Recurring concern

Failure to keep pedestrians out of cycle paths through clear safety guidance

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 15 Sep 2015•Latest report 1 Dec 2020

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of guidance, signage or equivalent pedestrian-routing controls specifically intended to discourage or prevent pedestrians from walking in cycle paths or comparable unsafe routes, including weak Highway Code guidance and absent signage or deterrence along the A66.

Not included

Excludes physical cycle-lane width, surface, layout or maintenance deficiencies where pedestrian guidance or deterrence is not the unsafe condition.
Excludes general road-warning signage and speed-limit signage unless the asserted deficiency specifically concerns directing or discouraging pedestrians from using cycle paths or unsafe road routes.
Excludes generic pedestrian safety, road-crossing or highway communication concerns without a material pedestrian-routing or cycle-path-use context.
Excludes cyclist behaviour, vehicle speed and collisions where no failure of pedestrian-routing guidance or deterrence is identified.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 3
Date range: 2015–2020
Stated actions: 5

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.

Cumbria County Council1

Department for Transport1

Luton Borough Council1

National Highways1

Trafford 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.

1 Dec2020
Bedfordshire and Luton
Concerns raised1
1. Inadequate signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway
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.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Replace faded or missing signs on the Hatters Way section of the Busway.
  Stated by Luton Borough CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Review the remaining Busway for upgraded signage at emergency access points and other locations where additional warning signs may assist.
  Stated by Luton Borough CouncilStated in progress
AI-generated summary

Ibrahima YAHAIA · 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

Ibrahima YAHAIA, who had memory issues and was a French non-English-speaking national, was fatally struck by a bus while walking along the designated busway in Luton on 15 January 2020. The concerns included unrestricted pedestrian access to the busway, gaps in fencing and inadequate signage, previous serious incidents, alleged design flaws, and no evidence of steps to prevent further injuries or deaths.

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 signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway
Wider context from the report
“(1) There is a pedestrian footway which runs parallel to the Busway in places and pedestrians have access to the Busway at bus stops. Pedestrians may cross the Busway at the bus stops and there is no physical prevention for pedestrians to enter the Busway lanes. There is no signage on the Busway, itself stating pedestrians should not enter and only a small sign on a post by the footpath which states pedestrians should not trespass on the Busway. Although the footpaths which run parallel to the Busway are separated by fences, there are a number of places where pedestrians may freely enter the Busway. Hatters Way, Luton has many gaps in the fence, with no gate, giving pedestrians free access to roam in and out of the Busway lanes. There are no signs of bus stops near these gaps in the fences and, at the Bury Park end of Hatters Way, there is no fencing which again means pedestrians are free to enter the Busway lanes. Unlike train tracks, where the only way to get access is via a station, the Busway is easily accessed, yet it is just as dangerous; ”
Source location
Ibrahima YAHAIA · 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
Replace faded or missing signs on the Hatters Way section of the Busway.

Verbatim wording from the response
“On the section at Hatters Way any faded or missing signs have been replaced and the rest of the Busway is in the process of being reviewed for upgrading of signage at emergency access points and any other locations, including Jeans Way, where additional signage may be thought to assist in emphasizing that access to the Busway is not permitted.”

Source location
2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2021
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 remaining Busway for upgraded signage at emergency access points and other locations where additional warning signs may assist.

Verbatim wording from the response
“On the section at Hatters Way any faded or missing signs have been replaced and the rest of the Busway is in the process of being reviewed for upgrading of signage at emergency access points and any other locations, including Jeans Way, where additional signage may be thought to assist in emphasizing that access to the Busway is not permitted.”

Source location
2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2021
Open published response
16 Nov2020
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of measures discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66
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 3
1. Action
  Investigate options to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated completed
2. Action
  Consult Cumbria Constabulary on a Traffic Regulation Order to restrict pedestrian use of the bypass.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated planned
3. Action
  Install pedestrian-direction signs along existing footpaths at the roundabout and along Stairnburn Road.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The road network and collision concerned are outside the County Council’s responsibility.
  Stated by Head of Economy and HighwaysOutside remit
1. Position
  Highways England will address the safety issue raised because it concerns its road network.
  Stated by Head of Economy and HighwaysRedirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Daniel Bancroft · 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

Daniel Bancroft, an ex-serviceman and father of three, became extremely inebriated after a night out and was struck by a motor vehicle while walking along the A66 in the early hours. He died from the resultant injuries. The substantive concerns were the lack of pedestrian warning signage, the rapid acceleration and speed of traffic, and the lack of lighting on the initial stretch of the A66.

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 discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66
Wider context from the report
“1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage 2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout. 3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66 4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66 ”
Source location
Daniel Bancroft · 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 to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We have investigated the options to reduce any potential conflict between motor vehicles and pedestrians along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass at this location. Whilst the bypass route was constructed as a rural All Purpose Trunk Road it was not intended to support pedestrian traffic and has a robust physical layout at the junction to direct pedestrians and vulnerable road users along the line of the original route (Stairnburn Road) and hence away from the bypass.”

Source location
2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020
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
Consult Cumbria Constabulary on a Traffic Regulation Order to restrict pedestrian use of the bypass.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst there is a clear and secure routing for pedestrians along Stairnburn Road there are no physical barriers or signing to indicate that pedestrians should not use the route of the bypass. This is a common layout in relation to rural routes where no footpath facilities are in place and does not generally cause any road safety concerns. However, there is now evidence to indicate that there are issues with the presence of pedestrians at this location, consequently Highways England are proposing to consult with Cumbria Constabulary with a view to making a legal order to prohibit pedestrians from using the bypass, with associated regulatory signing, together with pedestrian direction signs”

Source location
2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Install pedestrian-direction signs along existing footpaths at the roundabout and along Stairnburn Road.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Whilst there is a clear and secure routing for pedestrians along Stairnburn Road there are no physical barriers or signing to indicate that pedestrians should not use the route of the bypass. This is a common layout in relation to rural routes where no footpath facilities are in place and does not generally cause any road safety concerns. However, there is now evidence to indicate that there are issues with the presence of pedestrians at this location, consequently Highways England are proposing to consult with Cumbria Constabulary with a view to making a legal order to prohibit pedestrians from using the bypass, with associated regulatory signing, together with pedestrian direction signs”

Source location
2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020
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 road network and collision concerned are outside the County Council’s responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Having examined the report, I wish to advise that the Road Traffic Collision that resulted in the death of Mr Bancroft occurred entirely on the road network that is the responsibility of the Highways England Authority.”

Source location
2020-0244-Response-from-Cumbria-County-Council-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020
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
Highways England will address the safety issue raised because it concerns its road network.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but in this case Highways England will address the issue raised.”

Source location
2020-0244-Response-from-Cumbria-County-Council-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020
Open published response
15 Sep2015
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Weak guidance discouraging pedestrians from walking in cycle paths
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Karen Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

On 2 January 2015, Karen Clayton collided with a pedestrian while cycling in a designated cycle lane in Altrincham and sustained fatal head injuries. The concerns identified included inadequate segregation of pedestrians, cyclists and motor traffic, a confusing contra-flow cycle lane, unclear signage, and weak guidance on pedestrians using cycle paths.

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
Weak guidance discouraging pedestrians from walking in cycle paths
Wider context from the report
“5. The guidance in the “Highway Code” and elsewhere relating to the fact that pedestrians should not walk in a cycle path, is weak and needs to be re-written and reinforced. (Secretary of State for Transport) ”
Source location
Karen Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Inadequate signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway

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 measures discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66

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

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

Concerns raised1

Weak guidance discouraging pedestrians from walking in cycle paths

Actions described in response 2

Actions described in response 3

Respondent positions 2