Recurring concern

Unsafe bus stop siting and pedestrian access

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 28 Mar 2014•Latest report 10 Apr 2019

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes bus-stop siting and directly associated pedestrian-access controls, including visibility for approaching or departing buses, safe passenger waiting areas, footways, lay-bys, crossings, warning or stop signage, and arrangements that prevent passengers from needing to cross hazardous traffic lanes to reach a safe route.

Not included

Excludes general road layout, speed, lighting, vegetation or collision hazards where no bus-stop siting or passenger-access connection is identified.
Excludes ordinary bus-service availability, scheduling and vehicle-operation failures that do not concern the physical safety of the bus stop or passenger access to it.
Excludes general pedestrian-crossing or roadside-access deficiencies unrelated to passengers using or alighting from a bus stop.
Excludes bus-stop maintenance or signage issues when they do not materially affect bus visibility, passenger standing safety or access to a safe pedestrian route.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 5
Date range: 2014–2019
Stated actions: 10

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Island Roads Services Limited1

Isle of Wight Council1

Kent County Council1

Kerry Jane Regent & Partners1

London Borough of Camden1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

10 Apr2019
Central and South East Kent
Concerns raised3
1. Vegetation restricting pedestrians’ safe standing area beside the bus stop
2. Lack of a safe pedestrian route and crossing facility near the bus stop
3. Lack of signage or warning identifying the designated bus stop to approaching vehicles
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.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Advise bus operators not to stop near Nickle Cottages as an interim safety measure.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Work with the landowner to remove low-level vegetation along the southern verge and include the cleared section in cyclic maintenance.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Install pedestrian-crossing warning signs in both directions near Nickle Cottages and additional signs for the Mansfield Farm junction.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 7
1. Position
  KCC does not accept that vegetation or verge condition contributed to the death, although vegetation clearance may improve visibility and access.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilDisputes the concern
1. Position
  A controlled pedestrian crossing is not considered appropriate because pedestrian crossing numbers and general footway use are minimal.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilNo action considered necessary
2. Position
  An uncontrolled crossing cannot be provided because there is no southern footway and insufficient verge width for an accessible facility.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilUnable to act
3. Position
  A hard-standing pedestrian refuge cannot be provided because the available verge is too narrow for required accessible infrastructure.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilUnable to act
4. Position
  KCC does not accept that absent signage contributed to the death; pedestrian warning signs may nevertheless provide some betterment.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilDisputes the concern
5. Position
  No specific traffic sign is available under the regulations to warn drivers specifically about a bus stop ahead.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilUnable to act
6. Position
  A bus-stop road marking would not address the concern because it marks only a fixed stop and does not provide advance warning.
  Stated by Kent County CouncilNo action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Christopher Thomas INNES · 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

Christopher Innes died on 25 May 2018 after being struck by a van while crossing the A28 Ashford Road in Chartham, having alighted from a bus. The concerns included the unmarked bus stop, the lack of a footway or nearby pedestrian crossing on a 50 mph road, and vegetation restricting the space available for pedestrians. There was also no clear responsibility for managing the vegetation or land adjoining the bus stop.

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
Vegetation restricting pedestrians’ safe standing area beside the bus stop
Wider context from the report
“(1) The presence and position of the unmarked bus stop on the carriageway, where Mr Innes alighted from the bus may be considered a hazard. The bus stop is known locally but is absent any signage or warning to approaching vehicles. The evidence revealed at the Inquest was that this may have led to him being in a position of vulnerability at the side of the carriageway, where there is no footway available for use but only a small grass verge. In order to reach a footway to progress in either direction of the A28 at this point, Mr Innes was required to cross the carriageway to which a 50mph speed limit applies and which has no pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity. (2) Although it is lawful for buses to stop at this location and the stop is recognised as a “hail and ride stop”, there is not at present signage indicating that this is a designated bus stop, and this is of concern given that the carriageway has a 50mph speed limit. (3) The vegetation close to the area where buses stop includes substantial trees and hedgerows alongside the carriageway and the close proximity of this to the carriageway causes restriction for any pedestrian alighting from the bus to negotiate an appropriate place to stand on a busy rural road prior to attempting to cross a 50mph road. Although the Highways Department at Kent County Council have completed work in respect of cutting back vegetation as part of a site review on the 31st October 2018, there is no clear responsibility for the management of the cutting away of the vegetation and no clear indication of ownership of the land close to the bus stop as the Highway Authority did not concede any responsibility for the land adjoining the hard carriageway. ”
Source location
Christopher Thomas INNES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
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
Lack of a safe pedestrian route and crossing facility near the bus stop
Wider context from the report
“(1) The presence and position of the unmarked bus stop on the carriageway, where Mr Innes alighted from the bus may be considered a hazard. The bus stop is known locally but is absent any signage or warning to approaching vehicles. The evidence revealed at the Inquest was that this may have led to him being in a position of vulnerability at the side of the carriageway, where there is no footway available for use but only a small grass verge. In order to reach a footway to progress in either direction of the A28 at this point, Mr Innes was required to cross the carriageway to which a 50mph speed limit applies and which has no pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity. (2) Although it is lawful for buses to stop at this location and the stop is recognised as a “hail and ride stop”, there is not at present signage indicating that this is a designated bus stop, and this is of concern given that the carriageway has a 50mph speed limit. (3) The vegetation close to the area where buses stop includes substantial trees and hedgerows alongside the carriageway and the close proximity of this to the carriageway causes restriction for any pedestrian alighting from the bus to negotiate an appropriate place to stand on a busy rural road prior to attempting to cross a 50mph road. Although the Highways Department at Kent County Council have completed work in respect of cutting back vegetation as part of a site review on the 31st October 2018, there is no clear responsibility for the management of the cutting away of the vegetation and no clear indication of ownership of the land close to the bus stop as the Highway Authority did not concede any responsibility for the land adjoining the hard carriageway. ”
Source location
Christopher Thomas INNES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
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
Lack of signage or warning identifying the designated bus stop to approaching vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(1) The presence and position of the unmarked bus stop on the carriageway, where Mr Innes alighted from the bus may be considered a hazard. The bus stop is known locally but is absent any signage or warning to approaching vehicles. The evidence revealed at the Inquest was that this may have led to him being in a position of vulnerability at the side of the carriageway, where there is no footway available for use but only a small grass verge. In order to reach a footway to progress in either direction of the A28 at this point, Mr Innes was required to cross the carriageway to which a 50mph speed limit applies and which has no pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity. (2) Although it is lawful for buses to stop at this location and the stop is recognised as a “hail and ride stop”, there is not at present signage indicating that this is a designated bus stop, and this is of concern given that the carriageway has a 50mph speed limit. (3) The vegetation close to the area where buses stop includes substantial trees and hedgerows alongside the carriageway and the close proximity of this to the carriageway causes restriction for any pedestrian alighting from the bus to negotiate an appropriate place to stand on a busy rural road prior to attempting to cross a 50mph road. Although the Highways Department at Kent County Council have completed work in respect of cutting back vegetation as part of a site review on the 31st October 2018, there is no clear responsibility for the management of the cutting away of the vegetation and no clear indication of ownership of the land close to the bus stop as the Highway Authority did not concede any responsibility for the land adjoining the hard carriageway. ”
Source location
Christopher Thomas INNES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
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
Advise bus operators not to stop near Nickle Cottages as an interim safety measure.

Verbatim wording from the response
“7. KCC provided advice to bus operators using the A28 that they should consider not stopping in the vicinity of Nickle Cottages. KCC do not have to power to forbid commercial operators from stopping at that location, but are able to make such requests. That advice was accepted and at the present time no buses stop at that location as an interim measure.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
Work with the landowner to remove low-level vegetation along the southern verge and include the cleared section in cyclic maintenance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“27. Whilst the verge is not in the ownership of KCC, further investigation has indicated that a 1m may be subject to public maintenance. KCC conclude that working with the landowner that low level vegetation can be removed within the southern verge for a section from the bend west of Nickle Cottages through to a point just east of Chartham Corn Mill.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
Install pedestrian-crossing warning signs in both directions near Nickle Cottages and additional signs for the Mansfield Farm junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“19. In order to increase the conspicuousness of pedestrians crossing the road after alighting a bus in this area on the A28, and in the absence of a formal stop or crossing point, it is proposed that a diagram 544.1 is installed in advance of the Nickel Cottage area in both directions. There are no appropriate supplementary plates which can be installed with this sign.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
KCC does not accept that vegetation or verge condition contributed to the death, although vegetation clearance may improve visibility and access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“28. KCC have also decided that this can be included in future cyclic maintenance in order to keep sections of low level vegetation between the established trees. KCC does not concede that the vegetation and the condition of the verge was in any way contributory to the death of Mr Innes, but does consider that this action will provide a betterment to the service in terms of increasing the opportunities to access the bus service and also increase the visibility of any pedestrians standing on the verge to approaching drivers.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 6 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
A controlled pedestrian crossing is not considered appropriate because pedestrian crossing numbers and general footway use are minimal.

Verbatim wording from the response
“33. Controlled pedestrians’ crossings in the form of a zebra, pelican or puffin crossing are only considered where there are high numbers of pedestrians crossing within a small area and where the volume of traffic provides very little opportunity for pedestrians to cross a road. In this instance the level of pedestrians crossing the road is very minimal and level of pedestrian traffic generally on the provided footways is very low. A controlled crossing at this location is therefore not considered appropriate.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 6 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
An uncontrolled crossing cannot be provided because there is no southern footway and insufficient verge width for an accessible facility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“34. An uncontrolled crossing in the form of dropped kerbs on either side of the road, can only be provided where there is a continuous route of footways. In this instance there is no southern footway and the available verge width is insufficient to provide a facility suitable for all users.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 6 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
A hard-standing pedestrian refuge cannot be provided because the available verge is too narrow for required accessible infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response
“25. KCC has concluded that providing a hard-standing pedestrian refuge area would involve design considerations which could not be provided at this location or within a reasonable proximity to Nickle Cottages. The main limitation to this is that permanent infrastructure must be designed for people with mobility impairments and should be to the highest standard. This can include people with physical, sensory or mental impairment but also includes people using the facility with small children, carrying heavy shopping and older people. This would place requirements to accommodate facility widths and access arrangements which cannot be constructed within the available space of the verge.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
KCC does not accept that absent signage contributed to the death; pedestrian warning signs may nevertheless provide some betterment.

Verbatim wording from the response
“20. KCC does not concede that the absence of signage was in any way a contributing factor in the death of Mr Innes, however it does consider that the installation of warning signs to warn of pedestrians in road ahead may provide some betterment for users of the bus service at this location.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
No specific traffic sign is available under the regulations to warn drivers specifically about a bus stop ahead.

Verbatim wording from the response
“16. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) does not prescribe any highway sign which warns of the presence of a bus stop. The only signs which can warn of other hazards is diagram 562 below. There are 15 supplementary plates which can accompany this sign to advise drivers of the specific hazard. None of these supplementary plates relate to the presence of a bus stop. Without the provision of a supplementary plate, drivers will not be able to understand what they need to prepare for ahead and this warning will be less effective.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 14 June 2019
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
A bus-stop road marking would not address the concern because it marks only a fixed stop and does not provide advance warning.

Verbatim wording from the response
“21. Bus stops can be marked using the diagram 1025.1 TSRGD 2016. This marking is used on fixed bus stops in urban areas predominantly to prevent parking within the bus stop location. This marking is not used in rural areas and would not be considered to provide an advance warning of the presence of a bus stop as it is marked at the exact location of the stop. For that reason KCC does not consider that such a marking would address the concerns outlined in the PFD report.”

Source location
2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 June 2019
Open published response
18 Dec2018
Isle of Wight
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of a safe pedestrian crossing on the A3054 at the Sloop Inn
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 7
1. Action
  Complete a site review against guidance to assess the suitability of installing a controlled pedestrian crossing.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Instruct Island Roads to undertake feasibility study and design work for a controlled pedestrian crossing at the location.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilStated completed
3. Action
  Review the crossing site and assess its suitability for a controlled pedestrian facility using collision data and Local Transport Note 1/95 guidance.
  Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated completed
1. Action
  Develop and cost a feasibility design and concept layout for a controlled pedestrian crossing.
  Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated completed
2. Action
  Conduct a pedestrian survey to measure crossing demand and difficulty during peak periods.
  Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated completed
3. Action
  Undertake a further summer pedestrian survey to measure vehicle and pedestrian numbers during the peak tourist season.
  Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated planned
4. Action
  Complete a further assessment of controlled-crossing suitability and potential funding after receiving the summer peak-flow data.
  Stated by Ringway Island RoadsStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Current evidence does not indicate that the site meets the criteria for a pedestrian-controlled crossing, although seasonal variation will be assessed.
  Stated by Isle of Wight CouncilDisputes the concern
1. Position
  The location is not presently justified for a controlled crossing because pedestrian demand is low, alternative facilities exist, and crossings are generally safe.
  Stated by Ringway Island RoadsDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Jacqueline Françoise VALVONA · 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

Jacqueline Françoise VALVONA, aged 90, died in hospital on 20 August 2018 after being struck by a vehicle when she stepped into the A3054 in Wootton. The principal concern was the lack of a safe pedestrian crossing at that location, which was used by many elderly people, including residents with mobility difficulties, to reach a nearby bus stop and the Sloop Inn.

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 a safe pedestrian crossing on the A3054 at the Sloop Inn
Wider context from the report
“1. I have concerns about the lack of a safe place for pedestrians to cross the A3054 at that point. There are a great many elderly people who visit the Sloop Inn due to the affordability of the roast meals there, and I heard evidence that there are over 40 elderly people living in Homebray House which is a short distance up the steep hill that is Wootton High Street many of whom enjoy visiting this pub/restaurant. 2. The A3054 is a busy single-lane carriageway road with one lane in each direction taking much traffic from the ferry terminal at Fishbourne to Newport, the County town, and beyond. It is the main link between Newport in the west and Ryde on the east of the island and this stretch of road is predominantly residential in nature. Whilst there is a crossing higher up the hill on Wootton High Road, if pedestrians have mobility issues – as Mrs VALVONA did - they are unable to walk up the steep 4° hill incline to reach the crossing. 3. There have been 7 slight injury accident in the vicinity in the 5 years leading up to 31.12.2017, and I heard evidence that there is a local pressure group which has been campaigning for a crossing of some sort to be installed to make this popular site for traversing the road to be safer. I also heard that there have been a large number of near-miss incidents which don’t feature in the statistics. There is an increased tendency for pedestrians to want to cross the road at this point as there is a bus-stop opposite the Sloop Inn which stops further up the hill, in the middle of Wootton High Street, and thereby means that those with mobility issues don’t have to negotiate the hill on foot. 4. Whilst the road is almost too narrow at that point to accommodate the inclusion of a traffic island (bearing in mind the number of HGVs that traverse that stretch of road), Senior Investigating Officer Police ████████ said in evidence that he would support the proposition that either a pelican or zebra crossing be installed at this point to prevent future deaths as it would mean that the traffic has to stop to allow pedestrians to get across safely. ”
Source location
Jacqueline Françoise VALVONA · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · concerns
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 site review against guidance to assess the suitability of installing a controlled pedestrian crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following receipt of your report, a review of the site and the suitability of installing a controlled crossing facility was undertaken by Island Roads on behalf of the Council. The site has therefore been reviewed using the guidance contained within Local Transport Note 1/95.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Isle-of-Wight-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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
Instruct Island Roads to undertake feasibility study and design work for a controlled pedestrian crossing at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Isle of Wight Council instructed Island Roads to undertake a feasibility study and design for a pedestrian controlled crossing at this location. The process established that due to road alignment, nearby junctions and bus lay-by that the only location where a crossing could be accommodated is between the two bus stops. During the feasibility design stage Island Roads observed the area to assess the level of demand for a new pedestrian crossing, and found that pedestrian numbers were well below that where a crossing would be considered. However, the process also identified that most pedestrians crossed close to the Lakeside Hotel access road, and therefore it is probable that the proposed crossing point is unlikely to be used by able bodied persons.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Isle-of-Wight-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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 the crossing site and assess its suitability for a controlled pedestrian facility using collision data and Local Transport Note 1/95 guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Ringway Island Roads as Highway Service Provider has reviewed the contents of the Regulation 28 Notice received from the Coroner during late December 2018, in which concerns were expressed in regard to the lack of safe places to cross the A3054 at the place that the collision occurred.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Island-Roads
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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
Develop and cost a feasibility design and concept layout for a controlled pedestrian crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Island Roads have been instructed by the Isle of Wight Council to undertake a feasibility design for a controlled crossing and a concept layout has been drawn up and costed.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Island-Roads
Page 2 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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 a pedestrian survey to measure crossing demand and difficulty during peak periods.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The assessment also involved undertaking a pedestrian survey to determine the demand, and difficulty crossing during peak periods.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Island-Roads
Page 2 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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 a further summer pedestrian survey to measure vehicle and pedestrian numbers during the peak tourist season.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As each of the main trip generators in the area are likely to experience a significant seasonal variation, a further pedestrian survey will be undertaken in the summer months to determine the vehicle and pedestrian numbers during the peak tourist season.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Island-Roads
Page 3 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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
Complete a further assessment of controlled-crossing suitability and potential funding after receiving the summer peak-flow data.

Verbatim wording from the response
“On receipt of the summer month peak flow data, a further assessment will be undertaken such that the suitability of a new controlled crossing and the potential for funding can be finalised.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Island-Roads
Page 3 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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
Current evidence does not indicate that the site meets the criteria for a pedestrian-controlled crossing, although seasonal variation will be assessed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“At the current time the evidence held by the Council does not indicate that the site meets the criteria to consider a pedestrian controlled crossing but I am aware that the area is likely to experience seasonal variation. Therefore the Council would propose that Island Roads undertakes a further assessment in the summer to determine whether the vehicle and pedestrian numbers indicate that the site should be considered for a new crossing.”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Isle-of-Wight-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 13 May 2019
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 location is not presently justified for a controlled crossing because pedestrian demand is low, alternative facilities exist, and crossings are generally safe.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The distance between Station Road and Firestone Copse Road is 1km. In this length of road there are three controlled pedestrian facilities and two pedestrian refuges. The”

Source location
2018-0391-Response-by-Island-Roads
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2019
Open published response
28 Mar2014
Inner North London
Concerns raised1
1. Failure of bus stop siting to provide adequate bus visibility and short crossing distances
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

Dr Rosemary Simpson · 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

Dr Rosemary Simpson was struck by a double-decker bus while crossing Tottenham Court Road at a running pace as the lights changed to flashing amber. The concerns identified were heavy pedestrian and vehicle traffic, pedestrians crossing on flashing lights, and reduced bus visibility caused by the position of the bus stop, which required some routes to cross three lanes.

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 of bus stop siting to provide adequate bus visibility and short crossing distances
Wider context from the report
“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] The area is often very busy with pedestrian and vehicular traffic and pedestrians frequently cross on the flashing lights, sometimes at speed. Visibility for buses can be affected by the siting of the bus stop, so that some routes have to cross three lanes in a short distance. It is not possible to move the bus stop at the present time. ”
Source location
Dr Rosemary Simpson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Vegetation restricting pedestrians’ safe standing area beside the bus stop

Lack of a safe pedestrian route and crossing facility near the bus stop

Lack of signage or warning identifying the designated bus stop to approaching vehicles

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.7

Concerns raised1

Lack of a safe pedestrian crossing on the A3054 at the Sloop Inn

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.7

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Failure of bus stop siting to provide adequate bus visibility and short crossing distances

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 7

Actions described in response 7

Respondent positions 2