Jump to content

Recommended Posts

"Some fool has even seen fit to make it a box junction, which means it is nigh on impossible for more than one car for each lights change to (legally) turn right at rush hour. "


But motorists can enter a box junction to turn right?


A small roundabout would do the trick, one of those flat, painted ones that allow buses and trucks to negotiate the radius easily.

>> small roundabout would do the trick, one of those flat, painted ones that allow buses and trucks to negotiate the radius easily.<<


You mean the sort that has just been removed from the Melford/Underhill Roads crossing because of all the accidents on it? :))

And much like the one that still exists at the Melford Road/Wood Vale intersection, where accidents still occur regularly because people don't treat it like a roundabout but drive straight over the centre and into the path of oncoming traffic from the right? Luckily, it isn't a spot where many pedestrians cross, so there's been nothing like the terrible accident further down the road. However, one of the houses on Wood Vale has had its front wall/gate driven into four times in the last two years.
  • 1 month later...

Hi - just spent time looking for this old topic because I raised it with Valerie Shawcross / Fiona Colley and got a reply. Below is my question and her reply.


"Dear Ms Shawcross

With all the dangerous junctions and unnecessary traffic lights, what can you do to make junctions safer for road users (pedestrians included). When turning right at traffic lights it can be very dangerous exercise forcing/encouraging more and more road users to feel they have to turn right on a red light or they don't get to their destination at all!

We have worked so hard to try and get TfL and Southwark to do something about one such junction of East Dulwich Road and both sides of Peckham Rye, SE22 and SE15 side, by installing a roundabout and zebra crossings instead but they have simply ignored us. Streetmap link below

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=534478&y=175535&z=1&sv=534478,175535&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf


Reply from Ms Shawcross:

"I know this location and will again raise the issue with the Council - the local Labour Councillors have previously tried to get this issue resolved... It is something the Council can apply to TfL for funding to implement, but it is up to the Council to make the decision to apply for support to do it. We will let you know the Council's response.

Valerie."


Maybe people could email her regularly to check progress? It's all very well moaning about things in here where very few people who could do something actually read it, everyone who cares should bombard their councillors with emails and letters and so on. They may still ignored us but at least we know we tried.


I'll get me coat....

Why should I?

You have their email address above.

YOU do it.



Dodo1 Wrote:

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

> Yes quite agree with advice from Val Shawcross. my

> neighbours and I were a pain in the a**e to our

> cllrs until they dealt with a similar issue.

> Whilst you're at it can you get them to deal with

> the junction of Court Lane & Lordship Lane!

I had an interesting experince at this junction a while ago. The lights has failed and it had turned into a free for all. As I was on foot you'd maybe expect it to be near impossible to cross, but on approaching the junction I put on my hardest 'peckham face' and walked out diagonally into the moving traffic. Because the drivers had slowed down and become more aware and less blas?, I was able to cross with ease. There have been studies showing that the removal of 'safety features' from the road have actually improved safety as motorists have greater awareness of their surroundings rather than having their 'I'm in a box and I'm going to ignore everyone else' attitude. In this particular instance, for me, it worked well and I didn't have to spend five minutes waiting for the lights, tho another poor woman I passed on the way was still stood there ten minutes later, to afraid to face down the motorist. This, though, is not a call for the lights to be removed as I'm sure within hours car drivers would be speeding through and doing handbrake turns, u-turns and probably even parking on the junction. The only way to make this junction really safe is to pedestrianise it so it can become a safe haven for mugging (please refer to another thread 'has anyone been mugged?)
  • 1 month later...
why don't you just bypass the junction and head for Barry Road via Crystal Palace road and Upland road. Once at the Clock House the choice is yours. There is absolutely no need to turn right at that junction. It is dangerous and should be made ahead only, if only to stop those arrogant swine's intent on not queuing in the left lane. You know the ones, pretending their turning right only to bully their way in at the last minute. The planners who instructed the bus lane on the approach to that junction don't live in the area. The decision was a disaster.

I lived just next to the junction (above the motor spares shop next to the Tesco) for three years and when working from home, I'd probably hear around two collisions, honks, swearing and shouting matches and the like, per day.


Not to mention the fact that I've now more or less completely tuned out sirens of any kind, having heard them at least once per hour, _every_ hour for around three years. Really, every hour day or night. When a police car is approaching a busy junction, how far in advance do they turn the siren on? Yep, just outside my old flat.


I wouldn't recommend living near the junction. Nice area but the noise is terrible.



: P

No, it is I do agree. I've noticed they've changed the lights fairly recently to include a green ahead only light (going south), rather than a standard green. So the next step to make it safer further would be to include an extra timing sequence for a right filter on the eastern traffic flow.

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...