Recipient

Dorset Highways Department

First report 28 Feb 2017•Latest report 11 Dec 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Sub-organisation. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports: 2
Published responses: 0%
Concerns addressed: 0
Stated actions: 0

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

0%published responses found

0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Dorset Highways Department linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

11 Dec2018
Dorset
Concerns raised3
1. Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction
2. Lack of safe cyclist accommodation at the junction
3. Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision at the junction
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
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. The report was sent to Dorset Highways Department; that does not assign responsibility.
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. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Dorset Highways Department; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of safe cyclist accommodation 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. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Dorset Highways Department; that does not assign responsibility.
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. ”
Open source report
28 Feb2017
Dorset
Concerns raised3
1. Lack of a clear boundary between the pavement and roadway at the junction
2. Narrow entrance to Howards Lane causing cars to cut the corner
3. Failure to maintain the pavement and roadway at the junction in a safe state of repair
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
AI-generated summary

Reverend Colin Hodge · 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 19 January 2016, Reverend Colin Hodge stumbled on an uneven pavement at a junction in Wareham and fell against a turning vehicle, then struck his head. He was taken to hospital and died on 25 January from an inoperable head injury. Concerns included the poor state of repair and lack of a clear boundary between the pavement and roadway, with vehicles sometimes cutting the corner.

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. The report was sent to Dorset Highways Department; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of a clear boundary between the pavement and roadway at the junction
Wider context from the report
“(2) At the time of the incident, the pavement and roadway were all of one level. (3) Evidence from the witnesses indicated that this junction was of concern for two reasons; Firstly that pedestrians would walk straight across as there was no clear boundary between the pavement and the road; Secondly, as the entrance to Howards Lane is narrow, cars would sometimes cut the corner. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Dorset Highways Department; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Narrow entrance to Howards Lane causing cars to cut the corner
Wider context from the report
“(2) At the time of the incident, the pavement and roadway were all of one level. (3) Evidence from the witnesses indicated that this junction was of concern for two reasons; Firstly that pedestrians would walk straight across as there was no clear boundary between the pavement and the road; Secondly, as the entrance to Howards Lane is narrow, cars would sometimes cut the corner. ”
Open source report
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Dorset Highways Department; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to maintain the pavement and roadway at the junction in a safe state of repair
Wider context from the report
“(1) The evidence from the witnesses who were all from the Wareham area, was that the pavement and road way at the junction of the High Street and Howards Lane was in a poor state of repair. ”
Open source report

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised3

Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction

Lack of safe cyclist accommodation at the junction

Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision at the junction

Concerns raised3

Lack of a clear boundary between the pavement and roadway at the junction

Narrow entrance to Howards Lane causing cars to cut the corner

Failure to maintain the pavement and roadway at the junction in a safe state of repair