PFD report

Jean HARDY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 May 2023•Newcastle and North Tyneside

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
2

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. Failure to restrict pedestrian access to the carriageway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic
  2. Failure to provide signage prohibiting non-designated crossing or warning of crossing risks
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Inadequate provision of accessible designated pedestrian crossing points
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
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.2

  1. Action

    Complete a road safety review of the location and assess the suitability of existing pedestrian crossing points.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 2 June 2023.
  2. Action

    Install signs on both sides of Doxford Parkway directing pedestrians to nearby crossing points.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 2 June 2023.

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

  1. Position

    Additional fencing was not supported because it was considered likely to encourage barrier hopping by more agile pedestrians.

    Stated by Sunderland City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Failure to restrict pedestrian access to the carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(1) The B1286 Doxford Parkway is bordered by Multiple housing estates and the evidence confirmed that local practice of crossing at non designated crossing points which are more easily accessible and convenient is common and well known. (2) Access to the carriageway is not restricted by fencing (save for limited fencing at designated crossing points) and there is no signage prohibiting crossing at non designated crossing points or warning of the risks to the public of doing so. (3) There is a risk of further deaths occurring in this location and in similar circumstances. To prevent future deaths there should be a comprehensive review of current pedestrian crossing provision on B1286 Doxford Parkway. ”

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

Failure to provide signage prohibiting non-designated crossing or warning of crossing risks

Wider context from the report

“(1) The B1286 Doxford Parkway is bordered by Multiple housing estates and the evidence confirmed that local practice of crossing at non designated crossing points which are more easily accessible and convenient is common and well known. (2) Access to the carriageway is not restricted by fencing (save for limited fencing at designated crossing points) and there is no signage prohibiting crossing at non designated crossing points or warning of the risks to the public of doing so. (3) There is a risk of further deaths occurring in this location and in similar circumstances. To prevent future deaths there should be a comprehensive review of current pedestrian crossing provision on B1286 Doxford Parkway. ”

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 provision of accessible designated pedestrian crossing points

Wider context from the report

“(1) The B1286 Doxford Parkway is bordered by Multiple housing estates and the evidence confirmed that local practice of crossing at non designated crossing points which are more easily accessible and convenient is common and well known. (2) Access to the carriageway is not restricted by fencing (save for limited fencing at designated crossing points) and there is no signage prohibiting crossing at non designated crossing points or warning of the risks to the public of doing so. (3) There is a risk of further deaths occurring in this location and in similar circumstances. To prevent future deaths there should be a comprehensive review of current pedestrian crossing provision on B1286 Doxford Parkway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Complete a road safety review of the location and assess the suitability of existing pedestrian crossing points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to your concerns and request for action, the Council has undertaken a road safety review of the location concerned; and has also investigated the suitability of the existing pedestrian crossing point locations on Doxford Park Way. The issues you have raised around provision of fencing within a central grassed reservation and signing has been considered. This was discussed on site, and the view of the Police is that this would encourage barrier hopping by more agile pedestrians and would not be supported by them.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2023

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 signs on both sides of Doxford Parkway directing pedestrians to nearby crossing points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As an action, the Council are proposing to install signing on both sides of Doxford Parkway to direct pedestrians to nearby crossing points.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2023

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

Additional fencing was not supported because it was considered likely to encourage barrier hopping by more agile pedestrians.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to your concerns and request for action, the Council has undertaken a road safety review of the location concerned; and has also investigated the suitability of the existing pedestrian crossing point locations on Doxford Park Way. The issues you have raised around provision of fencing within a central grassed reservation and signing has been considered. This was discussed on site, and the view of the Police is that this would encourage barrier hopping by more agile pedestrians and would not be supported by them.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 June 2023

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 footways and nearby pedestrian crossings were considered adequate provision at the collision location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is unknown why Mrs Hardy chose to cross at the location where the collision occurred; however, it should be noted that there is an existing footway following the northern side of Doxford Park Way and appropriately located pedestrian crossing points nearby to this location. These are found at the roundabout junction with Moorside Road / Noirnmont Way approximately 120 metres to the west, and a controlled crossing approximately 180 metres to the east near Morrison’s and the local shopping centre.”

Source location

Response from Sunderland City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 June 2023

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