Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well I had no idea there was NO provision for pedestrians - I did notice during the snow people struggling to cross.

There should be an obligation on the contractor to make it safe for everybody. I'll ask my Traffic Friend to comment on this!

Loz wrote: But, can I ask a question? Is it standard practice for the driver in these incidents to be arrested? I am happy to stand corrected, but I believe that an 'arrest' has to be made so that an individual can be questioned under caution - this is a protection for the individual as it is for the police - in this case where there has been a fatality the possibility of prosecution must initially be high, until all the facts can be verified. It is important that questioning of the driver be conducted under PACE (and if under 'arrest' the driver would be entitled to legal representation). Being arrested and being charged are two very different conditions.


Clearly the driver is very likely to be in shock - so it is very important that he isn't led into saying things that he may later regret - expressing great sorrow may be understood to imply admitting responsibility - which he may not intend to do. "I am so sorry that I hit the child" can be read in two ways.


Luckily (what an awful use of that word) there were numbers of witnesses to this terrible event, so it is to be hoped that the truth of it will soon become apparent. The level to which the road works and consequent confusion were contributory factors (whilst not necessarily being the primary cause) will clearly be an issue for the coronor and any subsequent proceedings.

Owing to there being a fatality the police treat it has a crime scene therefore any parties involved get arrested.


I was on an advance road safety course last week. We discussed Highway Risk and Liability Claims. These are a few statements relating to the 1980s Highways Act which I think put things into perspective.


Road users are responsible for their own safety and have a duty to take the road as they find it.


The highway authority should avoid trapping reasonable users into danger.


A highway authority should not act irrationally.


Ok, the permanent signals were out including the pedestrian facilities, this was clear to all and not a trap.


Would it be rational to provide special facilities while these temporary works were undertaken? Would that mean every temporary works in London would require special treatment?


Yes a little girl has died and that is terrible, I am confident the police will investigate this matter and if anyone is at fault they will be prosecuted.

We don't know what the cause of the accident was and I am very, very sad that this has happened and offer my deepest and sincerest sympathies to the family of the little girl. I am also very angry because this junction is a known danger spot for anyone who uses it and this fact is consistently ignored by the local authority.


The roadworks created an even greater danger and this was brought to the attention of those responsible but still the poor conditions continued. I do think the temporary lights should have included a green light for pedestrians to cross by, mainly because they were hardly temporary (this has gone on for several weeks now). Only cars were included in the temporary filter system, there was no provision made for pedestrians to cross, they were left guessing as to when it was safe, with no actual right of way over cars at any time. This is wrong, pedestrians should not be left to take pot luck on a junction that was already very dangerous, not when the work takes several weeks, it is irresponsible.

I have recently written to Tessa Jowell, our MP about the roads in ED as I am concerned about the pedestrian crossing near my house on ED Grove ie.vehicles are driving too fast and fail to stop for pedestrians.


I am so very sad to hear that the little girl died yesterday- this is the type of tragedy that I wanted Ms Jowell to try to help prevent. Ms Jowell has written to Ms Barbara Selby at Southwark Transport Group who is meant to be responding back since the 14th December. If you want to email Tessa Jowell, her email is [email protected]


Maybe together we can lobby our MPs to prevent these terrible tragedies. My thoughts go to the girls loved ones.

The next junction, at the junction of East Dulwich Road and Peckham Rye on the east side that leads on to Nunhead or turning right to go up towards Brockley. When this junction first got its traffic lights we were not a little irritated that there were no filter lights for the traffic turning right (as you're coming from East Dulwich). The 484 bus goes up there as well as a lot of traffic. I have written letters drawn maps attended Community Councils, written to TfL and my MP. My Councillors also agreed the point.


But nothing has ever been done. I have tried so hard. Turning right up that junction is a complete nightmare and on other threads I have made the points that the fact the council close off roads forcing more and more traffic on to fewer and fewer roads, and then not making adequate traffic lighting systems to allow for safe passage of the resulting extra traffic, makes for us road users to take risks and turns us in to criminals when it becomes clear as we sit there that the only way we'll get home is by turning right on a red light.


No-one accepted these points, there are long dead flowers on a light stand there although I don't know the situation behind that accident, and still it's a dangerous crossing. So what we still need on BOTH sets of traffic lights is right turn filter lights to go up Peckham Rye SE22 towards Forest Hill Road or up Peckham Rye SE15 towards Brockley.


And my thoughts go to the family of the girl and the driver of the vehicle and also the witnesses who may also be in shock.

It is all very well lamenting and writing to our MPs, but the only way to bring about fewer driver, passenger and pedestrian deaths and injuries is for everyone to slow down and pay more attention. Humps, filters, police cameras will go so far, but all they do anyway is try to encourage people to drive more slowly and more carefully. It will be impossible to prevent every accident, however.

Those drivers of us 'in the know' who avoid the turn right junction by going down nigel road and then turn right across the semi roundabout on that lower part of Rye Lane, I believe are in for a nasty surprise with plans to make nigel road a no through/dead end. Bliss for residents I am sure, but extra pressure on that right hand junction on the rye.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I think the intention was to make Sternhall Lane a dead end and narrow the exit from Nigel Road so there could only be one lane of traffic exiting rather than 2 - which will only cause more traffic jams - when they did the consultation I suggested that a better idea would be to put a yellow box junction in front of Nigel Road so that the traffic queuing at the lights bat the Rye Lane/Heaton Road junction did not block the cars tryintg to turn right onto the lower part of Rye Lane. These road schemes can only be thought up by people who don't live in the locality - nice ideas on paper but an absolute nightmare in practice.

Doesn't make any difference to the drivers on Colyton Road, and theres a major school there. But even the parents drive fast and park on the zigzag lines. This is the 8o's generation, me first, me middle and me last.



ratty Wrote:

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

> If it did take the life of a 10 year old to get

> these roadworks sorted then someone should fooking

> pay for this. This is so so sad.

>

> When is 20mph going to be introduced?? I thought

> it was to be the whole of Southwark?? Cannot come

> soon enough!

>

> RIP!

Thanks Boothy, Just written to Tessa Jowell and James Barber in the hope that in this case at least something can be done to make this dreadful junction safer.


boothy Wrote:

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

> I have recently written to Tessa Jowell, our MP

> about the roads in ED as I am concerned about the

> pedestrian crossing near my house on ED Grove

> ie.vehicles are driving too fast and fail to stop

> for pedestrians.

>

> I am so very sad to hear that the little girl died

> yesterday- this is the type of tragedy that I

> wanted Ms Jowell to try to help prevent. Ms

> Jowell has written to Ms Barbara Selby at

> Southwark Transport Group who is meant to be

> responding back since the 14th December. If you

> want to email Tessa Jowell, her email is

> [email protected]

>

> Maybe together we can lobby our MPs to prevent

> these terrible tragedies. My thoughts go to the

> girls loved ones.

So how would you make this junction safer?


I would like to see splitter island on all arms, like the one on the northern Peckham Rye arm so offside secondary signals can be provided. Especially important if large vehicles are in the nearside lane and you have two lanes on the approaches as is East Dulwich and Nunhead lane. Also splitter islands provide physical protection to waiting traffic to turn right, so you?re not sat in the middle of the junction with looking straight ahead at the on coming traffic.


It has controlled pedestrian crossing facilities on all arms with an all red stage. (no traffic moves while pedestrians cross). You cannot get any better than that.


Most right turns are banned except Nunhead Lane to Peckham Rye north for buses only. The only right turn possible for all vehicles is East Dulwich Road to Peckham Rye southbound. I can?t imagine there are many injury accidents associated with this movement probably lots of damage only (broken headlights and egos)


I would not consider pedestrian guardrailings, as the radii of the kerbs are tight and this could become a pinch point for cyclists where they become crushed between the railings and the turning vehicle (as what happened to that poor lady at Elephant and Castle last year). Also owing to the numbers of child pedestrians the railings would block the sight lines between drivers and small children (visi-rail railing would not work as the radii are too tight).


The eastbound approach has a falling gradient so approach speeds are fast. People on here are complaining that other drivers jump the lights reducing the opportunity for right turns. So I would suggest introducing splitter islands as I described earlier then look at installing red light running cameras with speed on green function on the Nunhead Lane and East Dulwich Road arms. This will catch drivers jumping the lights and also drivers speeding through the junction when the lights are green.


Anyone else got any ideas?

I cycle to work through the Aylesbury estate and there has been on going road works at the junction of Albany Rd and Thurlow St. This is a T junction, not a cross roads, but the temporary traffic lights (the kind they have set in red and white painted barrels of concrete) have pedestrian controls on them. This is a much less pedestrian traffic heavy junction than the one we are talking about so why weren't the same provisions made for peds here?

Sandperson Wrote:

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

> I cycle to work through the Aylesbury estate and

> there has been on going road works at the junction

> of Albany Rd and Thurlow St. This is a T junction,

> not a cross roads, but the temporary traffic

> lights (the kind they have set in red and white

> painted barrels of concrete) have pedestrian

> controls on them. This is a much less pedestrian

> traffic heavy junction than the one we are talking

> about so why weren't the same provisions made for

> peds here?


I know this junction. The signals are being modernised under the TfL?s rolling programme. All signals over 20 years old are being replaced like-for-like. Therefore it is possible for the contractor to stick the old ones in barrels while the new ones fitted.


The works on East Dulwich Road Peckham Rye were emergency gas works. The contractors turned off the fixed lights. Unfortunately portable traffic signals do not come with pedestrian crossing facilities.

Perhaps you?re right, perhaps someone should write to the manufacturers.


The trouble is every junction is different, it would be quite hard to take portable lights off the shelf to fit every situation out there. Then all the stuff you would need push buttons etc. It would be like installing a set of fixed traffic lights.


Actually you need to start right at the top with the Government. Pedestrian signals on portable traffic signals are not ?type approved? therefore would not be enforceable.


The regulations can be found here.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1997/19972400.htm


So you need to write to the Government to update this Statutory Instrument then get a manufacturer to make some.

Hi the-e-dealer,

Standard operating procedure is for Southwark Council traffic officers to visit the scene of all KSI/dreadful crashes (Killed Seriously Injured).

They talk through with traffic Police the issues involved in a crash to see if any emergency actions are required.


This crash seems to have involved huge tipper lorry the type that has 4 steering wheels. This type are the prime killer of cyclists in London. They don't have side guards to stop things going under the back wheels. They're exempt from side guards on the basis they might go to rough building sites and the side guards get damaged. Ridiculous exemption which one major cement company ignores and has had side guards installed. I don't know if it would have made a difference during this crash but it might have helped.


I suspect a number of factors that individually would'nt be a problem but together have created this situation.

I hope the Police, Health&Safety Executive and Coroner do a really good investigation so real lessons are learnt.

I have a major concern with the people who have avoided the junction at peckham rye by going down Nigel Road. How do you get there? That would be off a well known major road onto a completely residential street that has more than enough traffic, speeders etc.... We have spped bumps, we just hear the cars bounce over them. I have three children under the age of 5 and the amount of traffic on our street has increased hugely since the peckham rye lights were out and even more now nigel road were out. Whatever shortcuts you take PLEASE stay below 20mph not 30! Its a residential area first, not your short cut (I more than appreciate the neccesity for short cuts, I drive with my job in a neighbouring borough so rely on the same solution).

I only beg that we don't tranfers the problem from A/B roads to back roads and more unexpected than ever accidents

I am terribly upset by the death of this little girl, every time I drive past I just feel so terribly sad and tearful.


I am so angry as it appears the unnecessarily slow road works along with a ridiculous contra flow system were a major contributory factor.


The contra flow was stupidly dangerous over complicated and slow and frustrating for everyone.


It would have been far far simpler to have implemented a one way system going North towards Peckham along the west side of Peckham Rye and then back South along the East side of Peckham Rye. SIMPLE!



I find it laughable that many road works are carried out in the name of safety, yet little thought goes into the safety whilst the safety improvements are being carried out.


Though that is not the case here as it was gas works.


Remember the works at the goose green roundabout? It?s a miracle that no one was killed or seriously injured during that slow tortuous process.


Though there can be no justice for the unnecessary loss of this little girls life, making the roads safer in the future the very minimum the following actions would help us all in the future.


1. The contractor should be removed from the council contractor scheme for 12 months and fined for neglect. (Such tough action would in future force them to speed up works at such vital dangerous junctions or rethink their systems).


2. The council department responsible for the permits and road safety should be investigated, as there was a clear failure in their ability to permit a safe contra flow solution. No Question there was a complete common sense failure in this department. Maybe some heads should roll?

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...