Gateshead Borough Council

Local government · English metropolitan district council

Request correction

First report 20 Jul 2015•Latest report 9 Jan 2025

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports: 2
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 4
Stated actions: 7

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Gateshead Borough Council linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

9 Jan2025
Newcastle and North Tyneside
Concerns raised1
1. Unsafe 40 miles per hour speed limit for the road stretch
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Collect public comments during the first six months on whether the speed-reduction scheme is working.
2. Action
  Implement an experimental traffic order reducing the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph across approximately 1.5 km including the collision area.
3. Action
  Monitor traffic speeds and investigate any further road traffic collisions during the experimental order period.
1. Action
  Review public comments and decide how to proceed with the scheme.
AI-generated summary

John Michael Liddle · 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

John Michael Liddle was cycling on the A694 when he was hit by an overtaking minibus and suffered unsurvivable head injuries. The substantive concern was that the 40 miles per hour speed limit was unsafe for that stretch of road, which was residential, included bends and junctions, and had previously experienced other collisions involving cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles.

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 Gateshead Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Unsafe 40 miles per hour speed limit for the road stretch
Wider context from the report
“(1) At the time of the collision the area of the A694 upon which Mr Liddle was cycling was subject to a 40 miles per hour speed limit; (2) The speed limit on this area of road has now (temporarily) been reduced to 30 miles per hour; (3) The road is within a residential area; (4) The road encompasses bends and junctions; (5) There have been a number of other collisions along the stretch of road involving pedal cycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles; and (6) A 40 miles per hour speed limit is unsafe for this stretch of road. ”
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
Collect public comments during the first six months on whether the speed-reduction scheme is working.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The first six months of that period will be used for the public to comment on whether the scheme is working, or not. The Council will then review all the comments and decide how to proceed.”

Source location
Response from Gateshead Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 2025
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 an experimental traffic order reducing the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph across approximately 1.5 km including the collision area.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In response to the concerns raised, a decision was made to investigate the effect of a reduction to the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph using an experimental traffic regulation order, pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This order stretches approximately 1.5km in length and incorporates the area where the fatal road traffic collision occurred.”

Source location
Response from Gateshead Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 2025
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
Monitor traffic speeds and investigate any further road traffic collisions during the experimental order period.

Verbatim wording from the response
“This Order commenced 7th November 2024 and will be in effect for a period of up to 18 months, during which time traffic speeds will be monitored and any further road traffic collisions will be investigated.”

Source location
Response from Gateshead Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 2025
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 public comments and decide how to proceed with the scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The first six months of that period will be used for the public to comment on whether the scheme is working, or not. The Council will then review all the comments and decide how to proceed.”

Source location
Response from Gateshead Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 January 2025
Open published response
20 Jul2015
Newcastle upon Tyne
Concerns raised3
1. Lack of illuminated signage for pedestrians in darkness
2. Inadequate signage giving pedestrians guidance on safe crossing points
3. Inappropriateness of a 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road with limited driver visibility
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Investigate whether pedestrian routes are appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead.
2. Action
  Erect an additional sign identifying the pedestrian route and destination at the top of the steps.
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  The 50mph speed limit is considered entirely appropriate for this section of road despite concerns about visibility and reaction time.
  Disputes the concern
1. Position
  No further action will be taken to illuminate pedestrian signage because illumination is not required and guidance provides no discretionary advice.
  No action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Paul Coxon · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

Report summary

Paul Coxon died after consuming alcohol and crossing the A189 Redheugh Bridge south-bound slip road, where he was struck by an oncoming vehicle and sustained a traumatic brain injury. The concerns identified were inadequate and unilluminated signage for safe pedestrian crossing points, and whether the 50-mile-per-hour speed limit was appropriate given limited driver visibility and reaction time.

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 Gateshead Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Lack of illuminated signage for pedestrians in darkness
Wider context from the report
“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Inadequate signage giving guidance to pedestrians of safe crossing points (2) Lack of illuminated signage to assist pedestrians in the hours of darkness (3) Appropriateness of 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road where driver visibility is limited and reaction time to any hazard significantly impaired as a result ”
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 Gateshead Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate signage giving pedestrians guidance on safe crossing points
Wider context from the report
“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Inadequate signage giving guidance to pedestrians of safe crossing points (2) Lack of illuminated signage to assist pedestrians in the hours of darkness (3) Appropriateness of 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road where driver visibility is limited and reaction time to any hazard significantly impaired as a result ”
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 Gateshead Borough Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inappropriateness of a 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road with limited driver visibility
Wider context from the report
“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Inadequate signage giving guidance to pedestrians of safe crossing points (2) Lack of illuminated signage to assist pedestrians in the hours of darkness (3) Appropriateness of 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road where driver visibility is limited and reaction time to any hazard significantly impaired as a result ”
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 whether pedestrian routes are appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. An additional sign will be erected at the top of the steps (adjacent to the south east slip) which leads to the ‘underpass’. This will indicate the presence of a pedestrian route (via steps) and identify the pedestrian destination. Investigative work will be undertaken to confirm that the pedestrian route is appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead. This work will be completed within three months from the date of this letter.”

Source location
2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 July 2015
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
Erect an additional sign identifying the pedestrian route and destination at the top of the steps.

Verbatim wording from the response
“1. An additional sign will be erected at the top of the steps (adjacent to the south east slip) which leads to the ‘underpass’. This will indicate the presence of a pedestrian route (via steps) and identify the pedestrian destination. Investigative work will be undertaken to confirm that the pedestrian route is appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead. This work will be completed within three months from the date of this letter.”

Source location
2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 July 2015
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 50mph speed limit is considered entirely appropriate for this section of road despite concerns about visibility and reaction time.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3. Again, your concerns are noted, however it is my belief that a 50mph speed limit is entirely appropriate for this section of road.”

Source location
2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 July 2015
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
No further action will be taken to illuminate pedestrian signage because illumination is not required and guidance provides no discretionary advice.

Verbatim wording from the response
“2. Requirements and guidance for illumination of road traffic signs is contained within the Department for Transport’s ‘Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions’ document. Pedestrian signage is not required to be illuminated and the document does not contain discretionary advice suggesting it may be appropriate to do so. Accordingly, whilst I note your concern, I do not intend to take action in this regard.”

Source location
2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 July 2015
Open published response

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 raised1

Unsafe 40 miles per hour speed limit for the road stretch

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Concerns raised3

Lack of illuminated signage for pedestrians in darkness

Inadequate signage giving pedestrians guidance on safe crossing points

Inappropriateness of a 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road with limited driver visibility

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what this recipient says about the concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

Actions described in response 4

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 2