Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi the-e-dealer,

I've spoken to council officers.

The Standard Operating Procedure you've described is still followed and was followed on the day. The temporary works were orignally planend to be left in place to allow Thames Water work and resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single days.

After the Police had investigated and recorded the crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and barriers, etc to be removed.

It was felt that under the circumstances continuing with the temporary lights would have been inappropriate.

So at some point Thames Water will need to undertake works at this location and resurfacing will also be required after Thames Water.

JBARBER Wrote:

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


> The temporary works were orignally planend to be left

> in place to allow Thames Water work and

> resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single

> days.

> After the Police had investigated and recorded the

> crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and

> barriers, etc to be removed.

> It was felt that under the circumstances

> continuing with the temporary lights would have

> been inappropriate.

> So at some point Thames Water will need to

> undertake works at this location and resurfacing

> will also be required after Thames Water.


So the intention was to leave the contra flow in place until such time as Thames Water had the time to get around to doing their couple of days worth of work ?



What UTTER Nonsense !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Is this why we see roadworks unatended for weeks on end whilst we all wait for thames water british gas or edf to BOTHER to turn up and do their work?



I am now even more disgusted in the mangement incompetence of the works which have and are being carried out on peckham rye.



WHAT DO THE SOUTHWARK TEAM DO ALLLLLLLL DAY ????????

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> Hi the-e-dealer,

> I've spoken to council officers.

> The Standard Operating Procedure you've described

> is still followed and was followed on the day. The

> temporary works were orignally planend to be left

> in place to allow Thames Water work and

> resurfacing. Each planned for consequtive single

> days.


> After the Police had investigated and recorded the

> crime scene they allowed the temporary lights and

> barriers, etc to be removed.

> It was felt that under the circumstances

> continuing with the temporary lights would have

> been inappropriate.

> So at some point Thames Water will need to

> undertake works at this location and resurfacing

> will also be required after Thames Water.



This is really weak. For 'inappropriate' should we read 'dangerous'?


As was pointed out by numerous people before and after this tragic accident, the temporary traffic light system meant that schoolchildren had little choice but to take their chances on a dangerous junction. The idea that it would have remained in place longer than was necessary because this was somehow convenient for Thames Water or whatever contractor was involved is shocking.


We all understand roadworks have to take place and inevitably cause inconvenience and can make roads more dangerous but the council must have a responsibility to ensure their impact is minimised, particularly where issues of safety have been brought to their attention. I hope Mr Barber can raise this with the appropriate people to ensure it does not happen again.

We all know the only departments which are 1/2 competent at Southwark council are


Council Tax (collection).

&

Parking Enforcement.



To the long long list of incompetent ones we can now add the southwark Highway dept safety team.


Who spend all day warm in their offices looking at plans to put shed?s and extensions in back gardens.


If there was a way Southwark could charge us for safe, clutter free, road work free, easy flowing, speed bump free, roads they would!

BUT as they can?t we have to put up with dangerous, slow, filthy roads.



SHAME on you SOUTHWARK !!!

I thought Southwark had one of the least successful council tax collection records but maybe I'm wrong.


James, is it possible to find out if they will make it safer for pedestrians when Thames Water start doing their work?

  • 2 weeks later...

With respect to the collission site and temporary lights not having pedestrian phasing. Southwark Council officers have told me that at present no temporary traffic signals with integrated pedestrian phasing have been approved by Department of Transport for use. That this is an industry wide concern and discussions are taking place with the Department of Transport, London Council's (representing all councils in London) and Transport for London with an expectation that approval will be given. No time scales yet on this.


Clearly this means that when permanent lights are replaced with temporary lights existing pedestrian phasing is lost. To deter pedestrians from chancing this ridiculous situation barriers are placed but clearly some will try dodging traffic to cross a road.


This is clearly a national issue.

I've asked Southwark officers what timescales they understand for type approval of such phasing by the Dept of Transport.

I've asked GLA member Caroline Pidgeon if she can ask Transprot for London what they understand the timescale to be.

I've also asked simon Hughes whether he could ask a Parliamentary Members Questions to the Dept of Transport when they anticipate type approval.

WHen I hear something I'll feedback on my councillor thread.


In the mean time I've asked officers that generally for SOuthwark where pedestrian crossing near a school will be temporary out of operation that such works take place during school holidays. Clearly many utilities undertake emergency works but where not an emergecny this would a difference.

JBARBER Wrote:

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

> With respect to the collission site and temporary

> lights not having pedestrian phasing.


From the above.

I can see NOTHING has been learnt!!!!!


?Type approved temporary pedestrian crossings?

Just another layer of complication where common sense should prevail.


The lessons to be learnt are


1 The roads works at such junctions should be carried out wherever possible at weekends and or holidays.


2 They should be carried out as quickly as possible.


3 They should NOT be left in place for days / weeks on end whilst the utility Co?s faf about deciding when to bother turning up to carry out the works.


4 If there is absolutely no other choice but to carry out the works during weekdays / school days, there should be a police presence at the contra flow during the school rush hours.


In this particular instance as I have said before there was a FAR FAR safer option which was to implement a one way system and so avoid the danger of the contra flow altogether as even with the lights left to run as usual there would have been much less disruption and danger to all road users.


The excuse that there is no suitable high cost technical solution ?which could fail!? is such a pathetic cop out.


Please keep Southwarks safety teams responsible and focused on the realities of real life and real life solutions. I for one will not be taken for a fool I hate to listen to such utter nonsense especially where human life is at risk.


You are correct where you state it?s a national issue, it is absolutely.

A Nation where layer upon layer of complication comes before common sense and a Nation where road works stand idle causing inconvenience and danger for all.


So please pretty please out of respect for the dead little girl and her family forget about some future technical costly solution, there are simpler more practical lower cost robust solutions, which can be implemented NOW.


If you focus on that reality of NOW you will be doing us all a favour!

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


That is taken from the Road Traffic Act. I read it as if you do not feel safe or confident doing something then do not do it.


If it was written that the Government was responsible for road users safety we would be in to a nanny state territory with fines for not using subways and footbridges and alike.


Look at this photo I took the other day while standing on a very expensive pedestrian footbridge. Oh and that is the north circular at Golders Green Road, so pretty busy and fast urban motorway. Are the people crossing the road at grade and not using the bridge irresponsible?


(If anyone says there should be pedestrian crossing facilities as people do not like using footbridges and subways. This was proposed but the large Jewish population discounted that as pressing the wait button on the signals is classed as work there they would not do it on the Sabbath.)

Your photo of truly stupid people!


In the USA (apparently the most right wing country in the world ie no nanny state allowed) this would be called Jay walking and against the law!


Fact remains the Government and Local Government in the UK has a duty of care, which means they should wherever possible they should look after the safety of the citizens.


As any idiot would realise that road users should be kept safe wherever possible especially Children going to School.


I guess you are just being obtuse?

Err no.


The Highway Authority should avoid trapping reasonable road users into danger, for example introducing hidden danger.


The road user is an intelligent being, able and expected to exercise their own judgement.


The Highway Authority should not act irrationally.


I would say those pedestrians were using their own judgement.


I am glad I live in a country where I can cross the road where I feel safe to do so without breaking the law!

skidmarks Wrote:

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


> I am glad I live in a country where I can cross

> the road where I feel safe to do so without

> breaking the law!



I would like to live in a country where children, the elderly and the less able are provided with safe and easy places to cross the road when roadworks disrupt the permanent crossings. Particularly when those roadworks continue for weeks and the crossing in question is used by so many people.

skidmarks Wrote:

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

> Err no.


You're taking this thread in a stupid direction.


If you didn't realise.


It's about a little girl who died because a driver possibly frustrated by the road works didn't see her crossing and she didn't see him and she wasn't protected by a crossing or other help, due to road works which were not happening!


A very sad loss of a young life.

The beard, you're making a big assumption there:

"It's about a little girl who died because a driver possibly frustrated by the road works..."


You have no knowledge of the circumstances that caused her death apart from the fact that there were roadworks nearby (or do you?). Another young girl was killed there last year so perhaps it maybe better to focus people's attention on that crossing and not temporary roadworks. It's just a thought but you might be chasing the wrong enemy.

I don't know for sure that's why I used the word "possibly". POSSIBLY!




In TV interviews on the day of the accident many who were interviewed said drivers had become frustrated at the delays due to the road works and there was some mention of the driver possibly jumping the temporary lights.


Only the Police will know.


Whatever your view.


The general view shown by statistics is that the highways are more dangerous on stretches where roadwork?s are taking place.



We all know People are killed every day on the roads. You?re just stating the obvious!



My comments on this thread are about what should have been done ie the temporary one-way system and what should be done in the future ie the introduction of HUMANS at such road works during the school rush hour to help kids cross in safety.



AND also


I hope to.

To keep the Politicians FOCUSED on NOW and Safety and NOT dream into the techno future and lollying us of with excuses!

I'm sorry but this is making me really angry. I don't care about the technicalities of temporary traffic lights being approved for pedestrian phasing. If you dig up a road at a busy and dangerous crossing that is regularly used by schoolchildren then you have a responsibility to make it safe whatever that involves and the council (or whatever the relevant public body is) has a responsibility to make sure you make it safe.


If that means someone has to pay traffic police to stop the traffic and allow pedestrians to cross the road then so be it. Or if you have to put up barriers to stop people crossing the road (which couldn't have happened because there is nowhere else to cross the road). Councils are quite happy to impose daft health and safety regulations in other areas, particularly schools, but they are happy for kids to take their lives in their hands on their way to school.

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...