Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Call me a curmudgeon, but I thought the reason for 'traffic calming' measures was to regulate the speed of traffic in areas where there was an issue with road safety/accidents or there was a sensible reason, like high volumes of kids crossing the road on their way to school.


As a resident of Scutari Road for the last 18 years, I can report that there have been no traffic accidents on Scutari Road involving any kind of injury to people or animals since I have been here. A recent consultation notice was sent out by the council, to which I responded with this information, and also informed them that their last plan for unwanted speed humps was cancelled as a result of the consensus of residents submitted to the council planning officer involved. So far, everyone that I have spoken to at the same end of the street is of the same opinion - we don't want the speed humps - yet the painted guides and parking restrictions are now in place. Some are a matter of just 40 feet apart!!!


What is the point of a council that does not listen to it's residents, and which also blindly ignores the opinions and wishes of the people that it's decisions affect. The money could seriously be better spent on a whole bunch of other stuff that deserves way more attention than changes to a quiet residential road which has proven safe and 'no real issue' for traffic since the major tunnelling works on Beechcroft Reservoir affected us all so much.


The engineer involved seems to hold the view that 80% of the 30 or so households on Scutari Road were in favour of the humps, which is in complete contrast to the petition that prevented the humps only a few years ago. So it appears that now we must suffer the noise of frequent braking and accelerating as traffic uses our street, and also put up with the discomfort of having to drive over the humps whenever we leave our own homes.


Am I on my own here, or has the council gone completely bonkers with their money, in such otherwise difficult times???


If you are affected by this, or similar 'traffic calming' nonsense (as residents of Marmora Road will soon be) then let's just create a wave of visible opposition and outrage, as I feel certain the glossy consultation process was the end of a 'fait a complit' tactic.


I'd also really like to hear if anyone in Scutari Road actually supports the sinusoidal speed hump installation, and why???


Outraged, of Scutari Road!!!!

While I'm at it, I would like to say that I do agree with the raised junctions along Scutari Road. If we have to live with some for of 'traffic calming' they will do the trick. Why bugger up the entire road when the measure at junctions will probably do the trick?


Come on local people, get your views out here!!!

Forest Hill Road has new things happening at the crossroads with Colyton Road/Dunstans Road. A kind of next step from the traffic lights at the crossroads that were installed for the Reservoir Works lorries 3 years ago.


Completely agree with you that Forest Hill Rd has far greater need than Scutari Rd!,,

I totally agree with Brian.What a total waste of money.

As a resident of Therapia for over 40 years, I cannot recall a motor vehicle accident of any kind in Scutari, Therapia, Mundania or Marmora roads.Good ED Effers, please correct me if I am mistaken.

I seem to remember a consultation document from the council a few years ago, asking residents views on speed humps in the aforementioned roads.In my reply I expressed the opinion that it would be a waste of the councils money and in fact the noise and thumps of vehicles negotiating the humps could probably damage adjacent properties, leading to insurance claims for underpinning to certain properties. This in turn could possibly lead to the insurers claiming against the council for installing speed humps, that caused the damage.

Forest Hill Road may need speed humps. but certainly not Scutari or adjacent roads.

Brian Tee Wrote:

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

> Come on local people, get your views out here!!!


I'm not really local enough for your purposes. But, in case it helps, this suggests there were traffic incidents resulting in two serious injuries and one slight one on Scutari Road between 2000 and 2010.

Unfortunately the contractors are already there - woken this morning as they set up shop.


My main concern about Scutari is not any degree of speeding - where I agree with BT about lack of need and waste of money on speed humps, but the tendency for people to use it as a rat run from Peckham Rye, via Homestall, Scutari and Marmora into Forest Hill Road - missing out various traffic lights. As Scutari and Marmora are also plagued by appalling parking, the Scutari / Marmora junction is usually a very dangerous junction for pedestrians and car users alike.

Marmora Man Wrote:

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

> Unfortunately the contractors are already there -

> woken this morning as they set up shop.

>

> My main concern about Scutari is not any degree of

> speeding - where I agree with BT about lack of

> need and waste of money on speed humps, but the

> tendency for people to use it as a rat run from

> Peckham Rye, via Homestall, Scutari and Marmora

> into Forest Hill Road - missing out various

> traffic lights. As Scutari and Marmora are also

> plagued by appalling parking, the Scutari /

> Marmora junction is usually a very dangerous

> junction for pedestrians and car users alike.



Based on this (very useful) resource, it looks like the main danger area is the crossroads at Mundani/Scutari, which should be sorted by the raised junction that is being being installed. The only other casualty on Scutari was a vehicle occupant, and I remember the ambulance that came up the road was because the driver (one of our neighbours) had suffered a minor heart attack at the wheel. He is sadly no longer with us, but the incident was not strictly a 'traffic' incident.

mynamehere Wrote:

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

> edhistory Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Which company was awarded the contract?

> >

> > John K

>

> Just curious what your thinking is here ed?


Conway were hired to do the resurfacing of the road a few weeks ago (which we're all very pleased with!!!) and are also now installing the humps. Is there a conspiracy theory at large here John?

Brian Tee Wrote:

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

> Marmora Man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Unfortunately the contractors are already there

> -

> > woken this morning as they set up shop.

> >

> > My main concern about Scutari is not any degree

> of

> > speeding - where I agree with BT about lack of

> > need and waste of money on speed humps, but the

> > tendency for people to use it as a rat run from

> > Peckham Rye, via Homestall, Scutari and Marmora

> > into Forest Hill Road - missing out various

> > traffic lights. As Scutari and Marmora are also

> > plagued by appalling parking, the Scutari /

> > Marmora junction is usually a very dangerous

> > junction for pedestrians and car users alike.

>

>

> Based on this (very useful) resource, it looks

> like the main danger area is the crossroads at

> Mundani/Scutari, which should be sorted by the

> raised junction that is being being installed. The

> only other casualty on Scutari was a vehicle

> occupant, and I remember the ambulance that came

> up the road was because the driver (one of our

> neighbours) had suffered a minor heart attack at

> the wheel. He is sadly no longer with us, but the

> incident was not strictly a 'traffic' incident.


The Road casualty Britain resource also demonstrates incredibly clearly the huge difference between the roads of the Colyton estate (Marmora, Mundania, Therapia, Shelbury, Dovedale and, of course Scutari, and the carnage that appears to occur along the entire adjacent length of Forest Hill Road. This is now even more complete madness!!! Screen-shot attached, to save everyone time!!!

Burbage Wrote:

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

> Brian Tee Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Come on local people, get your views out

> here!!!

>

> I'm not really local enough for your purposes.

> But, in case it helps, this suggests there were

> traffic incidents resulting in two serious

> injuries and one slight one on Scutari Road

> between 2000 and 2010.


And here (screen shot attached) is another reliable and similar resource, (which contains more detailed information) and which paints a slightly different picture.


No accidents on Scutari, and only one 'slight' incident at the junction of Mundania and Dovedale.


I must say,this is more consistent with the memories of other long term neighbourhood residents, and myself. It also reconfirms the carnage of Forest Hill Road. The Council is simply wasting money here, when they could be spending it wisely just a few hundred yards away!!!

I believe there were some complaints about speeding and that people were using Scutari and Marmora as a rat run.

The Council?s answer to anything like that is speed bumps and there is a seemingly endless budget for them.


I agree it does seem a reckless spend in these time of austerity when there is no data about traffic volumes or number of speeders and certainly, as you point out, the accident rate is not supportive of this measure. Likewise I doubt this information will be gathered after to see if the bumps were actually effective. There is even less justification if local residents are against it.


Personally I don?t think bumps are a very good solution to speeders: they affect small cars and bikes more than the 4x4 and they affect everyone rather than just speeders; they cause increased wear to the road; they cause accelerate/brake driving which causes more population and noise; and they don?t actually stop a determined speeder - I regularly see people racing along Colyton rd.


If there is a problem with speeders I don?t see why the police aren?t doing anything about it. Why isn't the 20 limit being enforced?


The consultation was not very well publicised and as a resident of a neighbouring street I have the concern that if they are effective then it will just cause traffic to shift to them.

Right, I've had enough of this preposterous lack of action on Forest Hill Road. Those screen shots are damning. Am emailing all my councillors and MP again now.


Should we/could we get a petition up? Seems futile given what's happened on Scutari.


Just WTF is going on here? Who sanctions this spending in the face of the clear consensus of the people living and using the roads?


GRRRRRR.

I have just contacted one of the local ward councillors to see what background there might be to this that helps us to understand what's happening with local traffic management/speed calming strategies.


Hopefully it will reveal more than we know at present.


Thanks for all of your support so far!! If I see the head engineer outside, I might just show him this thread.

Looking at Southwark Councils mapping pages - filtered to show Southwark traffic flow survey - http://maps.southwark.gov.uk/connect/index.jsp?tooltip=yes no traffic counts have been undertaken.

Such traffic counts would show vehicle numbers, speeds, average speed, mean speed and 85th percentile speeds.


In East Dulwich ward we've always ensured we've had that data before pushing for speed calming.

These roads are in Peckham Rye ward.

Those screen shots are concerning. Of course there are more vehicles and pedestrians on forest hill road meaning there is always likely to be more incidents but the sheer number is very stark. I will again email lewisham and southwark councillors and mps to ask for action. Hopefully I will actually get a response this time!


I think a petition is a good idea if there is a strength of opinion locally, as i suspect there is. An online petition through change.org or similar perhaps? If it is to be done properly would need quite a bit of local coordination to get people to sign up. The petition itself Would need careful framing since southwark will probably just say that they are planning on doing traffic calming measures (there was a recent consultation) - but these seem inadequate in my opinion.

How about


'In the light of the number and severity of accidents regularly happening on Forest Hill Road, we call for a thorough investigation of traffic levels and dangers on Forest Hill Road, London SE22, followed by appropriate traffic-calming measures for the safety of road users and local residents alike'?

We live on Scutari too, and since the road has been resurfaced and the original speed humps and potholes removed the traffic has seemed faster. My 4 year old was nearly hit by a van a couple of days back. I don't like speed bumps much myself, but somethijng needs to be there to slow speeding motorists down.
I have lived in scutari for 8 years and have been pressing the council for some means of reducing speeds. it is a long, wide road and is used as a rapid rat run morning and evening. the so-called bumps put in today are waste of time and our money. they hardly qualify as bumps at all, so weeny are they. note johnie... there were no speed bumps on scutari at all before this rubbish attempt.

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...