Recipient

Sandwell Highways

Pin Request correction

First report 26 Jan 2024•Latest report 26 Jan 2024

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
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

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 Sandwell Highways linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Black Country

    AI-generated summary

    PAUL ANDREW FREAR · 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 Andrew Frear died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, from injuries sustained when he entered the carriageway at a pedestrian crossing during a red pedestrian signal and collided with a vehicle. The report raises concern that the junction layout and pedestrian signals were confusing, particularly because indications were positioned only to the pedestrian’s left and were not visible on the opposite side, creating a risk of further deaths.

    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 Sandwell Highways; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of clear and visible pedestrian crossing indications at the junction

    Wider context from the report

    “5. My concern is that the design of this junction means that it is not obvious to a pedestrian that the only place to look for indications as to whether it is safe to cross the road is to their left. There are no such indicators on the opposite side of the carriageway which is ordinarily where a pedestrian would be looking. The signals were situated immediately to the left of where Mr Frear was stood/where any pedestrian would be standing. 6. Within the police report the collision investigator (who visited the scene) states as follows; I do however find the layout very confusing with the right turn filter lane (lane 3) not being separated from the main carriageway a pedestrian is faced with stationary traffic. If a pedestrian chose to look up to their right they would be presented with a red traffic light and the only indication that it is still not safe to cross is the pedestrian controls to their immediate left. The green light for lanes 1 and 2 is not visible to pedestrians and there is no pedestrian light indication on the opposite side.’ I share this concern. 7. Coroner understands from the police that there were two previous incidents at this location which occurred prior to the changes resulting in the current road layout. Coroner also understands Sandwell Highways have completed safety reviews and processes throughout the design, implementation and post installation of the junction design. 8. Whilst the current road layout may be legal, the death of Mr Frear highlights the safety issue for pedestrians present at this junction crossing from BOTH sides and highlights that the signage for pedestrians in not clear enough and there is a risk of further deaths now and in the future. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

0%
0%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

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