PFD report

Mr. Marcus Szigetvari · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Nov 2014•Powys, Bridgend and Glamorgan Valleys

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

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 raised2

  1. Recurring collisions on the road
  2. Busy road requiring drivers to cross oncoming traffic during rush hour
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.3

  1. Action

    Review visibility at the junction against current transport design guidance.

    Stated by RHONDDA CYNON TAFStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  2. Action

    Review the junction’s physical layout against current road-design standards.

    Stated by RHONDDA CYNON TAFStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.
  3. Action

    Review personal-injury collision history for the road section containing the junction.

    Stated by RHONDDA CYNON TAFStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.

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

  1. Position

    The existing junction complies with modern standards and is appropriate for traffic conditions, so no changes or further action are considered necessary.

    Stated by RHONDDA CYNON TAFExisting 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

Recurring collisions on the road

Wider context from the report

“(2) ████████ Investigation Officer, reported nineteen other collisions on this road since 2001, two of which were fatalities. ”

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

Busy road requiring drivers to cross oncoming traffic during rush hour

Wider context from the report

“(1) The road is busy especially during the ‘rush hour’ period resulting it drivers exiting the Llannwanno Road having to ‘seize the moment’ to cross oncoming traffic to enter the lane towards Aberdare. The evidence suggested that the most likely cause of the deceased losing his life was that the driver of the car mistook his motorcycle’s single headlight for that of a car travelling behind him at a further distance. This was reported at the inquest to have been an easy misjudgement in dark and poor weather conditions. ”

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 visibility at the junction against current transport design guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Visibility at the junction has also recently been reviewed and is compliant with current design guidance as set out in Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 18: Transport (Tan 18) and Manual for Streets which provide design guidance for roads other than Trunk Roads. Recent surveys have provided a known 85th percentile speed of vehicles travelling along the A4233 of approximately 46 and 47mph, which in accordance with the above guidance means unobstructed visibility for drivers attempting to exit Llanwono Road should be between 120 and 160metres. Measurements taken on site by officers indicate that unobstructed visibility both to the north and south for drivers exiting Llanwono Road onto the A4233 is well in excess of the 120 to 160 metres required.”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 3 · response
Published 14 November 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

Review the junction’s physical layout against current road-design standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Figure 2/2 below, again an extract from the DMRB gives an indication why a Ghost Island junction is considered appropriate at this location. For example, whilst design year traffic flows (estimated from traffic models) would have been used to determine the correct junction layout to be used during the design process, recent traffic counts taken at this junction can be fed into the graph in fig. 2/2 to assess the continued appropriateness of this junction arrangement.”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 3 · response
Published 14 November 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

Review personal-injury collision history for the road section containing the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Therefore for the purpose of this report, only the personal injury collision history of that section of the A4233 between the Porth roundabout and the Wattstown roundabout a distance of 2.3km, between which the Llanwono Road junction is situated will be considered. In addition, the concerns raised under the Regulation 28 Notice relate to the consideration of traffic signals at the highlighted junction only and not the extended route.”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 4 · response
Published 14 November 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

The existing junction complies with modern standards and is appropriate for traffic conditions, so no changes or further action are considered necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having reviewed the physical characteristics of the junction layout taking account of current design standards there is no evidence to suggest the current arrangement is unsafe in any way and is in fact compliant with current standards as set out in the DMRB and TAN 18 and therefore the most appropriate form of junction.”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 5 · response
Published 14 November 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

Traffic signals are not considered appropriate at current traffic levels and could introduce additional risks, including rear-end collisions and red-light violations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Traffic signals would not be considered appropriate in the current circumstances, given the levels of recorded traffic flows and the standard of the junction available, and may introduce other safety risks such as the potential for rear shunts, red light running, etc.”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 5 · response
Published 14 November 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.1

  1. 1

    Review street-lighting arrangements near the junction against current design standards.

    Stated by RHONDDA CYNON TAFStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 November 2014.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The junction layout was not unsafe or a contributory factor in the collision; driver actions, speed and weather contributed instead.

    Stated by RHONDDA CYNON TAFDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 street-lighting arrangements near the junction against current design standards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As the collision in question occurred during the hours of darkness, the street lighting arrangement in the vicinity of the A4233 and Llanwono Road junction has been reviewed and found to be consistent with current design standards.”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 4 · response
Published 14 November 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

The junction layout was not unsafe or a contributory factor in the collision; driver actions, speed and weather contributed instead.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The layout of the junction was not a contributory factor in this collision;”

Source location

2014-0503-Response-by-Highways-Streetcare-Services
Page 5 · response
Published 14 November 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