27 Feb 2019 Hoshi Jane Naylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Yorkshire Eastern
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Sparse provision of facilitated pedestrian crossing points on the A6120 View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 1
Leeds City Council
Widen the carriageway to construct a pedestrian refuge at the crossing location.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Hoshi Jane Naylor · 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
Hoshi Jane Naylor, aged 12, was struck by a car while crossing the A6120 Leeds outer ring road on 4 January 2018 and died from her injuries in hospital one week later. Concerns included the sparse provision of pedestrian crossing facilities near the collision site and limited illumination of the grass verges, which could restrict motorists’ awareness of pedestrians intending to cross.
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 Sparse provision of facilitated pedestrian crossing points on the A6120
Wider context from the report “(1) The point at which Hoshi started to cross the road is approximately opposite a bus stop and a shop which she was intending to visit to buy packed lunch provisions for a school trip the following day. It is a point where pedestrians can reasonably be anticipated to cross the road to and from the bus stop and the shop.
(2) The nearest pedestrian refuge island to the scene of the collision is approximately 500 metres away from it, in an eastbound direction.
(3) The nearest traffic signal controlled pedestrian crossing to the scene of the collision is approximately 940 metres away from it, in an eastbound direction.
(4) In the opinion of a Forensic Collision Investigator called as an expert witness to the Inquest, the provision of facilitated pedestrian crossing points on this stretch of the A6120 (whether facilitated by refuge islands or pedestrian crossings) is sparse in comparison to such provision on similar stretches of the A6120 elsewhere along its length.
(5) The street lighting at the collision site appears to offer little illumination of the grass verges to either side of the road. In dark conditions, motorists' awareness of pedestrians intending to cross the road is likely to be restricted.
” Source location Hoshi Jane Naylor · 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 Widen the carriageway to construct a pedestrian refuge at the crossing location.
Verbatim wording from the response “However given the circumstance behind the sad death of Ms Naylor and the continued desire line to the shop for the residential area to the south of the Ring Road, a scheme has been included in this year’s works program to widen the carriageway at this location to enable a pedestrian refuge to be constructed. In addition to these proposed works it is also proposed to provide lighting within the grassed area to illuminate the route and to highlight the presence of any pedestrians walking towards the road to cross.” Source location 2019-0076-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Open published response
22 Feb 2019 Mrs Doreen Fell · Prevention of Future Deaths report Cumbria
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions View source Lack of street lighting on the road section View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 1
National Highways
Review the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Mrs Doreen Fell · 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
Mrs Doreen Fell died at the scene after being struck by a car while crossing the A590 in Backbarrow on 17 January 2018. The report raised concerns about the 60mph national speed limit, inadequate lighting, and the safety of pedestrians—including elderly people, children, and those with impairments—using the crossing in darkness.
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 Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions
Wider context from the report “1. The application of the national speed limit for this short section of trunk road whilst it passes through the village of Backbarrow directly impacts on:
a) reaction times for pedestrians
b) reaction times for drivers
c) the size of gap in traffic required to execute a safe pedestrian crossing
” Source location Mrs Doreen Fell · 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 Lack of street lighting on the road section
Wider context from the report “2. The low levels of natural light on this section accentuates the present lack of any street lighting on this section of road which may otherwise assist pedestrians with executing a safe crossing during the hours of darkness.
” Source location Mrs Doreen Fell · 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 Review the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.
Verbatim wording from the response “As requested by the Coroner in his Regulation 28 Report dated 22 February 2019, Highways England have reviewed the speed limit, the street lighting, the safety of pedestrians and the provision of signing to the underpass at the location of the accident on 17 January 2018.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 existing 60 mph national speed limit is considered appropriate and consistent with current guidance for this stretch of the A590.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits advises that speed limits should reflect the function of the road and its environment. They should also reinforce people’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. The A590 is part of the Strategic Road Network and as such its primary function is to cater for through traffic between the M6 motorway and Barrow-in-Furness. Whilst the A590 trunk road bisects the village of Backbarrow into two distinct sections, practically none of the village itself fronts directly onto the road. The western and eastern sides of the village are accessed via two junctions situated to the north and south of the pedestrian refuge island. Much of the village is screened from the A590 by trees and the only frontage development is a small parking area to the rear of Brow Edge Road and the driveway to South Lakes Boarding Kennels.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 conditions and the low collision record are considered sufficient, so installing street lighting on this A590 stretch is not considered appropriate or beneficial.
Verbatim wording from the response “The A590 is unlit throughout the National Park area with the exception of the major roundabout junctions at Meathop, Newby Bridge and Greenodd. The pedestrian refuge itself contains a basic lit bollard and high-level beacon on either side which highlights the refuge to approaching motorists. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document TA 49/07 which covers the appraisal of new lighting on the trunk road network states that the role of road lighting as a safety benefit has limitations and should be considered alongside measures with less adverse environmental impact. It should not be used to mitigate a high darkness collision record unless an investigation carried out a qualified Road Safety Engineer indicates this would be the best solution. In this case there are a low proportion of collisions in the dark (section b.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Open published response
21 Dec 2018 Paul Fairey · Prevention of Future Deaths report Inner South London
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Obstruction of street-lamp lighting by tree foliage View source Speed cushion failing to require vehicles to slow down View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Paul Fairey · 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
Paul Fairey was a pedestrian who was struck by a northbound car on Mayow Rd at about 00.40 on 23 September 2017 and later died from a severe head injury. Concerns included poor visibility caused by tree foliage, a faded road marking, and a speed cushion that could be straddled and was beginning to break up; the evidence also indicated that the car was travelling above the 20mph speed limit.
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 Obstruction of street-lamp lighting by tree foliage
Wider context from the report “(1) The street lamp nearest to the collision site (8m south of De Frene Rd, on the east side of Mayow Rd) was shrouded by tree foliage causing a large shadow across Mayow Rd . This shadow encompassed the site of the collision and the nearby pedestrian crossing point .
” Source location Paul Fairey · 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 Speed cushion failing to require vehicles to slow down
Wider context from the report “(3) There is a speed cushion close to the pedestrian crossing point. The evidence was that a car can straddle this speed cushion without needing to slow down . Also the speed cushion is beginning to break up.
” Source location Paul Fairey · 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 Arrange cutting back privately owned tree foliage to the highway boundary near the collision site.
Verbatim wording from the response “Response - The trees under consideration are privately owned. Letters were sent to the adjacent property owners in May 2018 requiring that they cut back the tree foliage to the highway boundary. As no action has been taken the Council is arranging for the foliage to be cut back. The work is expected to be completed by the end of February 2019.” Source location Response from Lewisham
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 Reconstruct speed cushions near the two pedestrian refuge crossing points adjacent to Mayow Park.
Verbatim wording from the response “Response - The speed cushions in Mayow Road have been in place for a number of years and may be less effective due to long term wear. Financial constraints generally mean that widespread renewal of worn traffic calming features is not feasible. However it is proposed to reconstruct the speed cushions in close proximity of the two pedestrian refuge crossing points adjacent to Mayow Park to ensure that they are as effective as possible. This work is programmed to be completed by the end of April 2019.” Source location Response from Lewisham
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 Financial constraints mean widespread renewal of worn traffic-calming features is not feasible; only cushions near the crossings will be reconstructed.
Verbatim wording from the response “Response - The speed cushions in Mayow Road have been in place for a number of years and may be less effective due to long term wear. Financial constraints generally mean that widespread renewal of worn traffic calming features is not feasible. However it is proposed to reconstruct the speed cushions in close proximity of the two pedestrian refuge crossing points adjacent to Mayow Park to ensure that they are as effective as possible. This work is programmed to be completed by the end of April 2019.” Source location Response from Lewisham
Open published response
18 Dec 2018 Jacqueline Françoise VALVONA · Prevention of Future Deaths report Isle of Wight
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a safe pedestrian crossing on the A3054 at the Sloop Inn View source
Linked responses
Isle of Wight Council Ringway Island Roads
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 7
Isle of Wight Council
Complete a site review against guidance to assess the suitability of installing a controlled pedestrian crossing.
View source
Isle of Wight Council
Instruct Island Roads to undertake feasibility study and design work for a controlled pedestrian crossing at the location.
View source
Ringway Island Roads
Review the crossing site and assess its suitability for a controlled pedestrian facility using collision data and Local Transport Note 1/95 guidance.
View source
Ringway Island Roads
Develop and cost a feasibility design and concept layout for a controlled pedestrian crossing.
View source
Ringway Island Roads
Conduct a pedestrian survey to measure crossing demand and difficulty during peak periods.
View source
Ringway Island Roads
Undertake a further summer pedestrian survey to measure vehicle and pedestrian numbers during the peak tourist season.
View source
Ringway Island Roads
Complete a further assessment of controlled-crossing suitability and potential funding after receiving the summer peak-flow data.
View source See 4 more actions
×
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Open published response
11 Dec 2018 Rowan Lloyd · Prevention of Future Deaths report Dorset
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction View source Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision 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.
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 1
Dorset Council
Carry out the wider A354 route study and consider the junction crossing, cyclist stop-line and corridor safety recommendations within it.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Rowan Lloyd · 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
Rowan Lloyd died after colliding with a traffic signal pole while cycling home from school and falling under the wheels of a trailer at a busy junction. Concerns related to the lack of pedestrian crossing facilities, barriers, and dedicated cycling infrastructure at the junction, particularly given its use by school-age pedestrians and cyclists.
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 barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction
Wider context from the report “1. During the inquest evidence was heard that:
i. I heard evidence that the junction of Portland Road, Murley Road and Langton Avenue is a particularly busy junction during the rush hours and during the “school runs”, as Portland Road is the main road into Portland and this junction is close to a number of schools. However, I heard evidence that there are no crossing points for pedestrians at the junction, no advanced stop line for cyclists, no cycle lane and no barriers between the road and the pavement on the approach to the traffic signals .
2. I have concerns with regard to the following:
i. Pedestrians have to “guess” when the lights are in their favour, depending upon the road they intend to cross at the junction; there is no pelican crossing at the junction to assist pedestrians, many of who are of school age, to cross safely at this junction.
ii. There is no barrier between the pavement and the road as the junction is approached from the north. This allows pedestrians and cyclists to potentially cross between cars that are held at the junction by the lights, and would mean cars travelling in a northerly direction up Portland Road would have an obscured view of those crossing the road between stationary vehicles.
iii. There is no accommodation for cyclists. Given that many of the cyclists using this road will be of school age, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that cyclists can use the road safely and be clearly seen by drivers using Portland Road, perhaps by way of dedicated cycle lanes and/or advanced stop lines at the traffic signals.
” Source location Rowan Lloyd · 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 Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision at the junction
Wider context from the report “1. During the inquest evidence was heard that:
i. I heard evidence that the junction of Portland Road, Murley Road and Langton Avenue is a particularly busy junction during the rush hours and during the “school runs”, as Portland Road is the main road into Portland and this junction is close to a number of schools. However, I heard evidence that there are no crossing points for pedestrians at the junction , no advanced stop line for cyclists, no cycle lane and no barriers between the road and the pavement on the approach to the traffic signals.
2. I have concerns with regard to the following:
i. Pedestrians have to “guess” when the lights are in their favour, depending upon the road they intend to cross at the junction; there is no pelican crossing at the junction to assist pedestrians, many of who are of school age, to cross safely at this junction.
ii. There is no barrier between the pavement and the road as the junction is approached from the north. This allows pedestrians and cyclists to potentially cross between cars that are held at the junction by the lights, and would mean cars travelling in a northerly direction up Portland Road would have an obscured view of those crossing the road between stationary vehicles.
iii. There is no accommodation for cyclists. Given that many of the cyclists using this road will be of school age, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that cyclists can use the road safely and be clearly seen by drivers using Portland Road, perhaps by way of dedicated cycle lanes and/or advanced stop lines at the traffic signals.
” Source location Rowan Lloyd · 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 Carry out the wider A354 route study and consider the junction crossing, cyclist stop-line and corridor safety recommendations within it.
Verbatim wording from the response “A pre-feasibility study of the signalled junction between Portland Road, Merley Road and Langton Avenue has been completed; a copy has been enclosed for your information. This study was completed in conjunction with a wider study that is being carried out of the A354 route between Portland and Weymouth.” Source location 2018-0380-Response-by-Dorset-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 Pedestrian crossings and cyclists’ advanced stop lines cannot yet be committed to because the wider route study and available funding remain uncertain.
Verbatim wording from the response “As you will read in the pre-feasibility study, recommendations have been made for pedestrian crossings and advanced stop lines for cyclists to be incorporated into the signalled junction. However, we are not able to commit to these works being carried out to the full extent of the A354 route study is not yet known. Funding for any improvement works on the A354 will be limited and will need to be focused on areas where the safety benefits will be greatest. The recommendations of the pre-feasibility study and safety along the whole corridor will be considered as part of the route study.” Source location 2018-0380-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Open published response
Concerns raised 1
Risk of pedestrians being misled by conflicting pedestrian signals when crossing the northbound lanes of the A61 View source
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 2
the Council
Re-aligned the narrow-field pedestrian signal units to minimise misleading signal views.
View source
the Council
Install a Visirail pedestrian barrier around the junction corner to deter pedestrians from crossing at the hazardous location.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Mr Leslie Bingham · 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
Mr Leslie Bingham was struck by a police vehicle while crossing the A61 Penistone Road at Owlerton Green on his way to a family celebration. The report identified a significant possibility that pedestrians could be misled by a green pedestrian light and miss a red light prohibiting them from crossing the northbound 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 Risk of pedestrians being misled by conflicting pedestrian signals when crossing the northbound lanes of the A61
Wider context from the report “The evidence showed that there was a significant possibility that a pedestrian approaching the A61 from Owlerton Green adjacent to the Pizza Hut may be misled by a green light intended for pedestrians crossing the mouth of Owlerton Green and thus miss a red light prohibiting them crossing the northbound lanes of the A61 .
I therefore make this report.
” Source location Mr Leslie Bingham · 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 Re-aligned the narrow-field pedestrian signal units to minimise misleading signal views.
Verbatim wording from the response “The PNS at this location are ‘Narrow Field of View’ units (for the Green Man display), to overcome the possibility of misread at the crossing points. Their alignment was checked and they were re-aligned post installation in 2015 to minimise this problem. It was subsequently noted when approaching the crossings from the tactile paving at the correct crossing positions opposite the island on Owlerton Green, there is no longer such potential for the PNS to be misread (see the photograph below).” Source location 2018-0228-Response-by-Sheffield-City-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 Install a Visirail pedestrian barrier around the junction corner to deter pedestrians from crossing at the hazardous location.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst further alterations to the signals on the triangular island do not appear to be feasible, an effective alternative would be to deter pedestrians from cutting across the slip road in the wrong location and guide them to the designated crossing point. This can be done by providing a length of barrier rail around this corner of the junction.” Source location 2018-0228-Response-by-Sheffield-City-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 Further realignment or relocation of the pedestrian signals is not feasible because it would compromise crossing visibility, accessibility, or available island space.
Verbatim wording from the response “There does not appear to be any scope to further re-align the PNS, without losing the benefit of this signal for pedestrians crossing Owlerton Green. Additionally, there is no scope to move the PNS to an alternative location. This is due to the small size of the island and the need to cater for blind and partially sighted pedestrians, who need to be able to find the PNS and push button below it on their right-hand side when standing on the tactile paving waiting to cross.” Source location 2018-0228-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council_Redacted
Open published response
19 Jun 2018 Andrew Thomas HANAHOE · Prevention of Future Deaths report Bedfordshire and Luton
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Inadequate physical separation between foot crossing users and the railway View source
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
×
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
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
Open published response
6 Jun 2018 Carol Metcalfe · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Yorkshire Eastern
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of measures to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway View source
×
AI-generated summary
Carol Metcalfe · 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
Carol Metcalfe died from chest and abdominal injuries after being struck by a heavy goods vehicle while crossing the A63 Selby Road near Waterloo Manor Hospital. The principal concern was the need for measures to protect pedestrians, including patients leaving the hospital, when crossing the dual carriageway near the hospital.
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 measures to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway
Wider context from the report “The need for measures to be taken to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway in the vicinity of Waterloo Manor Hospital.
” Source location Carol Metcalfe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Existing informal pedestrian crossing measures were considered the most appropriate provision, so no further highway intervention was offered.
Verbatim wording from the response “I have as part of this investigation assessed the site for a formal pedestrian crossing based on the national assessment criteria based the LTN 1/95 “The assessment of pedestrian crossings”. This assessment process considered the site characteristics, vehicular and pedestrian usage, forward visibility, road environment, speed of road and previous road safety history. My conclusion after this review was that informal measures which have already been provided are the most appropriate provision for this location.” Source location 2018-0175-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Open published response
31 Jan 2018 Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · Prevention of Future Deaths report Dorset
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Failure to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Barrack Road dangerously View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · 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 George Nordass-Lacey died on 13 October 2016 after falling from his bicycle on the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, and being struck by a motor vehicle. The principal concerns relate to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on Barrack Road, including road-crossing behaviour, vehicle speeds, barriers, and unclear cycle-lane signage.
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 pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Barrack Road dangerously
Wider context from the report “1. During the inquest evidence was heard that:
i. The road where the incident occurred that lead to Aaron’s death, the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset is a road which has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Evidence was given that people regularly drive at excessive speeds on this road. The location of the incident is near to a school and evidence was given that people, especially school children, do not always use the designated crossing just prior to the junction of Clarendon Road and Barrack Road . Evidence was given that school children often flood out of the school and run into the road . Evidence was given that this was perceived to be a danger and that there could be the death of a person in the future.
ii. The placement of barriers along this section of road would assist in reducing the access to the road and encouraging pedestrians to use the crossing to cross the road safely, reducing the potential dangers and risk to life. It was also suggested that a fixed speed camera may assist in regulating the speed of vehicles that use the road.
iii. Evidence was also given in relation to the cycle lane along Barrack Road. The cycle lane along Barrack Road heading towards Christchurch is on the footpath and is a shared cycle lane and footpath. The cycle lane comes to an end just before the junction of Clarendon Road and evidence was given by the Collision Reduction Team Manager that the expectation is that when the cycle lane comes to an end, cyclists will cross the road and use the cycle path on the footpath on the other side of the road. Although there is a sign at the end of the cycle lane it is not clear that the expectation is for the cyclist to cross over the road at the crossing. The lack of signage is therefore very confusing and could lead to a further collision.
2. I have concerns with regard to the following:
i. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use Barrack Road, Christchurch where the incident that led to Aaron’s death occurred . I would therefore request that there is a review of the safety measures in place and consideration is given to the erection of barriers along the pavement and also along the central reservation to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the road in a dangerous manner.
ii. I would also request that a review is undertaken regarding the signage given to cyclists at this location and consideration be given to having a fixed speed camera at this location.
” Source location Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · 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 Continue delivering Bikeability cycle-safety training at local schools.
Verbatim wording from the response “2.1 Paragraph 7.1 in report by TMS – Risk of accidents involving cyclists travelling too from school – minority of school pupils choosing to cross away from toucan crossing on Barrack Road.” Source location 2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-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 segregated footway/cycleway sign and relocate the end-of-cycle-route sign closer to the toucan crossing.
Verbatim wording from the response “2.9 Paragraph 7.9 – Risk of collision between cyclist and pedestrians – Barrack Road toucan crossing” Source location 2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-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 Realigning the electricity sub-station fence is impractical because it would compromise engineers’ safety when accessing the sub-station.
Verbatim wording from the response “Recommendation – If practical, the perimeter fence of the electricity sub-station should be realigned or adjusted to improve inter-visibility between exiting drivers and approaching cyclists.” Source location 2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Open published response
28 Dec 2017 Mark Nicholas Welsh · Prevention of Future Deaths report Inner North London
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Failure to consider proportionate pedestrian-crossing options at the junction View source Delays in delivering pedestrian safety improvements 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.
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 2
Transport for London
Progress a banned turning movement and implement a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on Dukes Road, subject to Camden Council agreement.
View source
Transport for London
Continue working with Camden Council to develop designs enabling safer pedestrian and cycle facilities at the junction and nearby locations.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Mark Nicholas Welsh · 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
Mark Nicholas Welsh died after being knocked over by a lorry while crossing Duke’s Road at its junction with Euston Road in London on 6 July 2017. The report raised concerns about the prolonged delay in improving pedestrian safety at the crossroads, the decision not to install crossings, and the traffic-control statistics used by Transport for London, which did not account for all collisions or reported near misses.
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 consider proportionate pedestrian-crossing options at the junction
Wider context from the report “I heard at inquest that:
• Transport for London (TfL) made a decision in 2007 that it would not undertake any consideration of pedestrian crossings at that crossroads until after the completion of HS1;
• £50,000 was paid to TfL in 2009 by UNISON as part of planning permission to allow building on the opposite corner, £20,000 of which was used on a feasibility study in 2013, but TfL decided that traffic flow would be impeded by four pedestrian crossings, so none was installed and use was not made of the remaining £30,000;
• UNISON has made several complaints to Camden Council/TfL about the dangers of this particular crossroads, but TfL’s best expectation of delivery of any improvement is for the year 2020.
I appreciate that every decision about traffic control at one junction must be taken in the context of the whole network, but 13 years after the issue was first raised seems an inordinately long time to wait for some improvement at such a busy crossroads (about which there had been several complaints prior to this fatality).
Consideration of the junction was described to me as being based on four new crossings or none , which I did not quite understand.
The statistics upon which TfL decisions about traffic control are based, were described to me by TfL’s lead sponsor as only taking account of the proportion of collisions/accidents that result in serious injury or death, not taking into account the overall incidence of collisions/accidents (or even taking into account reported near misses). This seems an omission.
” Source location Mark Nicholas Welsh · 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 Delays in delivering pedestrian safety improvements at the crossroads
Wider context from the report “I heard at inquest that:
• Transport for London (TfL) made a decision in 2007 that it would not undertake any consideration of pedestrian crossings at that crossroads until after the completion of HS1;
• £50,000 was paid to TfL in 2009 by UNISON as part of planning permission to allow building on the opposite corner, £20,000 of which was used on a feasibility study in 2013, but TfL decided that traffic flow would be impeded by four pedestrian crossings, so none was installed and use was not made of the remaining £30,000;
• UNISON has made several complaints to Camden Council/TfL about the dangers of this particular crossroads, but TfL’s best expectation of delivery of any improvement is for the year 2020 .
I appreciate that every decision about traffic control at one junction must be taken in the context of the whole network, but 13 years after the issue was first raised seems an inordinately long time to wait for some improvement at such a busy crossroads (about which there had been several complaints prior to this fatality).
Consideration of the junction was described to me as being based on four new crossings or none, which I did not quite understand.
The statistics upon which TfL decisions about traffic control are based, were described to me by TfL’s lead sponsor as only taking account of the proportion of collisions/accidents that result in serious injury or death, not taking into account the overall incidence of collisions/accidents (or even taking into account reported near misses). This seems an omission.
” Source location Mark Nicholas Welsh · 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 a banned turning movement and implement a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on Dukes Road, subject to Camden Council agreement.
Verbatim wording from the response “Subject to Camden Council agreement, we intend to progress a banned turning movement in order to provide a signal controlled crossing on Dukes Road – to be implemented next year.” Source location 2017-0456-Response-by-Transport-for-Lonodn
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 working with Camden Council to develop designs enabling safer pedestrian and cycle facilities at the junction and nearby locations.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will continue working with Camden Council to develop a design for this junction and others in the near vicinity which will enable more and safer pedestrian and cycle facilities to be provided thereby encouraging people to walk, cycle or use public transport.” Source location 2017-0456-Response-by-Transport-for-Lonodn
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 Network capacity and projected congestion impacts prevent TfL from introducing crossings that require holding traffic at the junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “We have been working closely with Camden Council to deliver a design for this junction that improves the safety for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users, and a history of our work on this was submitted to you as part of our evidence to the inquest. However, our decisions about traffic control and the use of signals must be coordinated with the surrounding road network to prevent excessive congestion, which is likely to have impacts both on safety and air pollution. The roads in this area are currently operating at the maximum level of capacity, and it has proved very difficult to find a solution for this junction which is acceptable both to us and Camden Council given potential local and wider traffic impacts, and does not have significant negative impacts elsewhere.” Source location 2017-0456-Response-by-Transport-for-Lonodn
Open published response
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.