PFD report

Seth Curtis Palminder · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Oct 2022•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised7

  1. Lack of monitored CCTV coverage of the bridge and approach area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to high-risk locations
  2. Insufficient physical safety measures at bridges associated with self-harm incidents
  3. Lack of signposting to mental health assistance and support
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate signposting to mental health assistance and support
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

    Engage specialist teams and agencies to assess whether interventions are warranted when similar risks are identified on County Council highway bridges.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2022.
  2. Action

    Add the location to the South East Network Needs list for future funding prioritisation.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2022.
  3. Action

    Install four Samaritans crisis signs on the bridge parapets.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2022.

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

  1. Position

    National Highways, as bridge asset owner, must essentially consider the required action, while the County Council can collaborate on potential solutions.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Lack of monitored CCTV coverage of the bridge and approach area

Wider context from the report

“3. There are no known monitored CCTV cameras covering the bridge or approach area, rendering monitoring of a recognised danger spot actionless. 4. At the incident location, according to Hampshire Police Record Management Systems, there have been 12 crisis incidents in the last 5 years (of which the Police are aware) - including 7 self-harm (jumping) attempts, 2 successful jumps from which the individual has survived and 3 fatalities. There have been a further 89 known 'concern for safety' incidents at the location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Insufficient CCTV monitoring of access to high-risk locations.

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

Insufficient physical safety measures at bridges associated with self-harm incidents

Wider context from the report

“5. Wider reports of self-harm incidents and fatalities are well known from ████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ most of which do not have sufficient safety measures in place (as above) or means of summonsing help at a point of mental health crisis. ”

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

Lack of signposting to mental health assistance and support

Wider context from the report

“2. At the incident location there are no means of summonsing help or calling for help should a person be in crisis and require assistance. There are no signs or signposting for mental health assistance or support (such as Samaritans). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate signposting to mental health assistance and support.

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

Insufficient measures to prevent deaths from jumping from bridges

Wider context from the report

“6. Deaths continue to occur as a result of individuals jumping from these bridges and insufficient measures have so far been taken to address and prevent their occurrence. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of falls risks; Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges.

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

Absence of means for people in crisis to summon help

Wider context from the report

“2. At the incident location there are no means of summonsing help or calling for help should a person be in crisis and require assistance. There are no signs or signposting for mental health assistance or support (such as Samaritans). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable access to emergency communication.

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 means for people experiencing mental health crisis to summon help at bridges

Wider context from the report

“5. Wider reports of self-harm incidents and fatalities are well known from ████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ most of which do not have sufficient safety measures in place (as above) or means of summonsing help at a point of mental health crisis. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable access to emergency communication.

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 physical measures preventing access over or around bridge railings and jumping to the carriageway

Wider context from the report

“1. At the incident location ████████ there is little if anything by way of safety measures that would prevent anyone from being able to climb over, around or on top of the side railings of the bridge or to prevent them from jumping from the bridge to the carriageway. There is for example no enclosure of the walkway to prevent this. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

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

Engage specialist teams and agencies to assess whether interventions are warranted when similar risks are identified on County Council highway bridges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For your information and reassurance, the County Council has its own highway bridge assets, and where similar risks have been identified highway officers have routinely engaged with other specialist teams and agencies e.g. Hampshire County Council’s Public Health team, the NHS etc, to determine whether an intervention by the Highway Authority is warranted. The County Council will also review and consider advice and guidance from relevant charity organisations, or special-interest groups, that specialise in mental health matters.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

Add the location to the South East Network Needs list for future funding prioritisation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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 four Samaritans crisis signs on the bridge parapets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In September 2022, we installed four Samaritans “Crisis” signs on the inner faces of the parapets over both carriageways of the A3████████ road below. This features the short 6-digit number anyone in crisis can call from any phone 24 hours a day to reach a trained Samaritans volunteer.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

Apply for future funding for a study into preventing future suicide events at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

National Highways, as bridge asset owner, must essentially consider the required action, while the County Council can collaborate on potential solutions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The bridge at ████████ over the A3(████████) is owned, managed, and maintained by National Highways and forms part of the Strategic Road Network. This would apply to all the overbridges along the A3(████████) corridor, regardless of their primary usage. The ████████ bridge carries a public bridleway which is managed by the County Council’s Countryside Service, as a right-of-way, and they have confirmed that it is mainly used by pedestrians and cyclists.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

Further measures, including CCTV or physical barriers, depend on a funded study establishing their suitability and securing future funding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

The existing 1.65-metre parapet complies with current standards, and enclosing the walkway is not considered appropriate because enclosed spaces can increase antisocial behaviour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The location is fitted with a parapet that met the required standards set out in The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) at the time of construction in 1971 and remains compliant with current standards (DMRB CD 377 Requirements for road restraint systems). This parapet measures 1.65m high, providing a protective barrier. Although historically some structures have been enclosed for a number of reasons, including for suicide prevention or to prevent items being thrown onto the carriageway below, this is not something that highway authorities do now as the enclosed space often sees a rise in antisocial behaviour and criminal activity.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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.3

  1. 1

    Review and consider advice from relevant mental-health charities and special-interest groups.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 October 2022.
  2. 2

    Add suicide prevention to the Hampshire Safer Roads Partnership quarterly meeting agenda.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 20 October 2022.
  3. 3

    Engage relevant public health and suicide prevention teams to promote crisis-awareness training.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 October 2022.

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 and consider advice from relevant mental-health charities and special-interest groups.

Verbatim wording from the response

“For your information and reassurance, the County Council has its own highway bridge assets, and where similar risks have been identified highway officers have routinely engaged with other specialist teams and agencies e.g. Hampshire County Council’s Public Health team, the NHS etc, to determine whether an intervention by the Highway Authority is warranted. The County Council will also review and consider advice and guidance from relevant charity organisations, or special-interest groups, that specialise in mental health matters.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

Add suicide prevention to the Hampshire Safer Roads Partnership quarterly meeting agenda.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have raised the subject with the “Hampshire Safer Roads Partnership” and suicide prevention has been added to the agenda for the next quarterly meeting due to take place in December 2022. The Hampshire Safer Roads Partnership is comprised of Hampshire Constabulary, Hampshire County Council, Hampshire Fire & Rescue, Southampton City Council, Portsmouth City Council, Isle of Wight Council, and National Highways. The aim is to forge a link with the local Public Health team and the Hampshire Suicide Prevention and Intervention Network if such a network exists.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

Engage relevant public health and suicide prevention teams to promote crisis-awareness training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will seek out and engage with the relevant public health and suicide prevention teams and personnel in the area to promote courses such as the Samaritans campaign “Small Talk Saves Lives” training to inform local residents and others on how to recognise the signs of potential crisis and how to approach a person in crisis in an appropriate way to offer them the assistance they may need.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 20 October 2022

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

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026