Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I live nearby and always take it really slow as I exit that turn onto Adys. The lack of visibility as you make the turn is another hazard to negotiate.


What I do find amazing is that oncoming traffic on Adys (particularly cars coming from Goose Green end) regularly get belligerent as I pull out, even if it is only to then immediately hug the curb so that priority traffic can proceed.


The issue seems to be that they feel it's their right of way (which it is) and that therefore unless one is able to pull out using some kind of advanced driving manouevre, no gap in traffic is wide enough to accomodate pulling out without somehow inconveniencing them...



kford Wrote:

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

> david_carnell Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The thing is, if vehicles are being driven so

> > carelessly I'm rather glad the bollard is there

> > rather than it being a person getting swiped.

>

>

> As I said earlier, pedestrians wouldn't be hit if

> the pavement was left how the Victorians designed

> it. They'd be on the original pavement, rather

> than a build-out and cars would be able to

> negotiate it, like every other corner in the area.

>

>

> It's poor design, pure and simple, and the bollard

> is a problem put there to solve another problem,

> at our expense.

We shouldn't be designing our urban streets with car drivers in mind.


I'm sorry, but that must be one of the silliest things written here (and I've written a few) assuming it isn't meant to be ironic (in which case, apologies) - you cannot imagine or wish away the reality that the roads are full of vehicles, cars, vans, buses, lorries...


You design for what is there, not what you'd like to be there. By designing roads to be difficult and dangerous for road vehicles you aren't making them go away (other than actually blocking the road completely) - rather you are making life more difficult for (let's not forget, today of all days) constituents and voters. By all means cater for those who don't (or don't on occasion) use motorised road vehicles, but to do so at the cost of those who do simply makes no sense.


Poor road and junction design (just like speed and inconsiderate driving) can lead to accidents. The very fact that there have been god knows how many (low speed, not injury causing) accidents here - with the 'planners' (I use that word advisedly) simply exacerbating the problem, frankly, beggars belief. (And no, I haven't, so far, had an accident here).

I do drive. I own a car. And I live on Maxted Road so think I have a vested interest in this.


And I absolutely stand by that statement. While we continue to pander to car drivers in our urban design we will continue to blight our cities with their ever increasing presence.


I'm well aware the roads are full of cars. I even own one of them. But in an urban area their use should be discouraged, their speed lowered wherever possible and the safety and convenience of pedestrians and cyclist prioritised.


Cars kill. They pollute (which kills). They contribute to a sedantry lifestyle. Pedestrianism does none of these and yet car drivers complaints and continual whining is always seen to trump everything else.


It really isn't that hard not to hit a feckin great bollard of whatever shape and size unless you are an utter tool. Why we should redesign our pavements to accomodate such people is beyond me.

I love that junction, not as a driver though, it's a tight one which I avoid


But as an ongoing 'art installation' it keeps on giving. I regularly make a detour to check out the progress of the piece. So when it morphed from pillar to bell,I was keen to see how this would 'interact' with its audience. I'm glad to hear it's delivering in a new and memorable way


Long live the Pillar/Bollard Installation

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> ... and in the spirit of 'art installation' the

> film could be edited to produce a 'greatest hits'

> compilation to be displayed at the South London

> Gallery.


Indeed. I'd stand in a gloomy lit space and watch that for an hour or so


I'd even buy the DVD after

Right, I live in Nutbrook street and have done so pre-bollard.

I have questions.


What is the point of the narrowing of the road where the bollard is?

is it to put off large lorries? Too late, they have got this far, via Maxted and Bellenden, led by their sat navs and with no signs to put them off, though the council have been begged to put them up; and now they arrive in Nutbrook Street and can't negotiate the narrow junction.

So massive fail.


Is it to protect pedestrians? it is actually making them more vulnerable with no clear delineation of pavement from road.


Parking on Adys Road right up to the junction with Nutbrook, often edging up to the corner itself, makes traffic on Adys turning right into Nutbrook take a large swing, to take the corner, forcing Nutbrook traffic turning left into Adys to hug the corner.


Somebody here suggested putting up cameras to 'catch' the poor people who are weekly gouging, disembowelling and scratching their cars on this bollard.

Are there really so many bad drivers, or is it the bollard itself that is creating the bad driving?


I will confess that when the first original bollard went up, I immediately scratched the side of my car on it. I am not a corner- cutter, a speeder, or reckless: but I didn't expect the bollard to be there and having not expected it, I didn't see it. Since then I haven't repeated the mistake, because I know it is there.


It is badly placed. The markers on the parallel Amott Road are many and taller. They lead the eye to the narrowing of the junction they are protecting.

The Nutbrook one is just a nasty surprise. -the pavement disappears and to some, could look like road. What about those traffic calming measures where the road is painted red? It isn't painted anything. How about a Road Narrowing sign? how about just not narrowing the road to such a ridiculous degree?


The number of times this bollard comes down points to a problem with the position of the bollard and the functioning of the junction.

I've just checked and you cannot see it from drivers side of car when your bonnet nose reaches it and you are parallel with it. and it is differently positioned to its colleagues on Amott and Ondine Roads, in that they present a group of bollards following curve of road at junction.
so as you negotiate it, you cannot see it. It is in a blind spot. And this is me in a tiny low car. If you are in a people carrier, van or lorry, maybe the spot at which it becomes blind is much earlier. Yes, you should have seen it before you reached it but you should be able to see it from your car, surely.

I'm torn on this. Clearly repeating the same action over and over again (the placement of the bollard) and expecting a different outcome is insane. That said, it is entirely possible to turn that corner without clipping it - you don't need constant visibility of the corner as you turn - vehicles have blind spots, yes, but humans also have spatial awareness.


Personally, I don't think that lorries should be using these streets as a cut through (basically rat running) and the excuse that 'my satnav told me to do it' is lame.


The answer would seem to be some sort of width restriction earlier on, maybe at the junction with Bellenden.

It's interesting that even the car in that 'Streetview' would appear to be turning too early. It does amaze me how many people cut corners as the turn right. Power steering should make it much easier, but I think it's made us quite lazy.
The car in the shot is turning on an arc to avoid hitting the Gormley bollard on the right. Perhaps it wouldn't have to cut the corner if the road was at full original width, although I agree, lazy corner-cutting is very common.

The corner is fine for competent drivers of regular cars but not for anything with a longer section between wheels.


Yes coaches and articulated lorries need to be banned but the corner also needs to be safe for medium sz vehicles for those delivering or providing services such as removals, building work and DIY etc.

  • 2 weeks later...
I haven't yet checked the bollard's current status, but in the space of two hours today, two huge lorries and one large coach have failed to negotiate the junction with Adys Road and have reversed all the way back up Nutbrook Street to Maxted Road, where residents have had to guide them back on their way after they became getting stuck, without hitting all our cars. Time for a sign to stop them coming down this way, surely.
The problem isn't the corner per se - it's huge vehicles trying to cut through narrow streets. I saw a coach unable to make the turn from Maxted into Nutbrook.... It didn't even make it as far as the infamous Adys Road bollard.

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...