Monika,

your kind of attitude will make your 'fight for justice' much harder.

I am not trying to preach but just a thought; it may be smarter to give the benefit of the doubt and find some common ground with different voices including the drivers. That will make your argument stronger and more difficult to deny, ignore or sideline.

This does not stop you from having a readdress on the damage done where there is evidence. But if you don't have the evidence it is better to work on the solution that it does not recur.

For the second time, you have not read my post properly; I do not drive but I do live in Forest Hill and am familiar with the Sainsbury's. My concern is more to do with safety than damage to property but I consider instances of the latter to be of grave concern when considering the likelihood of the former.
There are several easy practical steps that could be taken to alleviate the problem but Sainsbury's, as the original poster observed, do not take responsibility.

Monika, you previously state that the worst offenders are not Sainsburys lorries/drivers. At what point on the journey to a Sainsburys store do Sainsburys become responsible for a 3rd party supplier's vehicle? Deliveries by 3rd parties should not be at all common since Sainsburys operate a number of distribution hubs to which the vast majority of produce is delivered and then redistributed by Sainsburys vehicles.

You are wrong in saying that the company don't deal with offending drivers effectively. They very much absolve themselves of corporate responsibility by ensuring that drivers are held personally accountable for incidents they are involved in. This is the right course of action in some contexts but not others. Because of this your other point about there being a good reason for drivers to avoid reporting such incidents is quite valid (but it doesn't equate to it accounting for all unreported incidents).

I don't spend a lot of time at the back of Sainsburys so I'm not aware of the illegal and dangerous driving incidents you refer to. Grateful if you could detail them - and also the practical steps you feel Sainsburys could take to alleviate the problems. I'm happy then to talk them through with my dad and get his take on it.

For every Sainsbury's delivery there is a third party delivery, approximately.
They don't deal with drivers effectively for the very reason you give: only if presented with incontrovertible evidence of an offence would they take action. This is an unacceptable way to run a business and flouts health and safety practice and their corporate responsibility. Part of the problem is talking about Sainsbury's as an entity. It is common (bad) practice for no individual to take responsibility within an institution for an issue, with the consequence that the issue is much more difficult to resolve. This practice is endemic at Sainsbury's.
Practical steps:
A few years ago Sainbury's used a member of staff to guide vehicles in from Pearcefield Avenue. This was very effective and, as far as I am aware, no incidents occurred when the practice was in operation. It was discontinued for no good reason and could be reinstituted today.

Perhaps the answer is NO parking at all on David's Road

Good idea!
I think David's Road is very narrow.

Lets stop ALL parking everywhere!!

Londondrz probably a bit extreme but the area was not built for cars. Perhaps we could insist cars are garaged or otherwise pay a fee to be allowed to park on the Queen's Highway.

If you have a shop like Sainsbury they have to have a clear route for supplies to come and go.

They already do. David's Road is a CPZ.

I still don't understand the point about these trucks driving illegally. What is it that they are doing that is illegal and what arrangements are they not following? They cannot be blamed for Sainsburys inaccurate forecasting of likely traffic. There are delivery trucks all over London and the UK regularly serving smaller shops than FH Sainsburys and in even narrower streets than Pearcefield Avenue. I doubt whether putting a banksman on to guide vehicles through is going to happen due to cost but I think there is a fair point about the compatibility of sharing tight spaces with large vehicles and this needs to be managed properly.

Surely the best thing is for local residents to ask for a meeting with Sainsburys to address the problem which they are experiencing and to try and seek a remedy or even install cctv cameras. These firms hate bad publicity of any kind- impacts on their shareholders. The Hob gets a lot of delivery vehicles into Devonshire Road too BTW.

I sympathise with vehicle damage as have had a lot of this myself but its generally from ordinary motorists not delivery trucks.

I worked with someone some years who witnessed the kind of horrific accident described earlier. The truck driver had no idea either that it had happened . As a result of her description I never again cycled in London.

The point about lorries driving illegally is that it is dangerous and illegal: if you are driving in this manner you are both more likely to cause accidents and less likely to report them.
Illegal driving includes reversing the wrong way down one way steets; driving and parking on pavements; parking obstructively; driving recklessly fast. They have clear delivery instructions that they disregard.
Nobody blamed them for "Sainsburys inaccurate forecasting of likely traffic"; your point about narrow streets does not tally with Sainsbury's themselves regarding the store as notoriously difficult to service. The fact that lorries also cause problems in other communities does not seem to have much bearing on this.
Why should the community bear the cost of damage and increased insurance premiums let alone the threat of injury rather than Sainsbury's?
Sainsbury's know about the problem but do not deal with it effectively; there are cctv cameras; they consider that to admit any liability or take responsibility would have more impact "on their shareholders".
The point about "the kind of horrific accident described earlier. The truck driver had no idea either that it had happened" is surely that it is essential that a zero tolerance approach to poor lorry driving is adopted; an "ordinary motorist" is far less likely to cause this sort of accident.

I'm finding it a little difficult to follow your argument. I dont see anyone arguing for reckless lorry driving in Forest Hill - just the opposite. The store has been in its current position for many years and has always been serviced from Pearcefield Avenue as well as from London Road so there have been delivery vehicles there for some time. I recall some resident action some years ago in respect of early morning deliveries and concerns about noise and vibration. I am in that area frequently, several times a week and have never experienced or witnessed any problems with delivery vehicles. I have however witnessed cars going the wrong way down Manor Mount at speed and police cars going the wrong way up Davids Road as well as general motorists. There are regular delivery trucks to the Hob who reverse up from the south circular- that is definitely illegal. If delivery vehicles to Sainsburys are committing traffic offences then this surely needs to be reported to the police as such with dates, times and registration numbers etc. The Council sometimes park their mobile cctv unit at the top of Manor Mount; you could try and persuade them to monitor the situation lower down- they are very receptive to resident pressure and the local councillors would probably also be supportive.
I still can't see how Sainsburys can be held liable for third party offences carried out by drivers other than direct employees - its just outside their jurisdiction- they can only at their own behest use reasonable endeavours to request compliance. Its also not clear whether all these trucks are servicing Sainsburys and not other high street businesses.
Ultimately we need this business to remain in London Road and Forest Hill as it is the lynchpin of the local economy which encourages most people to shop in this area in the first place.

Roz, as you were unaware that David's road is not one way for all of its length, you might not be the best person to assess lorry driving in the area. You will also find it easier to follow an argument if you read the posts; the first half of your post addresses points nobody has argued or have already been dealt with.
Sainsbury's are not reporting the offences even though they are aware of them. Therefore, they are endangering the public and their staff.

Monika,
I have I think suggested some reasonable ways forward however you don't seem to want to explore the options available to you but instead constantly repeat the same mantra. You also seem intent on arguing with and alienating people who may have wanted to support your case for safer streets. I won't be participating any more in the discussion therefore.

Good luck. I hope you find a constructive solution.

Roz
Shock , I fully support your last two posts. Not sure how Monika could take offence at anything you said.
Please feel free to continue posting on this issue

Some of the comments on this thread have been quite ridiculous. There is something quite selfish, I think, in posting irrelevant and sometimes flippant comments on a subject that evidently concerns others, but which does not concern you, and which you do not understand.

This is a long-standing problem and a number of us believe we have a solution to it. In the next couple of weeks we will be going in person to those affected in order to get support for it. Others can do as they like, but I for one won't be posting it on this site.

If you do not want people to comment then do not post at all.
Roz , myself and others may not live on the road in question but we know it well and were only trying to assist.
Some people seem intent that blaming all on JS is the answer. Problems are not usually as black and white as that.