PFD report

Roger William Maurice De Klerk · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Oct 2014•South London

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
7

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised7

  1. Cycle route passing over tactile paving areas
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe shared cycle and pedestrian route design
  2. Confusing signage misrepresenting the tram route as a cycle route
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Confusing bicycle-lane design and appearance at the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safetyPart of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
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

    Review signing and markings at Croydon sites where cyclists cross tram tracks and rectify confusing arrangements.

    Stated by London Borough of CroydonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 16 October 2014.
  2. Action

    Conduct the junction safety review with TfL designers and obtain short- and long-term improvement options.

    Stated by London Borough of CroydonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 October 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    No suitable proprietary product has been found to fill tram-track gaps without creating a significant operational risk.

    Stated by London Borough of CroydonUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Cycle route passing over tactile paving areas

Wider context from the report

“(3) For cyclists who do go onto the pavement, the intended route goes over two tactile paving areas and involves contact with pedestrians crossing at the junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe shared cycle and pedestrian route design.

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

Confusing signage misrepresenting the tram route as a cycle route

Wider context from the report

“(4) The signage at the junction is confusing and appears to suggest that the tram route is a cycle route, yet the lines are frequently close to pavement at the junction and at other areas further along Addiscombe Road ”

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

Confusing bicycle-lane design and appearance at the junction

Wider context from the report

“(2) The design and appearance of the bicycle lane at the junction of Addiscombe Road and Cherry Orchard Road may cause confusion for cyclists who are apparently required to go on to the pavement before the junction in order to cross it safely. The cycle path continues into the junction so that cyclists turning left will be forced to parallel with the lines, rather than crossing at 90 degrees, which is safer. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety; Unsafe road design and layout.

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

Cycle-path geometry forcing cyclists to parallel tramlines at the junction

Wider context from the report

“(2) The design and appearance of the bicycle lane at the junction of Addiscombe Road and Cherry Orchard Road may cause confusion for cyclists who are apparently required to go on to the pavement before the junction in order to cross it safely. The cycle path continues into the junction so that cyclists turning left will be forced to parallel with the lines, rather than crossing at 90 degrees, which is safer. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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

Cycle route conflicting with pedestrians crossing at the junction

Wider context from the report

“(3) For cyclists who do go onto the pavement, the intended route goes over two tactile paving areas and involves contact with pedestrians crossing at the junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe shared cycle and pedestrian route design.

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

Tramline hazards for cyclists

Wider context from the report

“(1) Tramlines present a significant danger for cyclists, either by being caught in the lines or slipping on the metal, particularly in the wet. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Tramlines located close to pavement alongside the cycle route

Wider context from the report

“(4) The signage at the junction is confusing and appears to suggest that the tram route is a cycle route, yet the lines are frequently close to pavement at the junction and at other areas further along Addiscombe Road ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Review signing and markings at Croydon sites where cyclists cross tram tracks and rectify confusing arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council also appreciates that the issues for cyclists when crossing the tram tracks may exist at other locations along the tram network. For this reason the Council has discussed with TfL Tramlink the possible application of proprietary products which fill the gap in but to date have not found anything that is suitable for in street application and that do not have a significant risk to the operation. However Tramlink are committed to researching other solutions and have meetings set up in the New Year with railway suppliers and plastic suppliers. We will review signing and markings at all other sites in Croydon where cyclists cross the tram tracks to check for and rectify any other potentially confusing signing and marking.”

Source location

2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
Page 2 · response
Published 16 October 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 the junction safety review with TfL designers and obtain short- and long-term improvement options.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the findings of your Coroner’s inquest, the council has agreed to carry out a detailed review of the junction of Addiscombe Road / Cherry Orchard Road with the aim of finding any improvements that will assist cyclist and improve road safety at this site. To this end, the council is requesting TfL’s design team (with expertise employed on TfL’s cycling better junction review and central London cycle Superhighway design) to carry out this review and provide the council with a range of workable options. These will include both short term options that can be implemented quickly, and more extensive improvement. We are entering into discussions with TfL regarding cycling Quietway funding with a view to making such more extensive improvement by 2016.”

Source location

2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
Page 1 · response
Published 16 October 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

No suitable proprietary product has been found to fill tram-track gaps without creating a significant operational risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council also appreciates that the issues for cyclists when crossing the tram tracks may exist at other locations along the tram network. For this reason the Council has discussed with TfL Tramlink the possible application of proprietary products which fill the gap in but to date have not found anything that is suitable for in street application and that do not have a significant risk to the operation. However Tramlink are committed to researching other solutions and have meetings set up in the New Year with railway suppliers and plastic suppliers. We will review signing and markings at all other sites in Croydon where cyclists cross the tram tracks to check for and rectify any other potentially confusing signing and marking.”

Source location

2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
Page 2 · response
Published 16 October 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

    Complete and provide a defined brief for the junction safety review.

    Stated by London Borough of CroydonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 October 2014.
  2. 2

    Discuss TfL Quietway funding for more extensive junction improvements.

    Stated by London Borough of CroydonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 October 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

Complete and provide a defined brief for the junction safety review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The review requires a clear and defined brief, which has been completed and provided to the TfL designers. The first site meeting with the designers is taking place on Friday 12th December 2014 thereafter we are looking to receive design proposals in April 2015 and at this stage it is not possible to confirm when any works will commence but it is our intention to implement during the 2015/16 financial year.”

Source location

2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
Page 2 · response
Published 16 October 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

Discuss TfL Quietway funding for more extensive junction improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the findings of your Coroner’s inquest, the council has agreed to carry out a detailed review of the junction of Addiscombe Road / Cherry Orchard Road with the aim of finding any improvements that will assist cyclist and improve road safety at this site. To this end, the council is requesting TfL’s design team (with expertise employed on TfL’s cycling better junction review and central London cycle Superhighway design) to carry out this review and provide the council with a range of workable options. These will include both short term options that can be implemented quickly, and more extensive improvement. We are entering into discussions with TfL regarding cycling Quietway funding with a view to making such more extensive improvement by 2016.”

Source location

2014-0448-Response-De-Klerk
Page 1 · response
Published 16 October 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