I have to completely disagree with DJKQ - this is not an issue of being a poor driver - it is about visibility. You can be the best driver in the world, but if your visibilty is blocked by parked cars, you aint going to see the speeding driver hurtling down the road as you edge out to see if the coast is clear.


Marlene - dont even bother about making an assumption about the speed of the vehicles travelling down Barry Road, I have been through this argument before. "Apparently" we are unable to accurately judge how fast a car is travelling (30 mph) and "aparently" most cars travelling down this road travel at or under the speed limit....

I don't think anyone is claiming that the situation is ideal.


I'd agree with Penguin's points - it would be easier to navigate if the junction was widened and the speed humps removed. But you'll never get the council to do anything about these issues - the stock response to these issues seems just to be to take measures to slow or otherwise restrict traffic.


Add in a general restriction in funds and a lack of any hard evidence (the council won't do anything without a report) that this is a problem junction and I think you'll find that there is very little appetite to change things.

The point is that the council has now twice spent considerable funds restricting the exits from Underhill, with no evidence that the accidents have been caused by precipitate and careless exit from Underhill - i.e. the money they have already spent has all been about making the situation worse - clearly they aren't going either to admit their mistake or rectify it. But they have done nothing to remedy the actual problem. Of course it isn't the worst junction in the borough, nor are its traffic levels like the major thoroughfares (i.e. Lordship Lane) which naturally have a higher absolute accident rate. But the junction has always been a problem, and that problem has got no better.
There have never been crashes every week at this junction. There are far more recorded accidents at many other junctions in the area and the council can only go by that data. You may think this junction statistically is a bad one...but the data just doesn't support that.

The data doesnt support it, but I can tell you that it has happened. There was a time earlier this year / late last year when there were a spate of accidents at this junction over the space of a month of so, when they were averaging about one a week.


These were obviously not treated as reported accidents though, as they are clearly not in the council stats.


I live right on this junction, and I witnessed them myself.

Seems The problem fir the council is actual vs reported crashes. Local councillor has acknowledged this before on the forum:


I had meant to mention it but yes research has shown that definite discrepancies between actual and officially reported collisions and crashes. But it is extremely hard to extrapolate the level of crashes factoring in the researched under reporting rates by set severity of crash types if literarily none have been reported!


From James Barber's post here: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,674005,674537#msg-674537


And also

Both obvious solutions of putting lots of humps and/or raised platforms or tables along Barry Road - the latter are hugely expensive. Buses will be inconvenienced.


Which I take to mean what tfl wants tfl gets...?

The council can apply to tfl for money for road improvements rolling over two year periods. The current round is seeking money for improvements to the junctions around Peckham Rye Park including the two junctions where East Dulwich Road crosses Peckham Rye. Those junctions have had many accidents and one fatality. Lordship Lane also has had fatal accidents. Plans are drawn up by the local authority and presented to tfl for approval. The plans are currently out for consultation with anyone who wants to comment. So no, tfl do not have the say on everything, they rely on the local planning office to come up with schemes that make sense and are supported by the data.

Sorry, my point was not about funding rather that they didn't want traffic calming measures on Barry Rd specifically because it interferes with their bus route. The junctions have had money thrown at them already.


ETA: James' previous comment from yet another thread about this junction suggested to me that tfl's 'objections' might have some impact on any decisions made:

"Barry Road is a major bus route and TfL buses have and will object to more bumps and such traffic calming. "

"Being a poor driver is not an excuse for not being able to negotiate tricky junctions I'm afraid."


Pointlessly inflammatory and point-scoring comment.

As are some other comments on this thread.

My driving > Your driving, kinda BS.


Drivers edging out of that junction onto Barry Rd are no 'poorer' in ability than a blind person feeling his way down the street. If you can't see you CAN'T SEE. Der.

As a professional driving instructor, I use that junction on a daily basis. If you look back at previous threads, I have written extensively about the dangers of this junction. To be honest, it's no more dangerous than quite a few others in the area. Unfortunately bad driving and mainly speeding motorists along that stretch of Barry Road. In my opinion, I feel that raised junction makes it worse, particularly when emerging onto Barry Road because there is a steep gradiant which can cause you to roll onto the road. I know it's about money, and it's probably unaffordable in this financial climate but we need at least two high tech speed cameras along that stretch. Poor observation is one thing when emerging but if cars travelling along Barry Road were travelling at 30mph or less, you certainly wouldn't have serious accidents (speed is the main issue on this road). Traffic lights I don't think would help because you find cars often speed up to jump the lights and that could be fatal if someone does it from the other way. I don't know why they don't put a Stop sign. That would be a start at least. I know its difficult sometimes with poor visibility but I urge everyone to make sure that they look right left and right again and be really vigilant at all times.

A friend of mine who lives close to this junction has told me that there have been accidents on a regular basis since he moved there in 03.

According to my friend, although the council had invested time, effort, and money at this junction, the only things they could have done to make it safer, it was to extend double yellow lines on both sides of Barry rd, up the hill towards the church, so clear visibility required by motorists could be achieved.

Why can't they do this? It could be another solution and cheaper than the traffic lights?

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...