Concerns raised 4 Absence of pedestrian control buttons to bring both lanes to red View source Lack of clear pedestrian visibility of the green filter light View source Absence of pedestrian crossing indications or warning sound View source Absence of a second set of traffic lights visible to pedestrians beyond the lights View source See 1 more concern
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Joseph Burrell · 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
Joseph Burrell was struck by a car while attempting to cross The Broadway in Stanmore and died from multiple injuries sustained in the collision. The report identifies concerns that pedestrians on the central reservation may be unable to see or determine the signals clearly, with no pedestrian lights, warning sound, or control buttons, creating a risk of pedestrians being struck by traffic proceeding through a green filter light.
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 London Borough of Harrow; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of pedestrian control buttons to bring both lanes to red
Wider context from the report “1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane)
2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see
3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross)
4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red )
5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross)
6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph
7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and
8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions
The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them.
” 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 London Borough of Harrow; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of clear pedestrian visibility of the green filter light
Wider context from the report “1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane )
2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see
3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross)
4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red)
5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross)
6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph
7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and
8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions
The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them.
” 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 London Borough of Harrow; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of pedestrian crossing indications or warning sound
Wider context from the report “1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane)
2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see
3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross )
4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red)
5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross)
6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph
7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and
8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions
The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them.
” 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 London Borough of Harrow; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of a second set of traffic lights visible to pedestrians beyond the lights
Wider context from the report “1. a pedestrian on the central reservation has no clear view of the green filter light (particularly if there is a high-sided vehicle held stationary in the right-hand lane)
2. there is no "second set" of lights beyond the lights (as there is at many junctions) - which would be easier for a pedestrian to see
3. there is no "red man/green man" pedestrian light, or warning sound (which would indicate when it was safe to cross)
4. there are no control buttons for pedestrians to use (in order to bring the lights in both lanes to red)
5. for each and all of the above reasons, and when deciding his moment to cross, a pedestrian on the reservation cannot easily be certain whether the lights for both lanes are on red (and hence whether it is safe to cross)
6. the speed limit at the lights was (and is) 30mph
7. a pedestrian waiting to cross may thus expose himself to risk of injury, or death, if he mistakenly believes that both lights are on red, and so chooses to cross at the time when the light for the left-hand lane is not on red, but instead on the green filter; and
8. there were references in the documentary evidence to “near misses” on earlier occasions
The Deputy Coroner accordingly invites you to consider these circumstances, and whether to take action in relation to them.
” 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 new signal equipment and link nearby traffic signals through SCOOT to improve traffic flow and capacity.
Verbatim wording from the response “In order to pursue this issue further the council met with TfL to discuss other options for improving pedestrian facilities at the junction. TfL suggested linking the existing traffic signals at Church Road, Stanmore Hill junction, The Broadway (pelican crossing) and Marsh Lane junction so that they were synchronised in order to improve their performance. This approach would smooth traffic flows and give us the opportunity to see whether any improvements in traffic flow and capacity would make it possible to consider an all red pedestrian phase at the Stanmore Hill junction without the previously mentioned drawbacks.” Source location Response from Harrow 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 Review whether introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the junction is feasible and acceptable to TfL.
Verbatim wording from the response “Now that these works have been completed we are monitoring the performance of the signals and the impact on congestion and journey times. We will shortly be reviewing the Stanmore Hill junction again to see if introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the Stanmore Hill junction is feasible and acceptable to TfL.” Source location Response from Harrow 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 Commission a feasibility study of introducing a dedicated pedestrian phase at the junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following representations and complaints about the removal of the secondary traffic signal pole, Harrow Council commissioned a study to look at the feasibility of incorporating a dedicated pedestrian phase into the signal timings.” Source location Response from Harrow 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 Continue engaging TfL to pursue pedestrian safety improvements, including reviewing the removal of the secondary signal.
Verbatim wording from the response “Since the receipt of your letter we have also opened up dialogue with TfL regarding the decision to remove the secondary signal and asked that a review of this decision is undertaken. However, the installation of a pedestrian phase is still the Council’s preferred method of resolving this matter.” Source location Response from Harrow 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 dedicated pedestrian phase could not be taken forward because TfL would not support the resulting traffic delays and congestion risks.
Verbatim wording from the response “The report concluded that the introduction of a dedicated pedestrian phase would significantly increase traffic delays and congestion with a consequent risk to safety, including surrounding residential roads being used as short cuts which already carried a significant volume of traffic. This view was supported by TfL's signals unit who confirmed that significant delays on all arms would occur at the junction if a dedicated all-red phase was introduced. TfL would not support the introduction of a scheme which would cause more delays to this part of the strategic route network and consequently a scheme could not be taken forward.” Source location Response from Harrow Council
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Addressed to: Traffic and Highway Network Management Department, Harrow Council.
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations