PFD report

Frederick George DUDLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Aug 2017•Staffordshire South

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
0

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
0

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Obstructed visibility at the pedestrian crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  2. Speed limit increase before the pedestrian crossing
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads
  3. Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on a busy dual carriageway
    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.

No linked response statements

No respondent-stated action or position is clearly linked to these concerns.

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

Obstructed visibility at the pedestrian crossing

Wider context from the report

“(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point. The crossing is : 1. On a bend 2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway. 3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing. 4. Uncontrolled. 5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate, a bus layby and a road junction. In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Speed limit increase before the pedestrian crossing

Wider context from the report

“(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point. The crossing is : 1. On a bend 2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway. 3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing. 4. Uncontrolled. 5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate, a bus layby and a road junction. In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads.

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

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on a busy dual carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point. The crossing is : 1. On a bend 2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway. 3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing. 4. Uncontrolled. 5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate, a bus layby and a road junction. In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

Open source report
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
0/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026

No official response is included in the current published snapshot.