Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Cost of a Fatal Accident compared to cost of a crossing seems to show a crossing is worth it.


Cost of an accident


The values calculated in the year 2000 were as follows as an ?average per accident?:


Accident Severity


Lost Output ?


Medical &


Other Direct ?


?Human? ?


Total ?


Fatal


438,860


14,240


870,780


1,323,880


Serious


17,880


14,610


121,620


154,110


Slight


2,130


3,120


10,130


15,380


Note that a serious injury is defined in the UK by an overnight ho

MIstakes.

In non fatal cases if a car driver makes a mistake he or she might dent a wing or break a light array. If a pedestrian makes a mistake he breaks his or her leg and can suffer internal injuries etc. It is for this reason that there are tests , alcohol limits and rules of the road. In such busy areas like EDR the speed limit should be lower and there should be more safe crossing points.

In my daily journey to work, I have to turn into Windsor Walk (Denmark Hill station) to get to my office. It is a right turn from Champion Park but I have to take it about 5 mph for the number of people who just walk out in front of the car without checking the road. They are often concentrating on their phone calls, reading the paper/book, stnding in the middle of the road talking- these include parents with prams or young children. Although there are teenagers around it is mainly those in late teens onwards who seem to not know the difference between the pavement and the road. I think it is a question of luck that nobody has been injured at this spot.

Like others here too, I hope that the young man who was injured is ok. And the poor motorist involved too. I live on this particular stretch of road. I agree with James Barber. The fact remains that it is very busy and between the two traffic lights, there is nowhere safe for pedestrians to cross.


There are lots of children attending St John & St Clements school and going to the very busy playground here. Many come onto East Dulwich Road from Oakhurst Grove. It is dangerous there particularly, the exact spot, according to the OP, this accident happened.


And I am not being anti-motorist or car-user, I?m one myself, but there is speeding along this stretch of road. Standing at the Oakhurst Grove bus stop in the morning waiting for the 37 (and it can be a long wait!) is a good place to witness some motorists who really pick up speed coming up past Tesco, the Murco garage, then putting their foot down to catch the traffic lights at the Adys/Crystal Palace Road junction.


I am not saying that speeding was involved in this particular case; I don?t know the facts. But I?ve witnessed many a near miss here in the past. And, yes, I accept there are dozy pedestrians everywhere.


Where are people who come onto ED Road from Fenwick and Gowlett Roads expected to cross?

You acknowledge speed had nothing to do with the accident SP but where is the evidence of accidents caused by 'speeding' motorists elsewhere? The data just doesn't support that. It is a 30mpr B road and I rarely see any car exceeding that speed along that stretch of the road because it is so busy. Picking up speed doesn't mean that a driver is exceeeding the speed limit, and if the road is clear, a motorist is perfectly entitled to drive at 30mpr if the conditions allow. I can't remember the last time I managed 30mpr in my car along that stretch...and I've driven it at all times of day (and night).


There is a perfectly safe place to cross at the lights not more than 20 metres away from the junction of Oakhurst at Crystal Palace Road.


The most dangerous place along that stretch of road according to data by far is the junction with Peckham Rye where several vehicle and pedestrian accidents have occured including one fatality. And that is why improvements to that junction are part of the current two year programme for road improvements funding from TFL.


Sense of persepective needed I think instead of knee jerk reaction.

DJKQ, SP doesn't 'acknowledge that speed had nothing to do with the accident', just states that s/he does not know the facts. Most of us are in the same position - we don't know the facts - so I don't understand what you mean by 'data'.


Since all we've got is anecdote, I'll add my own to the mix.

I too have seen quite a few racers on that stretch of the road while walking my dog on Goose Green and thereabouts, and not just the ones trying to beat the traffic lights.


IMO that crossing hardly adequate for a junction that serves a school, a children's playground, a green space that's used by dog-walkers, as well as a parade of shops. If we haven't had more accidents at that spot, that's just testimony to better pedestrian road-sense than a lot of the drivers who've posted on this thread would credit.

Again that's not a balanced view. Thousands of cars use that road every day and the vast majority of them are responsible drivers. A car travelling at 30 mpr would look as though it is travelling faster to many pedestrians. Even experienced drivers often can not tell from eye what speed a passing car is going at.


The crossing has pelican usage so how on earth is that not adaquate? You cross when the green man shows....how difficult is that?


Edited to add that data does not show an abundance of accidents along that stretch of road. It does however show several incidents at the junction of EDR and PeckRye.

Sadly these incidents are not uncommon, even when drivers are being "responsible" and staying in the 30 limit. Britain has one of the worst pedestrian fatality rates in Europe - being a pedestrian in the UK is the most dangerous way to get around - even worse than being a cyclist. No wonder parents are fearful to let their children walk to school.


It is about time there was 20 limits by default across all residential areas. It doesn't make a significant difference to car journey times but it has a huge effect on pedestrian safety especially accidents involving children.


The minor inconvenience to some car drivers is price worth paying to make urban streets places people can actually enjoy and live rather than places where children risk severe injury or even death if they make a simple mistake or misjudgement.

Can you provide some evidence or a link to data that demonstrates the uk has one of the worst fatality rates within europe? I'd particularly like to see if the data shows more incidents in urban areas or rural areas.


There is no justification I think for assuming all drivers can not drive safely above 20mpr or for assuming all pedestrians are incapable of crossing roads safely if the speed limit exceeds 20mpr.


Nowhere in this debate is anyone acknowledging thst pedestrians need to take repsonsibility for their own judgement in choosing where to cross a road safely.


Edited to add that the only survey I could find that supported the claim that the uk has one of the worst fatality rates in europe is a 2008 survey where only ten countries were compared (out of how many in Europe?). Not suprisingly, countries with higher populations sit at the bottom (germany, spain, italy, uk) and with not much between them and countries with smaller pops sit at the top (belguim, denmark, sweden, norway). It's a meaningless survey for determing that imo. France isn't in there but I'd like to know how many people die on their zebra crossings where drivers don't have to give right of way for example.


The only thing of interest to me from the survey is that the other countries with large pops have far more zebra and pelican crossings than the UK and yet similar levels of fatality occur. So what does that say? It says that a certain percentage of people will exercise poor judgement no matter what is done. And given the vast majority of accidents emanate from poor judgement that is where I think efforts to improve road safety should be targetted. Some drivers need to think more about the way they drive and similarly pedestrians need to think about the way they interact with traffic. There are safe places to cross EDR. People just need to use them.

Anyone would think that the speed limit is the speed you *have* to drive at. No, it's the maximum allowed speed - you should still drive slower if conditions require, and where there are parked cars and pedestrians, that suggests a lower speed to give you time to react to the unexpected.


Also worth remembering that roads are a public space that pre-date the car, and even the bicycle, by centuries. To suggest that people on foot should have to detour by a hundred meters or more for the benefit of people who very often just can't be arsed to walk or cycle is just wrongheaded.


Speeding doesn't always cause accidents, but it does make them worse (as well as making it harder to stop in time). The statistics for pedestrian casualties are drastically different at 20mph (~95% survival) vs 30 (50%). That on its own should be enough to justify blanket 20mph limits, especially when you consider the average speed for a journey across London is just 12mph.. limiting peak speed to 20 instead of 30 adds virtually nothing to journey times, and in many cases actually improves them - at lower speeds, you can drive closer to the car in front, which increases the number of cars per minute that can get thru the road. Then consider all the people who'd like to bike but currently drive (or are driven, in the case of kids) because they don't want to mix with 30mph traffic. Aside from the emergency services, there just isn't any need to drive at 30mph in London - it really doesn't get you there any quicker, and just makes life less pleasant for everyone else.

There is clear data to show that 20mph limits could make a big difference to outcomes in collisions between vehicles and all vulnerable road users. It would also make walking or cycling around out neighbourhood a much more pleasant experience. 20mph ought to be the default limit near any schools, parks, playgrounds and local shops. This link gives a lot of data on the subject and why the levels of kids getting to school on foot or by bicycle are much less than many other countries.


http://www.20splentyforuk.org.uk/rationale_for_20_mph.htm

> There is no justification I think for assuming all

> drivers can not drive safely above 20mpr or for

> assuming all pedestrians are incapable of crossing

> roads safely if the speed limit exceeds 20mpr.


I am sure some can. The problem is enough can?t so that hundreds are killed and seriously injured every year. The fact is that 20 mph limit reduces pedestrian accident rates, especially in regard to children.


> Nowhere in this debate is anyone acknowledging

> thst pedestrians need to take repsonsibility for

> their own judgement in choosing where to cross a

> road safely.


Everyone needs to take responsibility for their safety and safety of others however it is drivers who are the ones manoeuvring a large dangerous metal machine though an area where children are playing, walking to school and so. The onus must be on the driver to make sure their activity is not endangering others. Pedestrians have the right to use and cross roads as well.

But there is nothing a driver can do if a pedestrian walks out in front of them at point blank range. Pedestrians have pavements. Many roads have designated places to cross. To say that pedestrians shouldn't be expected to walk a further distance to use them is ridiculous.


I do conceed the arguement that slower speeds reduce the seriousness of injury where accidents happen - there's no arguement there, but to claim that reducing road speed accross the borough to 20mpr won't impact on travel time is rubbish. The majority of B roads and above at various times of the day are empty enough to drive at 20-30 mpr. When I work out of west london I motorcycle there. Suggesting that journey should be done at a max of 20mpr is ridiculous.


The majority of drivers have never had a collision with a pedestrian and never will.

The lack of safe crossing points is believed to have contributed to Britain's poor showing in the pan-European study.

Telegrapgh -

Only Spain, with 15.7 pedestrians killed per million of the population, fared worse than Britain, which had 11.5 deaths in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available.


In addition, pedestrians account for more than one in five road deaths in this country, the highest proportion of all countries in the study.


"What we need in Britain is a sort of junior zebra crossing that tells pedestrians "this is safe place to cross", and tells drivers "pedestrians will cross here"," said Andrew Howard, the AA's head of road safety. "But it needn't require traffic to stop. This is needed because we have to accept that pedestrians won't walk a hundred yards to a pelican on a shopping street.

Cllr Barrie Hargrove has helpfully confirm that funding is in place ?45,000 for the next financial year 2012/13 for either a new crossing at the shopping parade or around Fenwick Road. So far more people have requested a crossing at the latter location.


Seperately the Peckham Rye crossing proposals being worked on to improve this junction. www.crashmap.co.uk shows this junction has had a lot of crashes of worst kind over the years.

DJKillaQueen - indeed there's nothing a driver can do at zero distance. Which is why the appropriate driving speed, on roads where pedestrians are expected, is one that minimizes harm if that should happen. The road is public space, and although it's hard to believe today, pedestrians have the right to cross anywhere (with the exception of urban motorways). Sure, some people are silly, but last time I checked we don't live in a Sharia state where the deserved punishment for a moment's inattention is broken bones or worse.


I cycle across London regularly, and occasionally drive. Admittedly, motorbike/scooter is probably quicker than either, but except late at night, the same journey takes less time on a bike despite a top speed around 18mph. Again, can't speak for motorbikes, but my experience in a car is that most of the time you're sprinting from one traffic queue to the next - increasing the peak speed makes very little difference to the journey time, because the average speed is so very far off the peak; just makes things more unpleasant for pedestrians & cyclists, meaning more people drive, meaning yet more congestion. Again - reducing peak speeds increases road capacity, so any time the network's speed is capacity limited (& I'm no traffic engineer, but if your average speed on a predominantly 30mph road network is 12mph, there just might be a capacity issue there) you actually speed journey times up by bringing speed limits down. Sounds paradoxical I know, but they've tried it, in the form of lower limits at busy times, on some stretches of the M25 & M1 and it appears to work.


Have to say I don't agree with the AA about junior zebras. What we need is simply more zebras, ideally with enforcement cameras as per Pelicans. Under Ken Livingstone there was a hierarchy of road users - pedestrians at the top, then cyclists, public transport users, freight & delivery vehicles, taxis, private cars. Unfortunately Boris scrapped it to woo the outer-London petrolhead vote; the result is policies that will end up costing lives e.g. "smoothing traffic flow".

I think there is a study worth doing in comparative road densities. I suspect that in many countries you either have very light density (few pedestrians/ few cars ? think of rural France, where the population areas, when you come to them, are small villages and towns with many crossings and few pedestrians) or very heavy car and pedestrian density (city centres, high pedestrian and car population but restricted roads and road speeds ? because of congestion ? and hence impacts are normally low speed).


The UK (which is anyway pretty densely populated) has a lot of suburban development ? which includes suburban streets where traffic flows (relatively) freely but which also has quite a high number of pedestrians ? so you get the ?worse possible? situation ? high levels of cars travelling quite quickly coming into contact (sic) with high levels of pedestrian traffic.


UK towns have a wide circle of development around them ? this matches a UK desire for houses rather than an apartments ? but in order to get in and out of them you need cars - which you don?t living in much smaller European cities in apartments where car ownership itself is less ?useful?.


So if UK pedestrian accidents are higher than elsewhere, and death rate higher as well, this isn?t that surprising and reflects local geo-demographic conditions rather than drivers who are ?worse/ more careless? than Europeans.

But, I think you'll find, a tradition of apartment living rather than extended suburbs - the point I am making is not about absolute density but about where populations and cars are to be found - the leafy suburban roads of Dulwich, for instance, offer low rise housing with lots of cars and people - but the roads are not so congested that their topology forces low speeds (as it does, for instance, in the City - during working house probably one of the most densly 'populated' parts of London).


In the Netherlands you tend to have compact, highly densely occupied towns, where people live in apartments (and don't need cars to get anywhere local) and then countryside, with relatively low population density and cars driving on natioanl roads, with fewer local roads around estates. In most Dutch (and other European towns) you can easily walk from one side to another, from countyside to countryside. I have walked across Paris, and Rome. Even quite small English towns (Oxford, York) are now quite a challenge to walk across from open fields to open fields, with lots of suburban estates full of cars and people.

But E-dealer...that survey only looked at TEN countries in Europe...and both of the two countries fairing worse than the UK do have far more pedestrian crossing points and similar higher population counts.....so I just tend to think that higher populations naturally see more accidents whatever is done to try and prevent them. There are I think 50 countries in Europe? So to say that the UK is one of the worst 'in Europe' from a survey of just ten is not proven.


Penguin I think makes some very good points regarding the differences in how people travel in some other countries. The style of town planning and urban living plays a part. Town planning is not something the British though have ever been particularly good at and given how often Southwark repeatedly dig up and amend the same junctions and stretches of road doesn't exaclty fill me with confidence in their ability to design any kind of working road scheme.


I did though find this document online.......


Pedestrian Mortality


It may be a little out of date bute it's interesting reading and note the decline in fatalities in the decade before the report was written (and at a time of large increase in vehicle ownership). I think many things have been achieved compared to the past.


I think to be fair Wulfhound, journey time, traffic congestion etc always depends on time of day and route taken. Just because some journeys along some routes at certain times of day see average speeds below 20mpr is not a justification for a blamket reduction of urban speed limit imo. Drivers should be able to drive according to the conditions or lose their licences for not being good or attentive enough drivers (on this point I would be in favour of mandatory retesting every 15 years for example). I think the reason why average speed limits work on motorways is because all the traffic flows one way. It is an entirely different thing to try on a busy urban road with people crossing and junctions every 50 metres or so. Just won't work.


The interesting thing to me are the trials currently on various roads in London where signage and kerbs, crossings etc have been removed. All the evidence seems to be that everyone behaves far more responsibly and safely in those open shared environments....so perhaps the suggestion that it's the removal of boundaries and rules that lead to safety more than vice versa has some demonstrable truth to it?


Of course any accident is an accident too many but when I was a child I remember things like the Tufty Club and the Green Cross Man. There was constant advertising and efforts made to get the message on road safety accross to young people. Recently the government engaged on a campaign of hip adverts aimed at teenagers (the largest pedestrian group for fatalities)......but it doesn't seem anywhere as intensive as my years spend as a member of the Tufty Club or watching the green cross code man on tv. I like the idea of junior zebra crossings though and lollipop men and women are very effective ways to get children safely accross roads.


There are also more RTA's in the contryside in the UK than urban areas too.....

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...