Recurring concern

Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 26 Feb 2014•Latest report 8 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of pedestrian guard railings, barriers or other dedicated physical protective features at roads, junctions or comparable traffic environments where they are intended to separate or shield pedestrians from vehicular traffic.

Not included

Excludes pedestrian crossing availability, signal visibility, signal timing, signage, lighting or road-layout deficiencies unless the assertion specifically concerns physical separation from vehicular traffic.
Excludes railings or barriers dedicated to preventing falls into water, from bridges, or from elevated edges rather than protecting pedestrians from vehicular traffic.
Excludes generic staffing, review, maintenance or documentation failures that are not specifically tied to this pedestrian-vehicle separation concern.

Reports: 17
Individual concerns: 18
Date range: 2014–2026
Stated actions: 22

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.

Department for Transport2

National Highways2

Staffordshire County Council2

Transport for London2

Dorset Highways Department1

Incarace Limited1

Leeds City Council1

Lincolnshire County Council1

London Borough of Lambeth1

Luton Borough Council1

Network Rail1

ORCi Limited1

Sunderland City Council1

Torbay Council1

Walsall Borough Council1

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.

19 Jun2018
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway
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.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  Further boundary mitigation is not required because fencing is in good condition, fit for purpose, compliant, and unrelated to the incident’s access route.
  Stated by Network RailExisting arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Andrew Thomas HANAHOE · 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

Andrew Thomas HANAHOE died after walking onto Lindsells Foot Crossing at Biggleswade Railway Station as a train approached on 29 December 2017. Concerns were raised about the crossing’s safety, including its exposure to high-speed trains, inadequate fencing and the absence of measures such as repeater lights or trespass deterrence; the report states that the risk of a future death remained.

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
Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway
Wider context from the report
““(1) The Post Incident Site Report states: “Ideally this foot crossing should be closed. It crosses railway line that have trains regularly passing over it at speeds up to 125 mph. “Biggleswade, like many towns, is growing in size and any future development in this area will bring housing closer to the crossing. “Would the crossing be installed today? “If the crossing is a recognised “foot path” then an enclosed foot bridge, to prevent items being thrown at or dropped on trains, should be installed, together with suitable fencing on both sides of the line adjacent to it, to prevent simple access to the tracks. “Currently there is just “post and wire” fencing immediately next to the adjacent railway structure... “If the crossing is to be retained, then “repeater lights” should be installed on either side of the crossing, so that users on the crossing can be made aware that a train is approaching”. “Additionally trespass deterrence “Pyramid matting” that has been approved for use by Network Rail ... or similar should be installed on either side of the crossing, to deter simple access to the railway. Additional fencing is also needed between the existing line side fencing and the trespass deterrence to prevent access to the embankment.” I understand that no decision has been made since this Report was made in January 2018, yet the risk of a future death remains. ”
Source location
Andrew Thomas HANAHOE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
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
Further boundary mitigation is not required because fencing is in good condition, fit for purpose, compliant, and unrelated to the incident’s access route.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The fencing in the area of Lindsells Level Crossing is a mixture of Class 1 (1.8m high, which includes palisade fencing) and Class 3 (1.4m high), which includes post and wire boundary measures. The latest inspection recorded all fencing in the area of Lindsells Level Crossing to be in good condition, fit for purpose and compliant with the current fencing standard. We understand that there is no suggestion in this incident that access was taken to the railway as a result of failure of the boundary measures, therefore it is not considered that further boundary mitigation is required at this time.”

Source location
2018-0184-Response-by-Network-Rail
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018
Open published response
15 Aug2016
Plymouth, Torbay and South Devon
Concerns raised1
1. Uncertainty about the suitability of pedestrian railing for reducing the effects of vehicular collisions with pedestrians
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  Pedestrian guard rails cannot be implemented at the collision location because the footway is required as a busy vehicular access.
  Stated by Torbay CouncilUnable to act
1. Position
  There is no evidence that barriers at the location or nearer the signalised crossing would prevent future collisions or improve pedestrian safety.
  Stated by Torbay CouncilDisputes the concern
AI-generated summary

Saleh Awadh Mohamed Al-Awlaki · 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

Saleh Awadh Mohamed Al-Awlaki, a young student, was struck by a car on Great Western Road, Paignton, and died from his injuries. The report raised concern about the suitability of pedestrian railings between Paignton Railway Station and Bus Station to channel pedestrians towards the crossing and reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions.

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
Uncertainty about the suitability of pedestrian railing for reducing the effects of vehicular collisions with pedestrians
Wider context from the report
“Please review the suitability of pedestrian railing between the Railway Station and Bus Station at Paignton to reduce the effect of vehicular collisions with pedestrians ”
Source location
Saleh Awadh Mohamed Al-Awlaki · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
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
Pedestrian guard rails cannot be implemented at the collision location because the footway is required as a busy vehicular access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Having reviewed the site in this case and taken advice from colleagues and from independent consultants I have concluded that the actual location of the collision in this case could not be considered for pedestrian guard rails, due to the fact that the section of footway is required for use as a busy vehicular access. The access is an essential feature of the footway to ensure that rail passengers who are either being picked up or require taxis for ongoing journeys can do so in a safe manner. There is also no evidence to suggest that this location is subject to regular dangerous actions by pedestrians and in this respect there would not appear to be any advantage in terms of safety in changing this arrangement to include barriers.”

Source location
Al-Awlaki-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 August 2016
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
There is no evidence that barriers at the location or nearer the signalised crossing would prevent future collisions or improve pedestrian safety.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Having reviewed the site in this case and taken advice from colleagues and from independent consultants I have concluded that the actual location of the collision in this case could not be considered for pedestrian guard rails, due to the fact that the section of footway is required for use as a busy vehicular access. The access is an essential feature of the footway to ensure that rail passengers who are either being picked up or require taxis for ongoing journeys can do so in a safe manner. There is also no evidence to suggest that this location is subject to regular dangerous actions by pedestrians and in this respect there would not appear to be any advantage in terms of safety in changing this arrangement to include barriers.”

Source location
Al-Awlaki-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 15 August 2016
Open published response
1 Jul2016
Wiltshire and Swindon
Concerns raised1
1. Absence of pedestrian footways on the village route to the children’s playground
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Undertake an assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge.
  Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Implement a 20mph speed limit around Lockeridge’s playground and recreation ground, with appropriate warning signs, by the end of 2016.
  Stated by Wiltshire CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

George Hedley Punton · 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

George Hedley Punton was a pedestrian walking his dog in Lockeridge, Wiltshire, when he was struck by a car on 21 November 2015. He sustained a serious head injury and died in hospital on 3 December 2015. The report raised concern about the absence of pedestrian pavements and the safety of access to a nearby children’s playground, noting a risk of future deaths unless action is taken.

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
Absence of pedestrian footways on the village route to the children’s playground
Wider context from the report
“During the course of hearing evidence I heard from ████████ who whilst not making any recommendations directly relating to the exact circumstances of George’s death did indirectly highlight a concern relative to a nearby children’s playground, the access to which from the village, which included the route George was on at the time highlighted the fact not unsurprisingly given the location that there were no pedestrian pavements. I think the simplest thing is for me to enclose with this report a copy of ████████ report which highlights the location of the playground in question which lies to the north of the collision point involving George which took place at OS grid reference 148677. The similarity with the circumstances of George’s death relate to the fact that George at the time was struck by the Zafira whilst walking on the highway due to the absence of any pavements. My initial reaction when reading ████████ was that there could be many scenarios whereby villages due to their history in relation to highways may not be wide enough to accommodate pedestrian pavements but the location here of the playground and also regards its safe access by villagers including children does cause me concern. Whilst it is fair to say there have been no incidents in the previous four years I am sufficiently concerned so as to support ████████ recommendation that motorists and other highway users ought to be alerted to the fact that there are no footways and that pedestrians are likely to be walking at the side of the road and as such I am satisfied that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. ”
Source location
George Hedley Punton · 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
Undertake an assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge.

Verbatim wording from the response
“An assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge has recently been undertaken, this assessment has recommended the implementation of a 20mph limit, the extents of which will include the roads around the playground / recreation ground area discussed in the Police Report. The implementation of the 20mph limit is due to be completed by the end of 2016 and will include the provision of the suggested warning signs that are considered appropriate for the location.”

Source location
2016-0250-Response-by-Wiltshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2016
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 a 20mph speed limit around Lockeridge’s playground and recreation ground, with appropriate warning signs, by the end of 2016.

Verbatim wording from the response
“An assessment for a 20mph speed limit at Lockeridge has recently been undertaken, this assessment has recommended the implementation of a 20mph limit, the extents of which will include the roads around the playground / recreation ground area discussed in the Police Report. The implementation of the 20mph limit is due to be completed by the end of 2016 and will include the provision of the suggested warning signs that are considered appropriate for the location.”

Source location
2016-0250-Response-by-Wiltshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 1 July 2016
Open published response
10 Mar2016
Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of physical barriers preventing unsafe pedestrian crossings at the 'Keep Clear' point
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Do not reinstate the Keep Clear road marking at the Ball Haye Street and Fountain Street junction.
  Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Install a short section of guardrail around the northern radius of the Fountain Street junction.
  Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

Derek Nixon · 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

Derek Nixon was fatally injured after walking in front of a lorry in Leek on 2 April 2015 and was pronounced dead at the scene. The concern was that pedestrians commonly crossed Ball Haye Street at a “Keep Clear” point because railings had been removed, creating a potential road-safety risk; modifications to the area, including possible railings, were requested for consideration.

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 physical barriers preventing unsafe pedestrian crossings at the 'Keep Clear' point
Wider context from the report
“I heard evidence at the inquest on 18th February 2016 of the various changes which had been made to the road and pavement infrastructure at Ball Haye Street, Fountain Street and Derby Street, Leek. I noted that certain iron railings at the end of Fountain Street had been removed. I heard police evidence that many pedestrians, by far the majority, when walking down Fountain Street then walked across Ball Haye Street at the 'Keep Clear' point because there was nothing to prevent them. The pedestrian crossing is a few yards down the road but human beings will take short cuts when on foot, even if this puts them in danger. I would ask that the council looks afresh at this area and consider what modifications might be made. Railings might be appropriate. ”
Source location
Derek Nixon · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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
Do not reinstate the Keep Clear road marking at the Ball Haye Street and Fountain Street junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of this investigation, two measures have been recommended. Firstly it is proposed to not reinstate the ‘Keep Clear’ marking on Ball Haye Street at the junction of Fountain Street which was recently removed as part of planned highway maintenance works. Secondly it is proposed to install a short section of guardrail around the northern radius of the Fountain Street junction.”

Source location
2016-0103-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 10 March 2016
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 a short section of guardrail around the northern radius of the Fountain Street junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As part of this investigation, two measures have been recommended. Firstly it is proposed to not reinstate the ‘Keep Clear’ marking on Ball Haye Street at the junction of Fountain Street which was recently removed as part of planned highway maintenance works. Secondly it is proposed to install a short section of guardrail around the northern radius of the Fountain Street junction.”

Source location
2016-0103-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 10 March 2016
Open published response
20 Feb2015
Inner South London
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of protection for pedestrians in the middle of the bridge carriageway
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.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  A central reserve is not considered appropriate because the bridge has a 30mph limit and no locations justify a pedestrian crossing.
  Stated by Transport for LondonNo action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Maria Nekrasova · 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

Maria Nekrasova was struck by a licensed taxi while standing in the hatched area in the middle of Westminster Bridge carriageway at about 1.50 am on 4 May 2014, sustaining a severe traumatic head injury from which she died. Concerns included the absence of pedestrian barriers or protection in the carriageway, low and contrasting street lighting, and vehicle headlight glare affecting drivers’ ability to see pedestrians.

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 protection for pedestrians in the middle of the bridge carriageway
Wider context from the report
“(1) There is nothing to prevent pedestrians crossing the carriageway of the bridge (such as a central fence) and neither is there any protection for pedestrians who have reached the middle of the carriageway (such as a central reservation); ”
Source location
Maria Nekrasova · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report
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 central reserve is not considered appropriate because the bridge has a 30mph limit and no locations justify a pedestrian crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Given that Westminster Bridge is subject to a 30mph speed limit and that there are no junctions or locations across the bridge which justify the provision of a pedestrian crossing, the provision of a central reserve would be inconsistent with other urban locations and TfL do not feel it would be appropriate to install one.”

Source location
2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 1 · response
Published 20 February 2015
Open published response
24 Mar2014
Warwickshire
Concerns raised2
1. Exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to vehicular traffic on the A444
2. Lack of barriers or other protective features separating vehicular traffic from pedestrians
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.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Analyse CCTV footage to determine pedestrian and cyclist usage and inform safety assessments.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated planned
2. Action
  Carry out a feasibility study for a separated footpath between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, including costs, benefits, speed limits and lighting.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated planned
3. Action
  Assess the layby’s usage and viability, including whether removing it would prevent pedestrians crossing the A444.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated planned
1. Action
  Install barrier railings and introduce warning signs directing vulnerable road users to alternative routes and warning of dual-carriageway dangers.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated in progress
AI-generated summary

Sean Andrew Morley · 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

Sean Andrew Morley was struck and killed by a motor vehicle while crossing the A444 Bedworth By-pass on foot between 3am and 4am on 2 September 2012. The report raised concerns that the road was regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists despite having no warning signs, street lighting, barriers, or other protective features, and that these conditions created a risk of further fatal collisions.

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
Exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to vehicular traffic on the A444
Wider context from the report
“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”
Source location
Sean Andrew Morley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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 barriers or other protective features separating vehicular traffic from pedestrians
Wider context from the report
“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”
Source location
Sean Andrew Morley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · 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
Analyse CCTV footage to determine pedestrian and cyclist usage and inform safety assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. It is accepted that during the course of the investigations into the circumstances leading to Mr Morley's death, it became apparent that there is evidence of pedestrian footfall along the A444, in the form of a welltrodden path in the verge. At the inquest into Mr Morley's death, evidence was given by a Road Safety Engineer on behalf of the County Council that a CCTV survey had been commissioned to determine the level of pedestrian and cyclist use. Analysis of this footage and the direction of travel of pedestrians is still to be carried out.”

Source location
Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014
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
Carry out a feasibility study for a separated footpath between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, including costs, benefits, speed limits and lighting.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4. Evidence was also given that proposals to introduce a footpath to enable pedestrians to walk between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, separated from the fast moving traffic would need to be properly investigated through a feasibility study. A feasibility study is to be carried out by consultants on behalf of the County Council and the level of footfall provided by the CCTV survey will feed into this study, giving a clear understanding of the level of usage such a facility would attract. This study will consider the cost and benefit of the introduction of a footpath, given the limitations of the road safety budget. Included in the study will be the speed limit for the road and other factors such as street lighting etc. The feasibility study is expected to be completed by the end of September 2014.”

Source location
Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014
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
Assess the layby’s usage and viability, including whether removing it would prevent pedestrians crossing the A444.

Verbatim wording from the response
“6. The location and usage of the layby raise other concerns. It is apparent that there are people being picked up or dropped off from vehicles in this layby, who subsequently walk across the A444 to or from premises off Sutherland Drive. This location is also to be assessed to determine if it would be advisable to remove the layby, in order to prevent the pedestrian movements across the A444 in this location. A CCTV survey has been conducted, the results of which will be analysed and an assessment made of the layby and its viability.”

Source location
Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 2014
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 barrier railings and introduce warning signs directing vulnerable road users to alternative routes and warning of dual-carriageway dangers.

Verbatim wording from the response
“7. At the inquest, the lack of warning signs to deter pedestrians from using this route was discussed. The Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions 2002 which prescribe the types of sign permitted to be used on the highway, do not include signs for this purpose, that are approved for use on the highway. However, Warwickshire County Council has made a commitment to introduce barrier railings, to be positioned at locations where the footway around the roundabout at Walsingham Drive terminates; and warning signs that are designed to inform pedestrians and other vulnerable road users that alternative routes are available, and to advise them of the dangers posed by walking or cycling along a dual carriageway with a 70mph speed limit.”

Source location
Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 2014
Open published response
26 Feb2014
North Northumberland
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of a central pedestrian refuge at the crossing point
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.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Investigate options for an improved pedestrian crossing near Haggerston by assessing crossing demand, NMU routes and potential locations against highway standards.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  A central pedestrian refuge cannot be installed because the carriageway must safely accommodate turning traffic.
  Stated by National HighwaysUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Samuel Eric Shaw · 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

Samuel Eric Shaw, aged 70, died after being struck by a southbound ambulance while crossing the A1 at Haggerston on 29 October 2013. Concerns included the absence of warning signs and a central pedestrian refuge, poor lighting, and the need for pedestrians to cross both lanes of a 60 mph road from the bus stop to Haggerston.

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 central pedestrian refuge at the crossing point
Wider context from the report
“At Haggerston Holiday Park, adjoining the east side of the A1 trunk road there are hundreds of caravans located and several hundreds of people come to stay and visit regularly. Access from public transport is by buses which also stop at various towns and villages along the A1 Trunk road. The road is the main strategic highway route between Scotland and England. The speed limit at Haggerston is 60 miles per hour and those travelling north on buses have to set down on the west side and cross both lanes of the A1 Trunk road traffic, through an unlit area to reach Haggerston. The visibility of pedestrians on the road for drivers travelling at up to 60 mph is restricted because of the need to use dipped headlights. There is no warning sign for motorists travelling south to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing the road. There is no central refuge for pedestrians crossing the road at the crossing point. ”
Source location
Samuel Eric Shaw · 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
Investigate options for an improved pedestrian crossing near Haggerston by assessing crossing demand, NMU routes and potential locations against highway standards.

Verbatim wording from the response
“However, I have arranged for an investigation to be undertaken to consider possible options to install an improved pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity of Haggerston. This investigation will:”

Source location
Response from Highways Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 2014
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 central pedestrian refuge cannot be installed because the carriageway must safely accommodate turning traffic.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Currently, lengths of footway are provided on both the eastern and western sides of the A1 and a dropped crossing facility for pedestrians is provided on the northern side of the minor road junction. This crossing facility has been installed as close as possible to the preferred desire line of pedestrians walking between the northbound bus-stop and access to Haggerston, to minimise their inconvenience and thus maximise usage.”

Source location
Response from Highways Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 2014
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Uncertainty about the suitability of pedestrian railing for reducing the effects of vehicular collisions with pedestrians

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

Concerns raised1

Absence of pedestrian footways on the village route to the children’s playground

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.2

Concerns raised1

Lack of physical barriers preventing unsafe pedestrian crossings at the 'Keep Clear' point

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.2

Concerns raised1

Lack of protection for pedestrians in the middle of the bridge carriageway

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised2

Exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to vehicular traffic on the A444

Lack of barriers or other protective features separating vehicular traffic from pedestrians

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.4

Concerns raised1

Lack of a central pedestrian refuge at the crossing point

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.1

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Respondent positions 1

Respondent positions 2

Actions described in response 2

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 4

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1