Recurring concern

Failure to provide reliable directional signage to pedestrian underpasses

First to latest report 22 Feb 2019 — 3 Dec 2020

Reports that mention this concern: 2
Times this concern has been raised: 2
Stated actions linked to this concern: 4

What this concern includes

Includes failures of dedicated directional signage or equivalent wayfinding arrangements intended to guide pedestrians from relevant access points to an available pedestrian underpass, including the anchor's A590 alternative route and signage gaps when station access points are open or unstaffed.

What is not included

Excludes general road-warning, hazard-warning or speed-limit signage where the unsafe condition is not failure to direct pedestrians to an underpass.
Excludes deficiencies in the physical design, maintenance or safety of the underpass itself unless directional wayfinding is also deficient.
Excludes pedestrian route, crossing or road-layout hazards where no failure to provide directional signage to an available underpass is identified.
Excludes generic public information or wayfinding failures unrelated to pedestrian underpass access.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, 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.

London & South Eastern Railway Limited1

National Highways1

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

3 Dec2020
North East Kent
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to direct pedestrians from open palisade gates to the underpass
This report raised 8 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

London & South Eastern Railway Limited
Stated actions 1
1. London & South Eastern Railway Limited
  Install an additional directional sign by the platform 2 side gate directing users to the station subway.
AI-generated summary

WILLIAM STEVEN ISRAEL · 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

William Israel, aged 23, died after entering Canterbury East Railway Station while intoxicated, stepping onto the track and landing on the live rail at approximately 03:45 hours. Concerns included insufficient and inadequately prominent electrocution warnings, the absence of signage at the palisade gates, unimplemented recommendations for under-platform warning signs, and insufficient assessment of risks associated with public access to the station when unstaffed.

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 direct pedestrians from open palisade gates to the underpass
Wider context from the report
“(4) The main entrance to the station is open between the hours of 06:00 -22:00 hours Monday to Saturday and 07:00 – 22:00 hours on Sunday during such hours the station is staffed. First and last trains run outside of the staffed hours. There is signage by the main entrance directing the public to an underpass allowing pedestrians to safely cross between Platforms 1 & 2. The station has steel fencing around part of the perimeter that is approximately 2 metres high with spikes at the top and there is a potential alternative egress and ingress comprising palisade gates set withing that fencing. When the station is open and staffed, the palisade gates are locked. When the station is unstaffed the palisade gates are open and there is no signage in that vicinity directing pedestrians to the underpass. ”
Source location
WILLIAM STEVEN ISRAEL · 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
Install an additional directional sign by the platform 2 side gate directing users to the station subway.

Verbatim wording from the response
“18 Following the Inquest, we have installed an additional directional sign adjacent to the entrance when entering platform 2 from the palisade gate which indicates the presence of the subway. I append a photograph of this sign in situ as Annex B.”

Source location
2020-0271-Response-from-Southeastern-Redacted
Page 4 · response
Published 5 January 2021
Open published response
22 Feb2019
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of signs indicating the alternative underpass route across the A590
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

National Highways
Stated actions 3
1. National Highways
  Review the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.
2. National Highways
  Investigate ownership of the missing public footpath sign at the southbound bus layby.
3. National Highways
  Arrange reinstatement of the missing sign at the southbound bus layby.
Respondent positions 1
1. National Highways
  Existing routes and signing are considered sufficient, so additional signage directing pedestrians to the underpass is not considered justified.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
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
Lack of signs indicating the alternative underpass route across the A590
Wider context from the report
“As a footnote, it would seem that there are no signs indicating to residents, or visitors to the village, that there is an alternative route across the A590 via an underpass some 500m to the south of this accident. ”
Source location
Mrs Doreen Fell · 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
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
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Investigate ownership of the missing public footpath sign at the southbound bus layby.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location
2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Arrange reinstatement of the missing sign at the southbound bus layby.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location
2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing routes and signing are considered sufficient, so additional signage directing pedestrians to the underpass is not considered justified.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location
2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019
Open published response