PFD report

Sean Andrew Morley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Mar 2014•Warwickshire

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
6

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised4

  1. Lack of street lighting on the road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
  2. Exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to vehicular traffic on the A444
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
  3. Lack of warning signs for pedestrians and cyclists using the road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Action

    Carry out a feasibility study for a separated footpath between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, including costs, benefits, speed limits and lighting.

    Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 March 2014.
  2. Action

    Assess the layby’s usage and viability, including whether removing it would prevent pedestrians crossing the A444.

    Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 March 2014.
  3. Action

    Install barrier railings and introduce warning signs directing vulnerable road users to alternative routes and warning of dual-carriageway dangers.

    Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 March 2014.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of street lighting on the road

Wider context from the report

“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Exposure of pedestrians and cyclists to vehicular traffic on the A444

Wider context from the report

“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of warning signs for pedestrians and cyclists using the road

Wider context from the report

“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of barriers or other protective features separating vehicular traffic from pedestrians

Wider context from the report

“(1) I heard evidence that the stretch of the A444 where Sean died is regularly used by pedestrians and cyclists, who walk or ride on the grass verge at the side of the carriageway or on the edge of the carriageway itself. (2) Since Sean’s death, there has been a further incident on the same stretch of road where a pedestrian was struck by a car. Fortunately, the injuries were not fatal. (3) There are no signs warning pedestrians or cyclists of the dangers of using the road. There are no street lights. The speed limit on the road is 70mph. There is no barrier or other protective features between the vehicular traffic and pedestrians. (4) These factors strongly suggest that there is a risk of further fatal collisions between vehicles and other road users. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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

Carry out a feasibility study for a separated footpath between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, including costs, benefits, speed limits and lighting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Evidence was also given that proposals to introduce a footpath to enable pedestrians to walk between Walsingham Drive and Sutherland Drive, separated from the fast moving traffic would need to be properly investigated through a feasibility study. A feasibility study is to be carried out by consultants on behalf of the County Council and the level of footfall provided by the CCTV survey will feed into this study, giving a clear understanding of the level of usage such a facility would attract. This study will consider the cost and benefit of the introduction of a footpath, given the limitations of the road safety budget. Included in the study will be the speed limit for the road and other factors such as street lighting etc. The feasibility study is expected to be completed by the end of September 2014.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014

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 layby’s usage and viability, including whether removing it would prevent pedestrians crossing the A444.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. The location and usage of the layby raise other concerns. It is apparent that there are people being picked up or dropped off from vehicles in this layby, who subsequently walk across the A444 to or from premises off Sutherland Drive. This location is also to be assessed to determine if it would be advisable to remove the layby, in order to prevent the pedestrian movements across the A444 in this location. A CCTV survey has been conducted, the results of which will be analysed and an assessment made of the layby and its viability.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 2014

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

Install barrier railings and introduce warning signs directing vulnerable road users to alternative routes and warning of dual-carriageway dangers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“7. At the inquest, the lack of warning signs to deter pedestrians from using this route was discussed. The Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions 2002 which prescribe the types of sign permitted to be used on the highway, do not include signs for this purpose, that are approved for use on the highway. However, Warwickshire County Council has made a commitment to introduce barrier railings, to be positioned at locations where the footway around the roundabout at Walsingham Drive terminates; and warning signs that are designed to inform pedestrians and other vulnerable road users that alternative routes are available, and to advise them of the dangers posed by walking or cycling along a dual carriageway with a 70mph speed limit.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 March 2014

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

Analyse CCTV footage to determine pedestrian and cyclist usage and inform safety assessments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. It is accepted that during the course of the investigations into the circumstances leading to Mr Morley's death, it became apparent that there is evidence of pedestrian footfall along the A444, in the form of a welltrodden path in the verge. At the inquest into Mr Morley's death, evidence was given by a Road Safety Engineer on behalf of the County Council that a CCTV survey had been commissioned to determine the level of pedestrian and cyclist use. Analysis of this footage and the direction of travel of pedestrians is still to be carried out.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Investigate the separate pedestrian injury collision and include reported pedestrian collisions in subsequent analysis.

    Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2014.
  2. 2

    Conduct a CCTV survey of pedestrian and cyclist use along the A444.

    Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 March 2014.

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 the separate pedestrian injury collision and include reported pedestrian collisions in subsequent analysis.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. The separate injury collision referred to in paragraph 5(2) of the Coroner's report, has been investigated. This incident took place near to the layby opposite the junction for Sutherland Drive. This accident involved a pedestrian who was walking along the A444 from the Coventry direction towards Nuneaton. It is not clear from the police accident report how the pedestrian came to be involved in a collision as there is insufficient information relating to the collision detailed in the police report. However, this collision will be considered when the feasibility study is completed, so”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014

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

Conduct a CCTV survey of pedestrian and cyclist use along the A444.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. It is accepted that during the course of the investigations into the circumstances leading to Mr Morley's death, it became apparent that there is evidence of pedestrian footfall along the A444, in the form of a welltrodden path in the verge. At the inquest into Mr Morley's death, evidence was given by a Road Safety Engineer on behalf of the County Council that a CCTV survey had been commissioned to determine the level of pedestrian and cyclist use. Analysis of this footage and the direction of travel of pedestrians is still to be carried out.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 March 2014

Open published response
Back to top

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026