PFD report

Samuel Eric Shaw · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Feb 2014•North Northumberland

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised3

  1. Lack of a central pedestrian refuge at the crossing point
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
  2. Lack of warning signage for southbound motorists approaching the pedestrian crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Inadequate lighting and visibility at the pedestrian crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
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.1

  1. Action

    Investigate options for an improved pedestrian crossing near Haggerston by assessing crossing demand, NMU routes and potential locations against highway standards.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 February 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing lighting and signing meet current standards, so no immediate action is required.

    Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 a central pedestrian refuge at the crossing point

Wider context from the report

“At Haggerston Holiday Park, adjoining the east side of the A1 trunk road there are hundreds of caravans located and several hundreds of people come to stay and visit regularly. Access from public transport is by buses which also stop at various towns and villages along the A1 Trunk road. The road is the main strategic highway route between Scotland and England. The speed limit at Haggerston is 60 miles per hour and those travelling north on buses have to set down on the west side and cross both lanes of the A1 Trunk road traffic, through an unlit area to reach Haggerston. The visibility of pedestrians on the road for drivers travelling at up to 60 mph is restricted because of the need to use dipped headlights. There is no warning sign for motorists travelling south to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing the road. There is no central refuge for pedestrians crossing the road at the crossing point. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; 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 signage for southbound motorists approaching the pedestrian crossing

Wider context from the report

“At Haggerston Holiday Park, adjoining the east side of the A1 trunk road there are hundreds of caravans located and several hundreds of people come to stay and visit regularly. Access from public transport is by buses which also stop at various towns and villages along the A1 Trunk road. The road is the main strategic highway route between Scotland and England. The speed limit at Haggerston is 60 miles per hour and those travelling north on buses have to set down on the west side and cross both lanes of the A1 Trunk road traffic, through an unlit area to reach Haggerston. The visibility of pedestrians on the road for drivers travelling at up to 60 mph is restricted because of the need to use dipped headlights. There is no warning sign for motorists travelling south to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing the road. There is no central refuge for pedestrians crossing the road at the crossing point. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; 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

Inadequate lighting and visibility at the pedestrian crossing

Wider context from the report

“At Haggerston Holiday Park, adjoining the east side of the A1 trunk road there are hundreds of caravans located and several hundreds of people come to stay and visit regularly. Access from public transport is by buses which also stop at various towns and villages along the A1 Trunk road. The road is the main strategic highway route between Scotland and England. The speed limit at Haggerston is 60 miles per hour and those travelling north on buses have to set down on the west side and cross both lanes of the A1 Trunk road traffic, through an unlit area to reach Haggerston. The visibility of pedestrians on the road for drivers travelling at up to 60 mph is restricted because of the need to use dipped headlights. There is no warning sign for motorists travelling south to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing the road. There is no central refuge for pedestrians crossing the road at the crossing point. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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 options for an improved pedestrian crossing near Haggerston by assessing crossing demand, NMU routes and potential locations against highway standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, I have arranged for an investigation to be undertaken to consider possible options to install an improved pedestrian crossing facility in the vicinity of Haggerston. This investigation will:”

Source location

Response from Highways Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 2014

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

Existing lighting and signing meet current standards, so no immediate action is required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have concluded that the lighting and signing provision meets current standards and therefore no immediate action is required to address your concerns.”

Source location

Response from Highways Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 2014

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 central pedestrian refuge cannot be installed because the carriageway must safely accommodate turning traffic.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently, lengths of footway are provided on both the eastern and western sides of the A1 and a dropped crossing facility for pedestrians is provided on the northern side of the minor road junction. This crossing facility has been installed as close as possible to the preferred desire line of pedestrians walking between the northbound bus-stop and access to Haggerston, to minimise their inconvenience and thus maximise usage.”

Source location

Response from Highways Agency
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 2014

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

Warning signs and associated road markings have been in place on both approaches to the crossing since 2005.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report indicates that there are no warning signs on the A1 southbound approach to Haggerston. I can, however, confirm that signs have been in place since 2005 comprising an ‘Accompanied Horses Crossing’ warning sign, an ‘Other Danger Ahead’ warning sign with ‘Pedestrians Crossing’ worded supplementary plate, on a bright yellow backing board. These signs exist on both the north and southbound approaches to the crossing location at appropriate distances from the hazard. These signs are associated with a SLOW road marking laid on a red coloured carriageway surface patch, to further highlight the hazard ahead. Please see Photograph 1 below.”

Source location

Response from Highways Agency
Page 2 · response
Published 26 February 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