Recurring concern

Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 5 Aug 2013•Latest report 8 Jun 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes crossing provision, siting, visibility, signals, markings, refuge, warnings and speed controls when the source ties them directly to pedestrian crossing safety.

Not included

General pedestrian-and-vehicle separation away from a crossing
Road hazards that do not concern pedestrian crossing safety

Reports: 71
Individual concerns: 113
Date range: 2013–2026
Stated actions: 136

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.

National Highways11

Department for Transport6

Transport for London6

Network Rail5

Staffordshire County Council5

Birmingham City Council3

Recipient name withheld3

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council2

Durham County Council2

Hampshire County Council2

Leeds City Council2

Nottinghamshire County Council2

Office of Rail and Road2

Sandwell Borough Council2

Surrey County Council2

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.

5 Aug2013
North London
Concerns raised4
1. Absence of pedestrian control buttons to bring both lanes to red
2. Lack of clear pedestrian visibility of the green filter light
3. Absence of pedestrian crossing indications or warning sound
1. Absence of a second set of traffic lights visible to pedestrians beyond the lights
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
  Commission a feasibility study of introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the junction.
  Stated by London Borough of HarrowStated completed
2. Action
  Install new signal equipment and link nearby traffic signals through SCOOT to improve traffic flow and capacity.
  Stated by London Borough of HarrowStated completed
3. Action
  Review whether introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the junction is feasible and acceptable to TfL.
  Stated by London Borough of HarrowStated planned
1. Action
  Continue engaging TfL to pursue pedestrian safety improvements, including reviewing the removal of the secondary signal.
  Stated by London Borough of HarrowStated in progress
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  A dedicated pedestrian phase could not be taken forward because TfL would not support the resulting traffic delays and congestion risks.
  Stated by London Borough of HarrowUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Joseph Burrell · 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

Joseph Burrell was struck by a car while attempting to cross The Broadway in Stanmore and died from multiple injuries sustained in the collision. The report identifies concerns that pedestrians on the central reservation may be unable to see or determine the signals clearly, with no pedestrian lights, warning sound, or control buttons, creating a risk of pedestrians being struck by traffic proceeding through a green filter light.

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 control buttons to bring both lanes to red
Wider context from the report
“1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane) 2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see 3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross) 4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red) 5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross) 6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph 7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and 8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them. ”
Source location
Joseph Burrell · 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 clear pedestrian visibility of the green filter light
Wider context from the report
“1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane) 2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see 3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross) 4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red) 5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross) 6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph 7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and 8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them. ”
Source location
Joseph Burrell · 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
Absence of pedestrian crossing indications or warning sound
Wider context from the report
“1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane) 2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see 3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross) 4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red) 5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross) 6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph 7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and 8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them. ”
Source location
Joseph Burrell · 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
Absence of a second set of traffic lights visible to pedestrians beyond the lights
Wider context from the report
“1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane) 2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see 3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross) 4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red) 5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross) 6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph 7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and 8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them. ”
Source location
Joseph Burrell · 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
Commission a feasibility study of introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following representations and complaints about the removal of the secondary traffic signal pole, Harrow Council commissioned a study to look at the feasibility of incorporating a dedicated pedestrian phase into the signal timings.”

Source location
Response from Harrow Council
Page 1 · response
Published 5 August 2013
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 new signal equipment and link nearby traffic signals through SCOOT to improve traffic flow and capacity.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In order to pursue this issue further the council met with TfL to discuss other options for improving pedestrian facilities at the junction. TfL suggested linking the existing traffic signals at Church Road, Stanmore Hill junction, The Broadway (pelican crossing) and Marsh Lane junction so that they were synchronised in order to improve their performance. This approach would smooth traffic flows and give us the opportunity to see whether any improvements in traffic flow and capacity would make it possible to consider an all red pedestrian phase at the Stanmore Hill junction without the previously mentioned drawbacks.”

Source location
Response from Harrow Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 August 2013
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 whether introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the junction is feasible and acceptable to TfL.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Now that these works have been completed we are monitoring the performance of the signals and the impact on congestion and journey times. We will shortly be reviewing the Stanmore Hill junction again to see if introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the Stanmore Hill junction is feasible and acceptable to TfL.”

Source location
Response from Harrow Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 August 2013
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 engaging TfL to pursue pedestrian safety improvements, including reviewing the removal of the secondary signal.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Since the receipt of your letter we have also opened up dialogue with TfL regarding the decision to remove the secondary signal and asked that a review of this decision is undertaken. However, the installation of a pedestrian phase is still the Council’s preferred method of resolving this matter.”

Source location
Response from Harrow Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 August 2013
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 dedicated pedestrian phase could not be taken forward because TfL would not support the resulting traffic delays and congestion risks.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The report concluded that the introduction of a dedicated pedestrian phase would significantly increase traffic delays and congestion with a consequent risk to safety, including surrounding residential roads being used as short cuts which already carried a significant volume of traffic. This view was supported by TfL's signals unit who confirmed that significant delays on all arms would occur at the junction if a dedicated all-red phase was introduced. TfL would not support the introduction of a scheme which would cause more delays to this part of the strategic route network and consequently a scheme could not be taken forward.”

Source location
Response from Harrow Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 August 2013
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised4

Absence of pedestrian control buttons to bring both lanes to red

Lack of clear pedestrian visibility of the green filter light

Absence of pedestrian crossing indications or warning sound

Absence of a second set of traffic lights visible to pedestrians beyond the lights

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

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

Actions described in response 4

Respondent positions 1