Jump to content

Consultation on ?improving? the junction of East Dulwich Grove, Townley Road and Green Dale


Recommended Posts

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Near misses shouldnt be ignored. Classic H&S

> pyramid.

> Lots of near misses, a number of slight injuries,

> a few serious injuries and the thankfully

> occassional death.

> If you can reduce the near misses then you reduce

> the occurences of more serioues events.



An ED near miss is another's Grand Canyon. Why can't all be aware.

Too many cyclists and pedestrians are dying or being injured on the capital's roads. i find many of the comments here smack of complacency. We have a bit of a problem at this junction and it should be addressed. It must be safe for children and teenagers to walk or cycle to school.

Not to mention the improvement in their health that this would bring.

I am now beginning to be persuaded that a no right turn for vehicles is what is needed.

Well done, BrandNewGuy. You are very persuasive.

So why weren't you campaigning for these changes before these proposals were made, if it's so dangerous? Talk of 'too many cyclists and pedetrians are dying' does not help us one bit to decide what to do.

I'd be really interested to see the statisitics:

- number of cars turning right from Townley vs number of cyclists heading straight on.

- number of times cars turn right from Townley and there is no cyclists coming the other way.


Banning the right turn seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and I say this as a regular cyclist, someone who commutes to London daily and has done so for almost 20 years.


I'm sure that the best way to alieviate this would be a cycle only green light from Greendale that operated for 5-10 seconds before the lights went green in both directions. It would need to be either button operated or sensitive to the prescence of a cyclist so that it didn't operate when there was no one waiting.

I'm sure that the best way to alieviate this would be a cycle only green light from Greendale that operated for 5-10 seconds before the lights went green in both directions. It would need to be either button operated or sensitive to the prescence of a cyclist so that it didn't operate when there was no one waiting.


now that does sound like an answer

Hi ITATM,

I think that's partly what the consultation includes. A green phase headstart for cyclists ahead of the green phase for other vehicles. Suspect it isn't 5-10 seconds. But even a few seconds gets most cyclists across the area that would conflict with right turning vehicels from Townley Road.

Bizarre to have both proposed - banning right turn and cyclists head start.


Hi ed_pete,

Could you do a short survey during morning rush 'hour' from 7.30-9.30am and tell us. I suspect many more cars than cycles. Bit chicken and egg. Some would suggest remove the right turn and more people would cycle.

James - much as I'd love to, my day job prevents me from carrying out such a survey and anyway, in reponse to an earlier question on this very thread you said that the Council officials would already have data on traffic volumes and flows. It's just a pity they didn't include this information in the consultation. Given the budget of circa ?200k, I would have thought that they could pay for some people to count the cars and bikes for a few hours for a few days. TBH, I would have thought this a pre-requisite.

Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping to prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint doesn't do very much either.



Exactly - if they're not paying attention enough to notice another human being, what makes anyone think they'll notice a sign. Probably too busy playing with their phones.


@BrandNewGuy, cyclists have been hit at this junction - at least three recorded incidents (injuries serious enough to need a hospital visit) since 2006. And with more & more kids cycling to school in the area, the council should be doing everything in its power to prevent a reoccurrence.

Unfortunately it's not only motorists who fail to pay attention enough to notice other human beings. Cyclists have been known to exhibit a similar failing. And they have also been known to ignore the existence of red lights and pedestrian crossings, thereby putting themselves and others at peril.

wulfhound Wrote:

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

> > Sounds nice but I can't see a few signs helping

> to prevent drivers running over cyclists. Paint

> doesn't do very much either.

>

>

> Exactly - if they're not paying attention enough

> to notice another human being, what makes anyone

> think they'll notice a sign. Probably too busy

> playing with their phones.


Based on what evidence? None.


> @BrandNewGuy, cyclists have been hit at this

> junction - at least three recorded incidents

> (injuries serious enough to need a hospital visit)

> since 2006. And with more & more kids cycling to

> school in the area, the council should be doing

> everything in its power to prevent a reoccurrence.


The Council should be doing everything in their power to assess the risks, assess the costs and act acordingly. They are not there to ensure no accidents occur. Otherwise they'd shut all the roads to any traffic over 10 miles per hour. You can't engineer a physical solution to a human problem. As I've said, it's a complex issue, but reducing it to 'They should do whatever they can to ensure the absolute safety of cyclists' is impractical and unhelpful.

Hi BNG,

Yes you can target having zero crashes deaths - hence the Swedish Vision Zero http://www.visionzeroinitiative.com/

To make that happen you have to dramatically reduce all crashes.

Hmmm "target", "vision" ? and according to the NYTimes: "Zero. It is the number of people permitted to die in Swedish traffic, according to national law."


Fine words, but do you really think they're going to 'make that happen'? At last count there were 254 road deaths a year in Sweden, 17 years after this was introduced, which is very creditable, but not zero. Nor will it ever be.

Of course Vision Zero is mammoth long term plan. http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16

But they've reduced road deaths by 4/5th and halved since 2000. 2012 they had one child death on the roads.

We've also halved the Police recorded road deaths since 2000 across the UK. But hospitals didn't see such a decline.

This problem hasn't been reported for Swedish stats.


Some research suggests UK roads are sufficiently scary to current parents such that children are much less indepedently mobile. UK is worse than the European average for children involved in crashes.


Eitherway, I think this junction needs improving. I hope others also complete the consultation so their views will be recorded and influence the final decision.

James Barber Wrote:

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

> Some research suggests UK roads are sufficiently

> scary to current parents such that children are

> much less indepedently mobile. UK is worse than

> the European average for children involved in

> crashes.


Although you'll know that the number of children killed or seriously injured on the roads has been in decline for years.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2011


Scariness may have less to do with the facts and more to do with cultural change ? and spin.

It my be in decline, but unless that junction is perceived to be safe, we're not going to get the mums in their 4x4s letting their kids cycle to school and reducing the jams at school times.

The issue of the consultation is getting much broader as concerns are being discussed and the right turn and associated road narrowing is repeatedly questioned, even by us as regular cyclists. Many of the local roads are grouping together as residents - we have a group on Woodwarde, Gilkes, Dovercourt, Carlton. Are there any other residents grouping together by road - it would be useful to know as we should prepare for the consultation on Dec 3rd: The Dulwich Community Council meeting is at 7 pm on Wednesday December 3 at Christ Church, Barry Road as a reminder. For those not aware, there is an ongoing debate with Southwark about a new large housing development on the SG Smith Audi site at Village corner of Gilkes. Discussions there are already looking at closing the EDG exit from Gilkes - narrowing traffic alternatives and meaning that a no right turn at EDG/Townley should not be allowed to slip through without debate. The optimum solution needs to understand the issues for pedestrians, cyclists and those who do need to motor and be done through a transparent and representative consultation. As an example of a Southwark Council consultation, tracing its origins and evidence base, flags quite a few issues about lack of representation and decision making. In summary:

1. Original consultation. The following link describes the funding allocation and the rationale and parties involved for selecting East Dulwich Grove/Townley Road as its focus. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/news/article/1449/285000_of_funding_awarded_to_support_cycling_in_dulwich_and_herne_hill. The Southwark website link referenced, notes a feasibility study. Has anyone seen this study?


2. Southwark Cycling Group seems to have taken the lead to apply this funding to the EDG/Townley junction. Its minutes are at: http://southwarkcyclists.org.uk/about/meetings-minutes. Chris Mascord (the Southwark consultation contact/planner on the document that we have received through our doors)and the new Councillor Mark Williams make some comments throughout these minutes. Note Oct 2013 AGM where it is recorded:

a.Unrepresentative Groups as seem to be disagreements even within the group. No mention of how the opinions of wider community are gathered or represented:

"Planning: some complaint that views forwarded to council as those of Southwark Cyclists did not fully represented those expressed on the e-group.

b. Self appointed spokesmen. So all members of the committee (which is " largely a list of people who were active in the group" assume named posts to make them seem more official. In particular someone has assumed roles as main council liaison and Community Council Liaison for Dulwich. Election of Officers summary without voting:

?BO challenged the need for a 21-member committee which had developed historically. AH said that a job title or named post was useful when dealing with outsiders...... It was agreed to elect three officers and remainder of committee would become named posts..............Without voting, the following were agreed: etc???.


I do believe that as a community we should be presented with facts about the original funding, the representation that has taken it forward and full consultation around that; the facts and evidence about junctions that need to be considered; the facts and evidence about the EDF/Townley junction itself; specifics about the modelling and assumptions for proposing the no right turn and the rationale for its selection amongst the range of options considered. We are a community with a lot of projects (inc ED Hospital, SG Smith and road changes) proposed and do need to get voices heard and proper transparency and decision making.

Voice your opinion to Chris Mascord and perhaps TFL who are on the Southwark Cyclsits committee. Preferably join together to really represent your street and petition that opinion while we still have chance.

Here endeth.............

what did this leaflet say out of interest? Worth posting here for the record of lobbying going on perhaps? Many individuals on our roads are prompting each other as neighbours to take note and reply - not throw this consultation in the bin.

Southwark Cyclists (southwarkcyclists.org.uk)

From the website text. Look at Oct 2013 AGM minutes to see how representation happens and is positioned as representing local communities. Great to see the focus on cycling; transparency and representation of a community is not clear. It says:


is a very mixed group of people who believe that cycling as transport is undervalued, under used and under supported.


We are regularly consulted on cycling issues and infrastructure, such as the redevelopment of Elephant & Castle, Camberwell, London Bridge area, design of the London Cycle Network, collision remedy schemes, location of cycle racks and standards for these, and making sure that cycling is well represented in Southwark?s bids for money from central government.


We campaign on all cycling issues in the borough, run events, cycle socially, carry out research, support London Cycling Campaign?s work, and usually manage to have fun in the process. Our successes are due to our very active membership which includes a team of fantastic volunteers and committee, but we always welcome new people. Why not give some time?


There are lots of options, every little helps and support will be given. No need to commit your life away!


We have a formal constitution that declares our clear mission to:

encourage more people to cycle,

improve conditions for cyclists,

raise the profile of cycling.


We also have a clear Equal Opportunities policy.


The borough has much to offer ? it?s central, large, extremely diverse, steeped in history, brimming with the new, dotted with parks and waterways, home to the Mayor and full of opportunities.


We look forward to meeting you!

With regard to the proposal for this crossing I would like to put forward a very radical and possible live changing suggestion.


If you are coming down Greendale and want to get to Townley Road and feel nervous just get of your bike and use the crossing facing Alleyns School. Alternatively if you want to cycle towards Herne Hill again get off the bike and use the crossing by the James Alleyn Girls to reach the road. .If you are coming Townley Road and want to go towards East Dulwich and feel nervous use the crossing and then proceed.


No doubt the cycling brethren will insist they should be able to go anywhere willy-nilly without thinking. The same applies to our motorised drivers.


You could even push your bike on the pavement to either school from these points if you are a child.


As I have said it is a very radical suggestion and would need the application of common sense which seems to be lacking in many things these days, it would also save a great deal of money.


I have been using this route since I was able to on a bike for almost 60 years in safety and am what you would call a local who has managed to survive.


I cannot see why people cannot be responsible for their own actions in every day life.


Unfortunately many local decisions are taken by faceless Southwark Officers after a single complaint and committees you never hear of in the local real world

Removing the right turn is likely to very materially increase traffic to get onto Lordship Lane at the other end of Townley Road. At peak times, there is already a long queue here, particularly when the school coaches appear. And this is already a dangerous junction with cars speeding down Lordship Lane, often failing to stop at the pedestrian lights. There have been plenty of accidents at this junction reported in the EDF over the years.


Before removing the right turn, a step which in practice is unlikely to be reversed, Southwark should commission and publish some proper modelling of likely changes to traffic flows.

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...