28 Nov 2022 Miriam BOULIA · Prevention of Future Deaths report Inner North London
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Unusually high number of similar collisions at the junction View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Miriam BOULIA · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Miriam Boulia was struck by a bus while crossing Great Eastern Street on a red pedestrian signal and sustained catastrophic, unsurvivable injuries; she was declared deceased at the scene. The report identified concerns that signal timings at the junction did not allow pedestrians enough time to cross safely, with a high number of similar collisions and improvements potentially taking two to four years.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unusually high number of similar collisions at the junction
Wider context from the report “There have been 21 collisions involving injury at this junction over a recent three-year period, 9 of those involving injury to pedestrians. Of particular concern is that the number of collisions at this junction of a similar nature to that in which Ms Boulia died, is unusually high.
” Source location Miriam BOULIA · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Progress the Safer Junction scheme and include Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, subject to final Department for Transport approvals.
Verbatim wording from the response “21. On 30 August 2022, TfL reached a long-term agreement with the Government on funding until 31 March 2024. This has allowed TfL to recommence feasibility and design proposals for various schemes which were paused due to funding constraints during the pandemic.” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Ask scheme designers to consider pedestrian safety options at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road.
Verbatim wording from the response “22. Since August 2022, TfL has been meeting with the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) to discuss plans on spending the funding. TfL will now be progressing the scheme for the Safer Junction programme at Great Eastern Street/Shoreditch High Street/Commercial Street. As part of this, TfL will formally include the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction within the scope of this scheme, subject to final approvals with the DfT. The scope of any briefing for the scheme will include asking the designers to consider the best options for pedestrians at this junction. The timescales for this scheme are 2-4 years, subject to funding.” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Undertake further vehicle-speed surveys to assess whether physical speed-reduction measures are required.
Verbatim wording from the response “32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Consider restoring pedestrian guardrail at the junction as part of the wider scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “31. Consideration of restoring PGR to this junction will be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction referred to above.” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Consider traffic-calming measures at the junction as part of the wider scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Consider modernising pedestrian signals, including possible countdown signals, as part of the junction scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. Potential improvements to the signal timings;” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Arrange a site visit to assess urgent safety improvements proposed for the junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “38. TfL was made aware of the proposals in the MPS report on 31 October 2022. TfL is arranging a further site visit for early December 2022 to consider the proposals made in the MPS report and any findings made at the forthcoming inquest. The purpose of this site visit will be for TfL to consider any urgent safety improvements required at this junction.” Source location Response from Transport for London report
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Progress the Safer Junction scheme, including the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction, through feasibility, design and construction.
Verbatim wording from the response “TfL provided a report to the Coroner to assist with his investigation (please find attached the report). TfL explained in the report that the proposed Safer Junction scheme at Great Eastern Street/Shoreditch High Street/Commercial Street will incorporate the Road Safety scheme at the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road. One proposal put forward was a new layout for this junction. This would seek to align and widen pedestrian crossings to the desire line and implement physical measures to slow speeds around this junction.” Source location Response from Transport for London
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation The proposed junction safety schemes were paused because pandemic-related fare losses created funding constraints pending a long-term Government funding agreement.
Verbatim wording from the response “The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 and subsequent lockdowns devastated TfL’s fares income and meant TfL required emergency Government support to run its day-to-day transport services. Therefore, the proposals referred to above to investigate feasibility proposals for the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, as well as the wider Safer Junction scheme, were paused pending a long-term funding deal.” Source location Response from Transport for London
Open published response
24 Oct 2022 Matthew James Rouch · Prevention of Future Deaths report South Wales Central
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of road-user awareness of the A48 ‘Forage roundabout junction’ View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Matthew James Rouch · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Matthew Rouch, aged 41, was fatally injured in a motorbike collision with a roundabout on the A48 near Cowbridge on 29 September 2021. The report raised concerns that the A48 Forage roundabout junction was dangerous and that, without changes to improve awareness and reduce vehicle speeds, further deaths might occur.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of road-user awareness of the A48 ‘Forage roundabout junction’
Wider context from the report “(1) The A48 ‘Forage roundabout junction’ seems to be dangerous.
(2) Unless changes are made to make all road users more aware of this junction and to slow down drivers approaching it from every direction, more deaths may occur.
” Source location Matthew James Rouch · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Replace undersized chevron warning signs with enlarged signs featuring yellow borders.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Stage 3 RSA’s dated 10th January 2020 identified a number of minor issues in relation to surface water, carriageway surfacing, vehicle and pedestrian restraint barriers, drop kerb crossings and lack of signage associated with the shared cycleway / footway and drainage lagoon, which have subsequently been the subject of remedial works. The Stage 3 RSA also raised more specific concern in relation to the roundabout as identified below:” Source location Response from the Vale of Glamorgan Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Relocate the obstructing warning sign to clear the lower half of the eastbound advanced directional sign.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Stage 4a RSA dated 31st August 2021, which involved a desk top study and a further daytime and night-time site visit, identified only two safety issues as recorded below:” Source location Response from the Vale of Glamorgan Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation The Council disputes that the junction is dangerous or that deaths may occur without changes to reduce approach speeds.
Verbatim wording from the response “Therefore, given the evidence presented above, the Council would dispute that the ‘Forage roundabout junction’ is either dangerous, or unless changes are made to make users aware of the junction and to slow down drivers, more deaths may occur. Furthermore, the Council considers the advanced warning signage to be good and that the junction is safe for all traffic if drivers exercise responsible driving practices and take due care and attention of the provided signs and road markings, as well as comply with their legal obligations and follow the ‘General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders’ (Rule 103 to 158) of the Highway Code.” Source location Response from the Vale of Glamorgan Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Existing design, signage and road-safety audit measures are considered sufficient to make the junction safe for its intended purpose.
Verbatim wording from the response “Based on the above information, the Vale Council considers that a robust and appropriate process has been followed regarding the design and construction of the new A48 ‘Forage roundabout junction’, in accordance with all appropriate guidelines and legislation, and that the junction is safe for its intended purpose. Any initial road safety issues have been” Source location Response from the Vale of Glamorgan Council
Open published response
27 Sep 2022 Aaron David Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report South Wales Central
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Traffic and parked cars around the junction during school pick-up and drop-off times View source Poor visibility at the Goitre Lane and Gurnos Ring Road junction View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
×
AI-generated summary
Aaron David Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Aaron David Edwards, aged 42, died at the scene on 30 August 2020 after his motorcycle collided with a car at a junction in Merthyr Tydfil. The concerns identified were poor visibility at the junction, additional traffic and parked cars near a school during pick-up and drop-off times, and the risk of further deaths if driver speeds were not reduced.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Traffic and parked cars around the junction during school pick-up and drop-off times
Wider context from the report “(1) The junction of Goitre Lane and the Gurnos Ring Road appears to be dangerous. Visibility is poor for the driver entering the Ring Road due to the bend in the road to the right and the railings protecting a subway below.
(2) Traffic and parked cars around this area at the nearby school Pen-Y-Dre at pick-up and drop off times add to this danger.
(3) Unless changes are made to slow down drivers on the Gurnos Ring Road more deaths may occur.
” Source location Aaron David Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Poor visibility at the Goitre Lane and Gurnos Ring Road junction
Wider context from the report “(1) The junction of Goitre Lane and the Gurnos Ring Road appears to be dangerous. Visibility is poor for the driver entering the Ring Road due to the bend in the road to the right and the railings protecting a subway below.
(2) Traffic and parked cars around this area at the nearby school Pen-Y-Dre at pick-up and drop off times add to this danger.
(3) Unless changes are made to slow down drivers on the Gurnos Ring Road more deaths may occur.
” Source location Aaron David Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
2 Sep 2022 Jennifer Wong · Prevention of Future Deaths report Oxfordshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Cycle lane layout failing to provide clear and safe positioning for cyclists crossing the junction View source
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Jennifer Wong · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Jennifer Wong died at the scene of a road traffic accident on Headington Road, Oxford, on 26 September 2021, after a mobile crane turning left knocked her from her cycle and ran over her. The report identifies concerns about the crane driver's significant nearside blind spots and the lack of close-proximity mirrors or other visibility measures. It also raises concerns about the layout and width of the cycle lane, which may bring cyclists into conflict with vehicles turning left.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Cycle lane layout failing to provide clear and safe positioning for cyclists crossing the junction
Wider context from the report “The first and main concern is in relation to the nearside cycle lane and what appeared to be an element of confusion or perhaps a dilemma for cyclists at this location intending to cycle straight across the junction. The cycle lane puts cyclists on the nearside of a lane that is specifically for vehicles turning right into Headley Way . There is the box/advanced stop line in front of the line of traffic in the lane but this requires the cyclist to decide to use it and, importantly, to have time to make it pass the nearside of the vehicles and into the box before the vehicles in the lane commence their right turn .
If there was no cycle lane, it appears more likely that a cyclist heading straight across would position themselves in lane 2 for vehicles also heading straight on. I believe that further consideration should be given to this issue and if improved signage has a part to play to mitigate the risks.
I appreciate of course that it is not possible to remove risk completely and cyclists will make different choices about where to position themselves at a junction such as this one. I anticipate that the junction is not dissimilar to many others in Oxford. The issue of cyclists in nearside blind spots, particularly involving large commercial vehicles with limited visibility, therefore presents a significant and ongoing risk .
” Source location Jennifer Wong · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Provide cyclists with a five-second advance green signal at Headley Way.
Verbatim wording from the response “The council has taken on board your concerns and several measures have already been put in place to improve the public highway for vulnerable road users at both the Headley way junction and at two other key sites within the city. The works that have been completed at Headley Way include: A 5 second advance green lights for cyclists heading east bound and a dropped kerb facility to bring cyclists off the London Road to turn left into Headley Way. We have also commissioned our highway maintenance contractors to undertake a series of road marking amendments to make it clearer for cyclists to utilise the junction. The redesign of the lane/cycle markings has been commissioned to specifically consider the concerns that you raised in your Matter of Concern point 1. The design and delivery of the works at the Headley junction are due to be completed by the end of November 2022.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Provide a dropped kerb directing cyclists from London Road to the Headley Way shared-use path.
Verbatim wording from the response “The council has taken on board your concerns and several measures have already been put in place to improve the public highway for vulnerable road users at both the Headley way junction and at two other key sites within the city. The works that have been completed at Headley Way include: A 5 second advance green lights for cyclists heading east bound and a dropped kerb facility to bring cyclists off the London Road to turn left into Headley Way. We have also commissioned our highway maintenance contractors to undertake a series of road marking amendments to make it clearer for cyclists to utilise the junction. The redesign of the lane/cycle markings has been commissioned to specifically consider the concerns that you raised in your Matter of Concern point 1. The design and delivery of the works at the Headley junction are due to be completed by the end of November 2022.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Remove the stone planter at Headley Way to increase space for pedestrians and cyclists.
Verbatim wording from the response “- Dropped kerb – The council has now completed the dropped kerb facility at Headley way. We will also be removing the stone planter to increase the space for pedestrians and cyclist at this junction. This now means that cyclists are directed off the London Road before the Headley Way junction to afford them safe passage to the shared use cycle/footway on Headley way.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Redesign and amend Headley Way road markings and cycle-lane markings to clarify cyclist movements through the junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “The council has taken on board your concerns and several measures have already been put in place to improve the public highway for vulnerable road users at both the Headley way junction and at two other key sites within the city. The works that have been completed at Headley Way include: A 5 second advance green lights for cyclists heading east bound and a dropped kerb facility to bring cyclists off the London Road to turn left into Headley Way. We have also commissioned our highway maintenance contractors to undertake a series of road marking amendments to make it clearer for cyclists to utilise the junction. The redesign of the lane/cycle markings has been commissioned to specifically consider the concerns that you raised in your Matter of Concern point 1. The design and delivery of the works at the Headley junction are due to be completed by the end of November 2022.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Implement recommendations from the completed Stage 4 Road Safety Audit in proportion to the risks identified.
Verbatim wording from the response “- Stage 4 Road Safety Audit (RSA) – The RSA4 was completed in October 2022. The report is attached. The council is now ensuring that the recommendations are implemented in a timely manner that is proportionate to the risk posed by the measures being recommended for delivery.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Commission and complete a Vulnerable Road Users audit of the relevant highway arrangements.
Verbatim wording from the response “- Vulnerable Road Users (VRU) Audit – following a request from the family, this was commissioned through our Highway maintenance provider on Friday 7 October 2022. There was slight delay in requesting this as we had to wait for the Stage 4 RSA to be completed to ensure a different team were used to undertake the additional assessment. This is to ensure the impartiality of both reports. The findings normally take a minimum of 31 days to be compiled into a report. This is the standard length of time that we would expect for such a report to be developed. The council will write to the coroner with the recommendations of this report upon receipt. The council can confirm that any further actions that are recommended within either the Stage 4 RSA or the VRU report will be actioned with immediate effect where it is a priority measure recommended.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Review key junctions posing potential risks to vulnerable road users and develop short-, medium- and long-term mitigations.
Verbatim wording from the response “- The council has reviewed its key junctions that were deemed to be a potential risk to vulnerable road users with input from the cycle safety groups. These reviews have involved site meetings and virtual meetings to fully understand what is required to make the junctions as safe as is reasonably practicable with the resources that are available. In some locations these have been split into short, medium and long-term measures to enable some quick mitigations whilst having a more strategic overview of future developments in the area that will dramatically change the layout of some of the areas.” Source location Response from Oxfordshire County Council
Open published response
30 May 2022 Albert Thomas Stafford Manley · Prevention of Future Deaths report Wiltshire and Swindon
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Failure to make the Tollard Green junction and bend sufficiently distinguishable to approaching motorists View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Albert Thomas Stafford Manley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Albert Thomas Stafford Manley, known to his family as “Jim”, died at Southampton General Hospital on 31 May 2021 from multiple traumatic injuries sustained when his Ford Mondeo collided with an oncoming Land Rover Discovery on the B3081 near Tollard Royal. The report raises concern that the road layout, junction and bends could be misread by unfamiliar drivers, potentially contributing to collisions, and considers whether further warnings or other measures could reduce this risk.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to make the Tollard Green junction and bend sufficiently distinguishable to approaching motorists
Wider context from the report “Although I was unable to make a finding of fact in this case Jim more likely than not misunderstood the road lay out, I was satisfied that it was a possibility and I am concerned that a driver who is unfamiliar with that road section could read the road incorrectly taking into account what they physically see and having regard to the road signs approaching the junction, leading to such a misunderstanding. The national speed limit on this section of road is, of course, 60 mph and every driver have a duty to drive at a speed commensurate with road conditions and additionally owes a duty of care to other road users in terms of driving carefully and considerately. How is it possible to misread the road? In answering that question, see figure 1 below, is a photograph of the view using Google Earth cameras approaching the junction heading in the same south easterly direction that Jim would have been travelling.
Fig.1
At approximately 200 metres from the junction is a very clear sign (above) highlighting the junction with the main B3081 continuing left to Tollard Royal and the road leading off to Tollard Green. In the photograph in the road ahead depending on the type of vehicle being driven and its position you can see a left-hand bend ahead of you. The visible bend is in fact a left hand bend once you have left the B3081 and is part of the road heading towards Tollard Green. It is not the junction bend on careful analysis.
The next photograph at figure 2 shows a sign for tourist and information purposes which lies approximately 85 metres from the junction with Tollard Green. You can however see the bend ahead which again is the bend beyond the junction and is not the Tollard Green, Tollard Royal junction which is still hidden.
Fig2
In Fig3 below a chevron sign at the time of the collision was missing on the sign post to the right of the highway but this sign together with the road markings have now been replaced/refreshed. As a driver myself the chevron markings would be of more assistance to a driver at night time although, of course, they would be visible in the day time but due to size to a lesser degree. At night, the reflective paint differentiating between black and white in my personal view would make the sign more obvious especially when headlights would be unlikely to pick up he Tollard Green bend ahead.
Fig 3
In considering my duty to make a report to prevent future deaths I had a report prepared for ████████ from Wiltshire Police (copy attached) and in that report he documented a previous collision history in the last 5 years and in particular 2 incidents, 1 occurring in 2017 and the other in 2018, both of which involved vehicles turning right at the junction to Tollard Green. One incident involved a car and a motorcycle, the other involving a car and a van. I also heard evidence from ████████ who has lived in the area for a number of years that the route to via Tollard Green into Verwood and Bournemouth is used by many as a back road in respect of which he described it as “a rat run” and cars apparently do not necessarily slow to any great degree when exiting that junction from a south easterly direction. ████████ in his report makes 2 recommendations, one of which is to remove the hedgerow to the left to increase visibility around the bend. That recommendation, I have to say, is of some concern to me as I do not think that it would tempt drivers to slow down to any degree and they would be more likely in looking across to look for oncoming traffic and may not always pick up smaller vehicles such a cyclist and motorcycle users when looking to exit the junction heading towards Tollard Green. That recommendation is also of concern to me because Wiltshire at the end of the day is a rural county and its hedgerows and the wildlife contained within the hedgerows are an important feature of its character. I also heard evidence of one of our Coroners Officers, ████████, who commented that the hedgerows had an additional purpose in trying to prevent deer which are a feature in this particular area leaving the fields and crossing the roads. He acquired this information when he was a serving Police Officer and from speaking to one of the nearby landowners. Deer crossing road especially at night can pose a dangerous and unexpected hazard.
As regards the second recommendation from ████████, this maybe something that you might be willing to consider or whether there perhaps is a better way through the use of further signing to make it even clearer as regards the existence of the junction and the bend. In asking you to consider painting the word “SLOW” as you approach the bend in both directions as recommended by ████████, I am mindful of the fact that as the highway authority you are under no obligation to provide such warnings as was pointed out by the House of Lords in the 2003 Decision in “Gorringe”.
I am however concerned that there is a possibility that the road could be misread and that the bend having exited the junction heading towards Tollard Green could be mistaken by motorist unfamiliar with this section of the road , be confused with the bend and the junction on the B3081 heading towards Tollard Royal. The bend having exited the junction heading towards Tollard Green is very similar in shape to the bend heading towards Tollard Royal which is hidden until you get very close to it.
I can see the propensity for a mistake being made here even if it is a mistake that I myself, I hope, would not make and I would ask you to consider if there is anything further that could be done to warn of this junction and bend to further minimise the possibility of any misunderstanding being made by road users if you are minded not to adopt ████████ recommendation.
” Source location Albert Thomas Stafford Manley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Assess the site and review existing traffic-sign arrangements through experienced road-safety professionals.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following your suggestion that consideration be given to the introduction of further road markings and review of the current signing arrangements, I can advise the site has been visited by experienced road safety professionals with these comments in mind.” Source location Response from Wilshire Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Add “SLOW” road markings to the Council’s road-marking programme for delivery in the coming months.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regards to your other observation that the existing signing could be supplemented using road markings depicting the characters ‘SLOW’, this is something that is considered to be appropriate and would be beneficial in assisting motorists to negotiate this section of road. I confirm that this work will be added to the Council’s road marking programme of works for the coming months.” Source location Response from Wilshire Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Continue monitoring the hedgerow situation alongside the highway and landowner responsibilities.
Verbatim wording from the response “I note the recommendations within the Police report regarding the removal of the hedgerow and your observations on the matter. The hedgerow is outside of the highway boundary and is the responsibility of the landowner, and at present it is not proposed to suggest the removal of the hedgerow for the reasons you mention, but we will continue to monitor the situation and enter discussion with the landowner if deemed necessary in the future.” Source location Response from Wilshire Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Existing road signs accurately represent the layout and hazards, so no further amendments are proposed.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst the observations regarding the traffic signs are appreciated, the review has concluded that the existing sign arrangements are representative of the road layout and offer motorists the correct information of the hazards they should expect when negotiating this section of road. Therefore, no further amendments to the road signs are proposed.” Source location Response from Wilshire Council
Open published response
13 May 2022 Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report Manchester West
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
×
AI-generated summary
Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl died from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision at the junction of Cadishead Way and Fairhills Road, Irlam, on 23 June 2021. The concerns related to the junction’s busy layout, a 50 mph speed limit, restricted visibility caused by the bend, bridge, trees and bushes, and the absence of traffic signals.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way
Wider context from the report “1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:-
a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam.
b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction.
c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam .
d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view.
2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam:
a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam.
b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam.
c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth .
d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam.
” Source location Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
Concerns raised 1
Failure to prevent vehicles cutting the corner onto the incorrect side of the road View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Harry Edward Simmons · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Harry Edward Simmons, aged 87, was struck by a car while crossing Montpellier Road in Plymouth and later died in hospital from his injuries. The report raised concerns about drivers cutting the junction, the effect of sun on visibility, and the risk of further collisions at the junction; three collisions had occurred there in the previous five years.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to prevent vehicles cutting the corner onto the incorrect side of the road
Wider context from the report “(1) Acting Police Inspector ████████ gave evidence to the inquest as follows:
1. In his opinion as Mr Simmons was at least ½ way across the road if the driver had not turned into the junction on the incorrect side of the road , he would have most likely avoided him.
2. The sun is a particular hazard at that junction and would have had an effect on the ability of the driver to see Mr Simmons.
3. Double yellow lines in his opinion would not prevent a further accident of this nature.
4. A pedestrian refuge in the centre of the road on the junction of Montpellier Road and Beacon Park Road together with a keep left sign would prevent vehicles cutting the corner and causing a similar accident again.
5. There have been 3 collisions on this junction in the last 5 years, 2 of which have cited the sun as a contributory factor.
6. There is local knowledge to suggest that drivers cutting this corner is a commonplace occurrence as the sharp turn right to the correct side of the road is a more difficult manoeuvre to make .
” Source location Harry Edward Simmons · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Complete a study into the circumstances leading to the collision.
Verbatim wording from the response “The City Council have undertaken a study into the circumstances leading to the collision and have commissioned a scheme design to deal with the identified highway issues involved.” Source location Response from Plymouth City Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Commission a scheme design addressing the identified highway safety issues.
Verbatim wording from the response “The City Council have undertaken a study into the circumstances leading to the collision and have commissioned a scheme design to deal with the identified highway issues involved.” Source location Response from Plymouth City Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Bid for funding to enable construction of the proposed highway safety scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “The scheme is estimated to cost in the region of £70,000 and I am currently bidding for funding to enable construction to go ahead.” Source location Response from Plymouth City Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Construction depends on securing funding, so the safety scheme cannot proceed unless budget becomes available.
Verbatim wording from the response “The scheme is estimated to cost in the region of £70,000 and I am currently bidding for funding to enable construction to go ahead.” Source location Response from Plymouth City Council
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Road humps and parking restrictions cannot be predetermined because they require statutory public consultation.
Verbatim wording from the response “* Introduction of both road humps and waiting restrictions is subject to a statutory consultation process which cannot be predetermined.” Source location Response from Plymouth City Council
Open published response
21 Jul 2021 Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report Norfolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather View source Inadequate stop-sign control at the crossroads View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Oscar Anthony Seaman, aged 17, was killed after cycling onto the A134 carriageway at a crossroads in Northwold and being struck by a 4x4 vehicle. Concerns included repeated collisions and speeding on the road, reduced visibility at the junction, and the absence of stop signs, with possible measures including speed cameras and a junction mirror discussed.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather
Wider context from the report “I am informed that the road where Oscar was killed is the scene of at least 126 road traffic collisions. The speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but this has not deterred people using the road from ignoring the limits. The crossroads where Oscar, who was just 17 years old, emerged onto the main road has give way signs but not stop signs painted on it. The view from one direction appears to be reasonable in daylight but at night, and if the weather is inclement, visibility is reduced. The person who lives on the corner of that junction has had to buttress his garden fence against collisions.
The parish council has reported many concerns about people speeding on the road specially HGV lorries as well as cars.
It is apparent that people regularly break the law on this stretch of road and that a speed camera or average speed cameras would address the problem and slow motorists down. A mirror would be able to be placed at the junction, an inexpensive but important item which is likely to reduce death and accident when people venture onto the main highway.
” Source location Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Inadequate stop-sign control at the crossroads
Wider context from the report “I am informed that the road where Oscar was killed is the scene of at least 126 road traffic collisions. The speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but this has not deterred people using the road from ignoring the limits. The crossroads where Oscar, who was just 17 years old, emerged onto the main road has give way signs but not stop signs painted on it. The view from one direction appears to be reasonable in daylight but at night, and if the weather is inclement, visibility is reduced. The person who lives on the corner of that junction has had to buttress his garden fence against collisions.
The parish council has reported many concerns about people speeding on the road specially HGV lorries as well as cars.
It is apparent that people regularly break the law on this stretch of road and that a speed camera or average speed cameras would address the problem and slow motorists down. A mirror would be able to be placed at the junction, an inexpensive but important item which is likely to reduce death and accident when people venture onto the main highway.
” Source location Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Implement highway safety measures including centre hatching, bend chevrons, sign relocations, visibility controls, slow markings, vegetation cutting and junction warning triggers.
Verbatim wording from the response “There have been a number of highway safety interventions introduced to include: red centre hatch treatment, provision of bend warning chevron boards which better reflect the alignment of the bend to the southeast, sign relocations, provision of hedges to control visibility, provision of ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway, cutting back of other vegetation, and addition of side road triggers to the existing junction warning vehicle activated signs. In addition to the above interventions, the speed limit was reduced to 50mph in response to this incident. In light of your comments concerning vehicle speed, it is agreed that NCC will undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.” Source location 2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Investigate whether STOP markings and signs were warranted at the junctions under national guidance.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.” Source location 2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Review visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.” Source location 2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation STOP markings and signs are not warranted because junction visibility meets applicable national guidance requirements.
Verbatim wording from the response “With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.” Source location 2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Junction mirrors cannot be installed because they are not authorised or recommended due to potential glare and distance-judgement risks.
Verbatim wording from the response “I acknowledge your observation concerning the provision of a mirror at the junction. I regret that the installation of mirrors is not authorised or recommended by the County Council. This is because mirrors can dazzle highway users and can affect driver’s ability to judge the distance of on-coming traffic.” Source location 2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Open published response
4 Jun 2021 Pathushan Sutharsan · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of an alternative safe crossing at the junction View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Pathushan Sutharsan · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
On 22 July 2020, Pathushan Sutharsan fell from his bicycle while approaching the junction of the Downs Link and the A281 in West Sussex and was struck by a Heavy Goods Vehicle. The report identified inadequate warning signage and no physical barrier at the junction, which continued to pose a significant risk to cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians despite improvements made after his death.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of an alternative safe crossing at the junction
Wider context from the report “Whilst it was accepted that West Sussex County Council had, following Pathushan’s death, made significant improvements to the junction between the Downs link and the A281 evidence was heard from a number of different organisations (speaking on behalf of all the different users of the Downs link) that the junction in question still posed a substantial risk for cyclists, pedestrians and equestrians alike.
This junction is the only part of the Downs link that crosses a major A-road where there is no alternative safe crossing, a Pegasus crossing or bridge . Evidence was heard that there is no pavement running alongside the A281 and therefore this causes poor sight lines for horse riders and, in some circumstances, cyclists who have to put their horse’s head or part of their bike out onto the road before they can see oncoming traffic.
It is understood that WSCC has identified a need to address the issues at this junction and has undertaken (or is about to undertake a feasibility study) but it appears that at this stage there are no definitive plans in place to take this forward. Therefore the significant risk to the users of this junction remains.
The Downs link is actively promoted as a recreational activity by West Sussex County Council.
” Source location Pathushan Sutharsan · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Undertake a feasibility study and options appraisal for improving the crossing point, including bridge and traffic-light-controlled crossing options.
Verbatim wording from the response “A feasibility study looking into ways to improve the crossing point is currently being undertaken by the authority’s term consultant, WSP. An options appraisal report will be completed by October 2021. The study is primarily focused on, but not limited to, the options for a bridge or traffic light controlled road crossing.
If the report determines that there are appropriate, technically feasible solutions, the preferred option will be progressed through the WSC’s capital governance procedures, either as a project to be taken forward in the Local Transport Investment Programme or as a major scheme. In either case a full business case will be developed and the scheme assessed against the County Council’s objectives and priorities for potential inclusion in a future capital programme.” Source location 2021-0193-Response-from-West-Sussex-County-Council_Published
Open published response
8 Mar 2021 Yvonne COPLAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report Isle of Wight
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
High recurring collision risk at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction View source Insufficient road safety measures at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Yvonne COPLAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Yvonne COPLAND died at the scene after a collision involving the car in which she was a rear-seat passenger, a double-decker bus and a silver Mini Cooper at the junction of Forest Road and Whitehouse Road on the Isle of Wight. The report raises concerns that the junction has poor visibility and a deceptive layout, has a history of serious collisions, and may not be made significantly safer by hedge realignment alone.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation High recurring collision risk at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction
Wider context from the report “5. Accident data from the Isle of Wight Council and Island Roads show there is a ‘high probability’ of a crash occurring at that junction at least once every year , and it is ‘likely’ that between 25% and 50% of those accidents could kill or seriously injure someone .
6. In the last 5 years, I am informed that there have been 7 recorded collisions which have occurred at this junction – the one involving Mrs COPLAND was clearly one where a fatality occurred, and number of others were seriously injured in this incident. I also understand that there have been 3 other serious collisions at this location with 6 of those collisions involving vehicles exiting Whitehouse Road on to Forest Road.
7. Forest Road is the main strategic route from Newport to the West Wight and is thought to be used by approximately 10,000 vehicles a day and its junction with Whitehouse Road is currently in the top 10 potential safety schemes on the Island’s Highways Safety and Improvement Register.
8. Whilst I am aware that some measures have been taken by the Isle of Wight Council to reduce the likelihood of a collision in the future by realigning a hedge, I am concerned that this measure does not go far enough to make this junction significantly safer for all road users in the future.
” Source location Yvonne COPLAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient road safety measures at the Whitehouse Road and Forest Road junction
Wider context from the report “5. Accident data from the Isle of Wight Council and Island Roads show there is a ‘high probability’ of a crash occurring at that junction at least once every year, and it is ‘likely’ that between 25% and 50% of those accidents could kill or seriously injure someone.
6. In the last 5 years, I am informed that there have been 7 recorded collisions which have occurred at this junction – the one involving Mrs COPLAND was clearly one where a fatality occurred, and number of others were seriously injured in this incident. I also understand that there have been 3 other serious collisions at this location with 6 of those collisions involving vehicles exiting Whitehouse Road on to Forest Road.
7. Forest Road is the main strategic route from Newport to the West Wight and is thought to be used by approximately 10,000 vehicles a day and its junction with Whitehouse Road is currently in the top 10 potential safety schemes on the Island’s Highways Safety and Improvement Register.
8. Whilst I am aware that some measures have been taken by the Isle of Wight Council to reduce the likelihood of a collision in the future by realigning a hedge , I am concerned that this measure does not go far enough to make this junction significantly safer for all road users in the future .
” Source location Yvonne COPLAND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Commission outline design options for junction improvements.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Conduct design review and consultation for junction improvement options.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Select a junction design option and commission its detailed design.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Tender the improvement works and appoint a delivery contractor.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent action was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Construct the selected new junction layout to improve safety.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Traffic lights would not eliminate incidents, so a physical junction layout change is preferred instead.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Ringway-Island-Roads-Ltd-Redacted
Open published response
×
Source evidence
How this respondent position was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Traffic lights would not eliminate incidents; a physical layout change is preferred to require drivers to deviate from a straight-through route.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. It is confirmed that a petition was launched, and this was considered at an Isle of Wight Council Cabinet Meeting. Whilst the intent of the petition was the installation of traffic lights at this junction, it was considered that a full review of junction improvement options was necessary to determine the most effective option. It is the case that traffic light junctions do not eliminate incidents and there remains similar potential for road users to fail to observe the junction or fail to observe the lights. A preference exists for a junction that make a physical change to the layout which requires a driver to deviate from a straight through route. The Council embraced the need for improvements at this junction and committed to fund the necessary option reviews, junction designs and the construction of a new layout.” Source location 2021-0067-Response-from-Isle-of-Wight-Council-Redacted
Open published response
Pin
Get email alerts
Request correction
Includes failures or hazards in road-junction layouts and dedicated safety controls where recurring collisions or serious collision risk indicate that the junction is not reliably made safe, including layout, signage, markings, speed or other junction-specific mitigation measures.
