5 Dec 2024 William Albert Nairn Lardner · Prevention of Future Deaths report Dorset
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Lack of a stable safe public footpath along Hurn Court Lane View source Lack of pedestrian pathway and crossing facility at Parley Lane Parking View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Bournemouth Airport Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 9
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Support the airport in progressing construction of a footway into the airport.
View source
Bournemouth Airport
Develop plans for a pedestrian footpath alongside the BOH-owned section of Hurn Court Lane.
View source
Bournemouth Airport
Construct a pedestrian footpath alongside the BOH-owned section of Hurn Court Lane, subject to permitted development consultation.
View source
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Complete the review of the Parley Lane speed limit.
View source
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Consult on reducing the Parley Lane speed limit from 60 to 40 mph.
View source
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Implement the 40 mph Parley Lane speed limit by July 2025.
View source
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Assess the location for a vehicle-activated sign after the speed limit is reduced to 40 mph.
View source
Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council
Re-check the operation of pedestrian crossing facilities at the Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane junction.
View source
Bournemouth Airport
Make representations to BCP about safety arrangements for Parley Lane, its junction and the Adventure Wonderland car park.
View source See 6 more actions
×
AI-generated summary
William Albert Nairn Lardner · 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 30 June 2023, 16-year-old William Albert Nairn Lardner was struck by a vehicle that went through a red light while he was crossing Parley Lane near Bournemouth Airport, sustaining traumatic injuries that led to his death. The report raises concerns about unsafe pedestrian access around the airport, including the absence of footpaths and crossing facilities, limited public transport, and safety issues identified after the death that remained unaddressed.
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 stable safe public footpath along Hurn Court Lane
Wider context from the report “(5) Parley Lane is a busy single carriageway semi-rural road with a national speed limit and BCP Council has responsibility for the road as the local highway authority. Hurn Court Lane is owned by the airport who therefore have responsibility for it. There is no public footpath along Hurn Court Lane after turning off Parley Lane to access the airport. Please see attached photograph at JGL/4. This results in pedestrians walking in the road or on the grass section next to the road on Hurn Court Lane to get to the airport terminal. This is dangerous as it is not a stable, safe public pathway and could lead to people falling into the road or being struck by vehicles , especially as people pull suitcases along. The airport has erected signs stating these is no pedestrian access, however, these are widely ignored.
(6) A site visit and assessment in July 2023 by Dorset Police Road Casualty Reduction Officer and the Senior BCP Council Safety Officer following Billy’s death highlighted some fundamental safety issues. At this time no action has been taken around these safety issues, although matters have been discussed. Accordingly, the safety issues remain the same 17 months on from the site assessment, with a likely increasing number of passengers using the airport going forward.
(7) I, therefore, have concerns that there could be future deaths given the manner in which users are accessing the airport and the lack of public transport and pedestrian access available.
” Source location William Albert Nairn Lardner · 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 pedestrian pathway and crossing facility at Parley Lane Parking
Wider context from the report “(4) Many people access the airport on foot, either being dropped off and/or picked up on Parley Lane where there is no layby or drop off zone or by using nearby car parks and walking on foot to the airport. One such car park is at the Adventure Wonderland site and is known as Parley Lane Parking (Parley Lane Parking | Bournemouth Airport Parking). This is 0.9 miles from the airport, on the opposite side of Parley Lane which offers cheaper rates than Bournemouth Airport to park. There is no pathway on the side of the road at Parley Lane Parking and no crossing facility, so people will either walk along the road or have to cross the road to access the footpath. Please see attached photograph at JGL/5.
(5) Parley Lane is a busy single carriageway semi-rural road with a national speed limit and BCP Council has responsibility for the road as the local highway authority. Hurn Court Lane is owned by the airport who therefore have responsibility for it. There is no public footpath along Hurn Court Lane after turning off Parley Lane to access the airport. Please see attached photograph at JGL/4. This results in pedestrians walking in the road or on the grass section next to the road on Hurn Court Lane to get to the airport terminal. This is dangerous as it is not a stable, safe public pathway and could lead to people falling into the road or being struck by vehicles, especially as people pull suitcases along. The airport has erected signs stating these is no pedestrian access, however, these are widely ignored.
(6) A site visit and assessment in July 2023 by Dorset Police Road Casualty Reduction Officer and the Senior BCP Council Safety Officer following Billy’s death highlighted some fundamental safety issues. At this time no action has been taken around these safety issues, although matters have been discussed. Accordingly, the safety issues remain the same 17 months on from the site assessment, with a likely increasing number of passengers using the airport going forward.
(7) I, therefore, have concerns that there could be future deaths given the manner in which users are accessing the airport and the lack of public transport and pedestrian access available.
” Source location William Albert Nairn Lardner · 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 Support the airport in progressing construction of a footway into the airport.
Verbatim wording from the response “Although the council is not responsible for the provision of a pavement (footway) beyond the speed limit signs it does recognise that the provision of a pavement (footway) up to and into” Source location Response from BCP 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 Develop plans for a pedestrian footpath alongside the BOH-owned section of Hurn Court Lane.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. Hurn Court Lane Pedestrian Access: BOH has developed plans and will construct a pedestrian footpath alongside the part of Hurn Court Lane owned by BOH, with the support of BCP. The delivery will be subject to permitted development consultation, but the build plans will be developed in parallel so as the works can be completed in a timely manner. It is hoped that any footpath can be completed within the next 3-6 months.” Source location Response from Bournemouth Airport
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 Construct a pedestrian footpath alongside the BOH-owned section of Hurn Court Lane, subject to permitted development consultation.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. Hurn Court Lane Pedestrian Access: BOH has developed plans and will construct a pedestrian footpath alongside the part of Hurn Court Lane owned by BOH, with the support of BCP. The delivery will be subject to permitted development consultation, but the build plans will be developed in parallel so as the works can be completed in a timely manner. It is hoped that any footpath can be completed within the next 3-6 months.” Source location Response from Bournemouth Airport
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 the review of the Parley Lane speed limit.
Verbatim wording from the response “The other two actions were to review the speed limit on Parley Lane including assessing the location for a vehicle activated sign and to check the operation of the pedestrian facilities on the crossing facilities at the junction of Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane.” Source location Response from BCP 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 Consult on reducing the Parley Lane speed limit from 60 to 40 mph.
Verbatim wording from the response “The speed limit review has been completed and the reduction of the speed limit from 60 to 40mph is currently being consulted upon. The intent is to have implemented the 40mph speed limit by July 2025. An assessment for a vehicle activated sign shall follow when the speed limit has been reduced to 40mph.” Source location Response from BCP 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 Implement the 40 mph Parley Lane speed limit by July 2025.
Verbatim wording from the response “The speed limit review has been completed and the reduction of the speed limit from 60 to 40mph is currently being consulted upon. The intent is to have implemented the 40mph speed limit by July 2025. An assessment for a vehicle activated sign shall follow when the speed limit has been reduced to 40mph.” Source location Response from BCP 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 Assess the location for a vehicle-activated sign after the speed limit is reduced to 40 mph.
Verbatim wording from the response “The other two actions were to review the speed limit on Parley Lane including assessing the location for a vehicle activated sign and to check the operation of the pedestrian facilities on the crossing facilities at the junction of Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane.” Source location Response from BCP 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 Re-check the operation of pedestrian crossing facilities at the Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “The other two actions were to review the speed limit on Parley Lane including assessing the location for a vehicle activated sign and to check the operation of the pedestrian facilities on the crossing facilities at the junction of Hurn Court Lane and Parley Lane.” Source location Response from BCP 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 Make representations to BCP about safety arrangements for Parley Lane, its junction and the Adventure Wonderland car park.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. Parley Lane/ Adventure Wonderland: BOH has no control over Parley Lane, Parley Lane Junction, or the Adventure Wonderland Parley Lane Car Park. BOH cannot take any action in respect of these areas and can, therefore, only make representations to BCP about what should happen, which it has done. Following the meetings with BCP, it is understood that (i) BCP are intending to reduce the 60mph speed limit to 40mph on Parley Lane which is currently subject to consultation; (ii) BCP have refused a retrospective planning application associated with the Adventure Wonderland Parley Lane Car Park operation; and (iii) BCP have checked the controlled crossing operation.” Source location Response from Bournemouth Airport
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 Provision of a footway beyond the speed-limit signs is outside the council’s highway responsibility.
Verbatim wording from the response “BCP Council response, action and timescale: Note: the site description in point 3 refers to Hurn Court Lane north of the junction, however, the photo shows Hurn Court Lane south of the junction. This response is regarding Hurn Court north. The council responsibility for the highway ends approximately 15 metres north (from the signalised junction) along Hurn Court Lane towards the Airport where the speed limit signs are located. Up to this point there is a pavement (footway).” Source location Response from BCP 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 Private landowners are responsible for providing walking and cycling facilities on land beyond the council highway extent.
Verbatim wording from the response “BCP Council response: As per reply to item 5 above. The land to the north of the signalised junction beyond the 20mph speed limit signs is the responsibility of private landowners who are responsible for the provision of any walking and cycling facilities on their land. The following plan (Fig.4.) and street view (Fig.5) show the council highway extent.” Source location Response from BCP 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 airport cannot act on Parley Lane, its junction, or the Adventure Wonderland car park because it controls none of those areas.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. Parley Lane/ Adventure Wonderland: BOH has no control over Parley Lane, Parley Lane Junction, or the Adventure Wonderland Parley Lane Car Park. BOH cannot take any action in respect of these areas and can, therefore, only make representations to BCP about what should happen, which it has done. Following the meetings with BCP, it is understood that (i) BCP are intending to reduce the 60mph speed limit to 40mph on Parley Lane which is currently subject to consultation; (ii) BCP have refused a retrospective planning application associated with the Adventure Wonderland Parley Lane Car Park operation; and (iii) BCP have checked the controlled crossing operation.” Source location Response from Bournemouth Airport
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 BCP Council and the Highways Agency are responsible for Parley Lane, rather than the airport.
Verbatim wording from the response “Second, the accident did not occur on land owned or controlled by BOH. The accident occurred on Parley Lane which is the main public highway outside of BOH. BOH does not own and has no responsibility for Parley Lane. Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council ("BCP") and the Highways Agency are responsible for Parley Lane.” Source location Response from Bournemouth Airport
Open published response
Concerns raised 1
Mature trees obstructing safe pedestrian and mobility-aid access along the pavement 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
Plymouth City Council
Remove specified trees beside the north-east carriageway and reconstruct approximately 450 metres of the carriageway and footway.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
JAY STUART WHITING · 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
Jay Whiting, aged 21, died on 7 January 2023 after sustaining fatal injuries when the vehicle he was driving left the road and collided with a mature tree in Plymouth. The report raises safety concerns about mature trees positioned immediately beside Embankment Road, including their potential danger to vehicles and obstruction of pavement users, and notes that Plymouth City Council had not formally assessed the risks or whether action was warranted.
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 Mature trees obstructing safe pedestrian and mobility-aid access along the pavement
Wider context from the report “Although the determinations at the inquest found there to be a number of relevant factors which contributed to the fatal road traffic collision and, therefore, to Jay Whiting’s death (as set out in paragraph 4, above), one such contributing factor was that the vehicle being driven by Jay Whiting left the road and immediately collided with a mature tree (one of many such trees which line Embankment Road, Plymouth). Embankment Road (or at least this particular stretch) is a dual carriageway and a main route into the city centre of Plymouth.
As part of the investigation and inquest process, photos were taken of the scene by forensic collision investigating officers, and these showed the large trees to be adjacent to the dual carriageway, situated on a pavement only a matter of inches from the kerb. It is clear from these photos that, firstly, any vehicle that, in whatever situation, has cause to leave the road and mount the kerb is very likely to immediately collide with one of the mature trees and, secondly, the size of the trees (the circumference of their trunks) make it difficult for pedestrians, or those using mobility aides, to safely walk/move along the pavement without having to step into the road .
Evidence was heard at the inquest from Motor Police Constable ████████ road casualty reduction officer for the Plymouth area (employed by Devon and Cornwall Police). MPC ████████’s unequivocal opinion was that the presence of these mature trees at this location (both on the northbound and southbound carriageways on Embankment Road, but particularly the stretch of trees at the location of this fatal incident on the northbound carriageway) is frankly dangerous from a road safety perspective. MPC ████████ stated that, in addition to this fatal accident in 2023, there was a fatal accident in 2008, where a vehicle collided with one of the trees along the same stretch of the northbound carriageway, resulting in the deaths of two occupants of the vehicle. MPC ████████ was therefore concerned that there had been three deaths arising in very similar circumstances at the same location, involving trauma brought about by vehicular collision with one of the mature trees. MPC ████████ stated that he was not aware of any other location in Plymouth where trees lining the road had been considered a contributory factor in a fatal vehicle collision. Owing to these concerns, MPC ████████ made a request that consideration is given by Plymouth City Council to removing the trees at this location.
Evidence was also heard at the inquest from ████████ senior traffic engineer for street services (employed by Plymouth City Council). ████████ stated that he was aware of the concerns held by Devon and Cornwall Police regarding the mature trees and that, personally, he would also like the trees to be removed. ████████ stated that the removal of trees in Plymouth was currently ‘a political topic’ and, for the trees on Embankment Road to be removed, a decision would need to be taken justifying the use of scarce local authority public funding. ████████ accepted that there had, thus far, been no formal risk assessment or evaluation carried out by Plymouth City Council as to whether the safety concerns identified warranted resources being used to remove the trees. ████████ further accepted that this process should now take place and that he had been waiting for the outcome of this inquest before deciding upon appropriate next steps.
Owing to there being clear safety concerns regarding the continued presence of these mature trees on Embankment Road, Plymouth, in my view these need to be formally considered (it is for Plymouth City Council to consider issues of risk and cost/benefit analysis of any proposed action/inaction) with a view to determining what, if anything, should happen to the trees.
” Source location JAY STUART WHITING · 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 Remove specified trees beside the north-east carriageway and reconstruct approximately 450 metres of the carriageway and footway.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. We plan to remove a number of trees adjacent to the north-east bound carriageway between the Glendinning Depot and Arnold’s Point. The works for tree” Source location Response from Plymouth City Council
Open published response
25 Apr 2024 Mr David WELLINGTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report Black Country
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a designated and separated pedestrian route to the flats View source
This report raised 4 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. 2
Walsall Borough Council
Consider safely installing a designated pedestrian pathway while assessing required carriageway and footway widths and access implications.
View source
Walsall Borough Council
Develop and assess an alternative pedestrian-safety scheme involving a diverted entrance, crossing, and footway, including highway-engineer review and landowner negotiations.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Mr David WELLINGTON · 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 David Wellington died at the scene after being struck by a reversing Renault box van while he was a pedestrian on a service road in Walsall on 12 December 2023. The concerns included the absence of a designated pedestrian route, road markings, pedestrian separation, warning signs and a speed limit, as well as obstructions affecting pedestrian visibility and emergency-service access.
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 designated and separated pedestrian route to the flats
Wider context from the report “1. I heard evidence at inquest that the service road provides access to the shops that face onto Leamore Lane for delivery purposes. The service road opening is off Bloxwich Road and has a barrier which is operated manually, being opened for deliveries normally by the shop keepers. I heard evidence that the service road is a single carriageway which is used by both vehicles AND pedestrians. As you enter the road, the road is lined with metal fencing on the left side of the road which has openings onto two pathways for access to the flats on Comwall Close (incorrectly referred to as Camwell Close in the Police report).
2. There is no designated pathway for pedestrians when using the service road for the purpose of accessing the nearby flats. Designated pedestrian access from Leamore Lane and Bloxwich Road via a pathway still requires a pedestrian to cross the service road itself. Pedestrian access is not sited on the same side as the flats. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths.
3. There are no road markings designating a pedestrian route nor any clear and designated pathway separating a pedestrian route to the flats from the service road itself. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths.
” Source location Mr David WELLINGTON · 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 Consider safely installing a designated pedestrian pathway while assessing required carriageway and footway widths and access implications.
Verbatim wording from the response “The council has considered the possibility that a designated pathway could be installed with the consent of all those with rights of access along the service road. It has thus considered how such a pathway could be safely installed.” Source location 2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
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 assess an alternative pedestrian-safety scheme involving a diverted entrance, crossing, and footway, including highway-engineer review and landowner negotiations.
Verbatim wording from the response “A senior council officer, in consultation with other officers, is considering a scheme for stopping up a pedestrian entrance from the service road to the ████████ estate, the provision of a crossing diagonally across the service road behind the barrier, and a footway along the Watmos land beside the service road leading to Bloxwich Road. We enclose a rough sketch of this scheme. This would require consideration by the highway engineers, and negotiation with ████████, which owns the land along which the proposed footway would run. The scheme also assumes that any long lessee of a flat in the ████████ estate would be agreeable to a change in the pedestrian rights of access to that flat from the service road.” Source location 2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
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 council cannot unilaterally designate part of the service road as a pedestrian pathway because all access-rights holders must consent.
Verbatim wording from the response “Designated pathway
As has been set out above all those persons who have rights of way along the service road are entitled to exercise those rights across the full width of the service road. It would be the duty of anyone using the service road to do so in a way which did not interfere with the use of it by anyone else. The council is thus not entitled unilaterally to designate parts of the service road as a pathway, leaving the rest of the service road for vehicular use.” Source location 2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
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 service road is too narrow to provide both a sufficiently wide carriageway and a safe 1.5-metre footway.
Verbatim wording from the response “The service road at the point where the barrier is installed is 4.85m wide. A modest reduction in the width of the service road at this point would not be sufficient to accommodate a footway approaching 1.5m in width. Whilst it would be possible to lay out a separate footway along one side of the service road, neither the footway nor the remaining carriageway would be sufficiently wide to allow proper use of either.” Source location 2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
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 Marking a designated footway may not improve pedestrian safety and could increase risk by creating false reassurance while reversing vehicles remain hazardous.
Verbatim wording from the response “Road markings providing a designated footway
There was a time when shared spaces were popular. These were spaces which were shared by both vehicles and pedestrians. The DfT stopped promoting shared spaces in 2018. This may have been because of the risks to partially sighted road users. Any attempts to mark out parts of the service road for use by vehicles and parts for use by pedestrians would be met with the practical problem that the service road is not wide enough to accommodate both a carriageway for vehicles and a footway for pedestrians. It is thus questionable whether marking out a designated footway on the service road would in fact increase the safety of a pedestrian. There is the risk that a marked out footway would give the impression to a pedestrian that he or she would be safe to use that footway. That might be leading the pedestrian into a false sense of security.” Source location 2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
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 proposed alternative pedestrian scheme cannot be implemented without agreement from the neighbouring landowner and affected leaseholders.
Verbatim wording from the response “An alternative proposal
The council takes very seriously the fact that an accident occurred on its land. That was made more serious by the fact that this was a fatal accident. It regards the Prevention of Future Deaths Report as a request to take whatever action might be possible to deal with the concerns raised in that report. The council has thus considered what scheme might be implemented which takes account of all of the concerns set out in the report. Those considerations have included the taking of steps which are beyond the present powers of the council and would require the express consent of other parties.” Source location 2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
Open published response
13 May 2022 Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report Manchester West
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
×
AI-generated summary
Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · 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
Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl died from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision at the junction of Cadishead Way and Fairhills Road, Irlam, on 23 June 2021. The concerns related to the junction’s busy layout, a 50 mph speed limit, restricted visibility caused by the bend, bridge, trees and bushes, and the absence of traffic signals.
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 footpath on one side of Cadishead Way
Wider context from the report “1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:-
a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam.
b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction.
c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam.
d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view.
2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam:
a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam.
b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam.
c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth.
d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam.
” Source location Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a footpath alongside the A690 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
Durham County Council
Complete an independent road safety assessment covering street lighting and pedestrian-route provision along the A690.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Bartosz Cezary KUSIAK · 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
Bartosz Cezary Kusiak was struck by a motor vehicle while walking on the unlit A690 in Durham on 23 January 2020 and later died in hospital from fatal injuries. Concerns included the limited visibility of pedestrians to drivers, the emergency stopping distance being greater than the available visibility distance, and the absence of a footpath alongside the road.
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 footpath alongside the A690
Wider context from the report “There is no footpath alongside the A690 along the stretch where the accident occurred .
” Source location Bartosz Cezary KUSIAK · 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 an independent road safety assessment covering street lighting and pedestrian-route provision along the A690.
Verbatim wording from the response “As a result of these discussions it has been agreed that an independent road safety assessment will be commissioned at the earliest possibility. The results of which will be reviewed and discussed further with our partners, Durham Constabulary.
2 | In addition to the request outlined in Item 1, the Police have also asked if a similar assessment process can be undertaken in consideration of footway provision adjacent to this section of the A690. | This matter has been discussed with both Traffic Assets Team, Street Lighting Team and Strategic Highways Team in relation to the provision of street lighting and footways. As a result of these discussion it has been agreed that an independent road safety assessment will be commissioned at the earliest possibility. The results of which will be reviewed and discussed further with our partners, Durham Constabulary.” Source location Response from Durham County 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 section of the A690 has no fundamental safety issues requiring further action.
Verbatim wording from the response “The council is aware of the concerns expressed about this section of the A690 and have reviewed safety issues on a number of occasions, most recently in the form of an independent consultant’s report. The council remain of the view that there are no fundamental issues with this section of road which need to be addressed; however, a number of minor beneficial improvements have been identified and implemented as a result of a previous accident. These are listed in the Table 1 below.” Source location Response from Durham County 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 Existing parallel, street-lit, lower-speed pedestrian routes are considered sufficient, so lighting and footways will not be added to the A690.
Verbatim wording from the response “This means the investment would be cost neutral with no positive return on the investment, particularly as the lighting appraisal undertaken in accordance Department of Transport Document TA 501 (Road Lighting Appraisal) does not include non-lighting costs that would be required, for example provision of a footway and associated fencing along the length of the A690.
2 | Review of pedestrian footway provision along the A690. | The predominant movements between trip generators in the area are provided for via existing footway / footpath routes including:” Source location Response from Durham County 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 Street lighting and associated footway works are not proposed because lighting is cost-neutral and additional footway and fencing would increase scheme costs.
Verbatim wording from the response “No. | Action | Recommendation
1 | Appropriateness of introducing street lighting on the A690 between Gilesgate and A1(M) Junction 62. | A Cost / Benefit Analysis (C/BA) for a street lighting scheme between Gilesgate and the C13 Belmont Link Road junction, with costs estimated at £1.65 million discounted to 2010 prices, resulted in a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.01.” Source location Response from Durham County Council
Open published response
12 Jul 2019 Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · Prevention of Future Deaths report Berkshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a footpath alongside the A329 at the hotel entrance View source
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
×
AI-generated summary
Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · 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 August 2018, Jason Imi and John Shackley were struck by a motor car while crossing the A329 to return to the Royal Berkshire Hotel, sustaining fatal injuries and dying at the scene. The principal concern was the continuing risk to pedestrians because there was no footpath or street lighting by the hotel, alongside reduced visibility caused by tree canopy and a dip in the road.
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 footpath alongside the A329 at the hotel entrance
Wider context from the report “I am concerned that there is no footpath on the A329 on the side of the road where the Royal Berkshire Hotel is located , meaning that any pedestrians walking into or out of the hotel entrance have to cross the A329 to get from or to a footpath , and that there is no street lighting in the vicinity of the hotel. Street lights end 100 metres west of the hotel entrance. This means that pedestrians entering or leaving the hotel during the hours of darkness have to cross the road in a place where there is no illumination, and so they are
not easily visible to motorists driving along the A329. There is also a tree canopy in the summer, further shading the road, and a dip in the road surface on the eastbound approach to the hotel which adversely affects forward visibility towards the hotel for motorists.
I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of pedestrians entering or leaving the Royal Berkshire Hotel being run over as they cross the A329 at night.
” Source location Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · 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 Low anticipated pedestrian use and the rural setting do not support providing a new north-side footway.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no footway on the north side of London Road in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Berkshire Hotel, the likely number of users of a possible new footway is very low as there are only a small number of properties on the north side of the road and very few of the Hotel guests walk along this section of road. The lack of a footway is not unusual in a rural setting such as this, although there is a continuous footway along the south side of the road. We will nevertheless monitor and review pedestrian activity in the area.” Source location Response from The Highways Authority
Open published response
12 Jul 2019 Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · Prevention of Future Deaths report Berkshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a footpath on the hotel side of the A329 requiring pedestrians to cross the road View source
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
×
AI-generated summary
Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · 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 August 2018, Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley were struck by a motor car while crossing the A329 near the Royal Berkshire Hotel and died at the scene. The report raises concerns about the lack of a footpath and street lighting near the hotel, reduced visibility for motorists, and the continuing risk to pedestrians crossing the road at night.
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 footpath on the hotel side of the A329 requiring pedestrians to cross the road
Wider context from the report “I am concerned that there is no footpath on the A329 on the side of the road where the Royal Berkshire Hotel is located , meaning that any pedestrians walking into or out of the hotel entrance have to cross the A329 to get from or to a footpath , and that there is no street lighting in the vicinity of the hotel. Street lights end 100 metres west of the hotel entrance. This means that pedestrians entering or leaving the hotel during the hours of darkness have to cross the road in a place where there is no illumination, and so they are
not easily visible to motorists driving along the A329. There is also a tree canopy in the summer, further shading the road, and a dip in the road surface on the eastbound approach to the hotel which adversely affects forward visibility towards the hotel for motorists.
I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of pedestrians entering or leaving the Royal Berkshire Hotel being run over as they cross the A329 at night.
” Source location Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · 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 Low anticipated pedestrian use and the rural setting do not support providing a new north-side footway.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no footway on the north side of London Road in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Berkshire Hotel, the likely number of users of a possible new footway is very low as there are only a small number of properties on the north side of the road and very few of the Hotel guests walk along this section of road. The lack of a footway is not unusual in a rural setting such as this, although there is a continuous footway along the south side of the road. We will nevertheless monitor and review pedestrian activity in the area.” Source location Response from The Highways Authority
Open published response
Concerns raised 1
Lack of a safe pedestrian route and crossing facility near the bus stop 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
Christopher Thomas INNES · 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
Christopher Innes died on 25 May 2018 after being struck by a van while crossing the A28 Ashford Road in Chartham, having alighted from a bus. The concerns included the unmarked bus stop, the lack of a footway or nearby pedestrian crossing on a 50 mph road, and vegetation restricting the space available for pedestrians. There was also no clear responsibility for managing the vegetation or land adjoining the bus stop.
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 route and crossing facility near the bus stop
Wider context from the report “(1) The presence and position of the unmarked bus stop on the carriageway, where Mr Innes alighted from the bus may be considered a hazard. The bus stop is known locally but is absent any signage or warning to approaching vehicles. The evidence revealed at the Inquest was that this may have led to him being in a position of vulnerability at the side of the carriageway, where there is no footway available for use but only a small grass verge . In order to reach a footway to progress in either direction of the A28 at this point, Mr Innes was required to cross the carriageway to which a 50mph speed limit applies and which has no pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity .
(2) Although it is lawful for buses to stop at this location and the stop is recognised as a “hail and ride stop”, there is not at present signage indicating that this is a designated bus stop, and this is of concern given that the carriageway has a 50mph speed limit.
(3) The vegetation close to the area where buses stop includes substantial trees and hedgerows alongside the carriageway and the close proximity of this to the carriageway causes restriction for any pedestrian alighting from the bus to negotiate an appropriate place to stand on a busy rural road prior to attempting to cross a 50mph road. Although the Highways Department at Kent County Council have completed work in respect of cutting back vegetation as part of a site review on the 31st October 2018, there is no clear responsibility for the management of the cutting away of the vegetation and no clear indication of ownership of the land close to the bus stop as the Highway Authority did not concede any responsibility for the land adjoining the hard carriageway.
” Source location Christopher Thomas INNES · 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 A controlled pedestrian crossing is not considered appropriate because pedestrian crossing numbers and general footway use are minimal.
Verbatim wording from the response “33. Controlled pedestrians’ crossings in the form of a zebra, pelican or puffin crossing are only considered where there are high numbers of pedestrians crossing within a small area and where the volume of traffic provides very little opportunity for pedestrians to cross a road. In this instance the level of pedestrians crossing the road is very minimal and level of pedestrian traffic generally on the provided footways is very low. A controlled crossing at this location is therefore not considered appropriate.” Source location 2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-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 An uncontrolled crossing cannot be provided because there is no southern footway and insufficient verge width for an accessible facility.
Verbatim wording from the response “34. An uncontrolled crossing in the form of dropped kerbs on either side of the road, can only be provided where there is a continuous route of footways. In this instance there is no southern footway and the available verge width is insufficient to provide a facility suitable for all users.” Source location 2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-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 A hard-standing pedestrian refuge cannot be provided because the available verge is too narrow for required accessible infrastructure.
Verbatim wording from the response “25. KCC has concluded that providing a hard-standing pedestrian refuge area would involve design considerations which could not be provided at this location or within a reasonable proximity to Nickle Cottages. The main limitation to this is that permanent infrastructure must be designed for people with mobility impairments and should be to the highest standard. This can include people with physical, sensory or mental impairment but also includes people using the facility with small children, carrying heavy shopping and older people. This would place requirements to accommodate facility widths and access arrangements which cannot be constructed within the available space of the verge.” Source location 2019-0124-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Open published response
30 Jan 2017 David Holman · Prevention of Future Deaths report Cheshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Obstruction of the footpath by a road-sign support 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
Mike Suarez
Remove the road sign assembly and relocate it away from the footway.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
David Holman · 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
David Holman died instantly on 13 July 2016 after riding his pedal cycle from the pavement into the path of an oncoming HGV on the A556 at Plumley. Concerns were raised about the absence of a cycle lane, an obstructing road-sign support, and a dip in the kerb, which may have contributed to him leaving the footpath and could increase the risk of a similar occurrence.
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 the footpath by a road-sign support
Wider context from the report “It appears that there is no cycle lane there and the road gets very busy, so the footpath was being ridden along.
There is a road sign situated just after the area at which the descent into the road is thought to have taken place. One support of this goes into the footpath causing an obstruction .
There is also a dip in the kerb edge there. No one seemed to know why it was situated there as there is no field entrance or other opening opposite it.
It was thought possible that either one or the other or both of these things could have had some effect in the causation of him leaving the footpath.
We should appreciate your consideration of these facts to see if any changes need to be made to less the chance of a similar occurrence happening.
” Source location David Holman · 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 Remove the road sign assembly and relocate it away from the footway.
Verbatim wording from the response “Regarding the road sign that has a support post situated in the footway; Works are programmed to remove the sign assembly and to relocate it away from the footway.” Source location 2017-0018-Response-by-Cheshire-East-Council
Open published response
14 Aug 2014 Oлеgs Sulaimovs · Prevention of Future Deaths report Staffordshire South
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Absence of a footpath View source
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
×
AI-generated summary
Oлеgs Sulaimovs · 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
Oлеgs Sulaimovs, a Latvian national and migrant worker, was struck by a vehicle while walking along an unlit, single-carriageway road towards Stafford in the early hours of 9 March 2014. The reported concerns included limited information for migrant workers about the road’s dangers, insufficient encouragement to wear reflective clothing, the absence of a footpath and suitable lighting, and a lack of speed restrictions in a populated area.
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 a footpath
Wider context from the report “3. The absence of a footpath and suitable lighting.
” Source location Oлеgs Sulaimovs · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.