PFD report

Karen Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Sep 2015•Manchester 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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
0

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 raised5

  1. Pedestrian crossing route through a cycle path created by road layout
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe shared cycle and pedestrian route design
  2. Unclear and potentially confusing signage in the immediate area
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Confusing and dangerous contra-flow cycle lane on a predominantly one-way route
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    There is sufficient room to segregate cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians effectively on this section of Moss Lane.

    Stated by Trafford Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Pedestrian crossing route through a cycle path created by road layout

Wider context from the report

“4. Because of the location of the Supermarket and the lay out of the road, there is an obvious crossing-place via the cycle path. Not to use this route by pedestrians intending to walk to the railway station would involve them in crossing the road twice.(Trafford) ”

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

Unclear and potentially confusing signage in the immediate area

Wider context from the report

“3. The signage in the immediate area is unclear and possibly confusing(Trafford) ”

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 and dangerous contra-flow cycle lane on a predominantly one-way route

Wider context from the report

“2. Although this is a “one way” route for most traffic, the cycle lane allows for bicycles to travel in a contra flow. This is inherently confusing and dangerous for the cyclists and other road users.(Trafford) ”

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

Weak guidance discouraging pedestrians from walking in cycle paths

Wider context from the report

“5. The guidance in the “Highway Code” and elsewhere relating to the fact that pedestrians should not walk in a cycle path, is weak and needs to be re-written and reinforced. (Secretary of State for Transport) ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to keep pedestrians out of cycle paths through clear safety guidance.

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 segregation of pedestrian, bicycle and motor traffic

Wider context from the report

“1. At this location there is mixed traffic, being pedestrian, bicycle and motor. There is insufficient room for all these different forms of traffic to be effectively segregated.(Trafford) ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

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

There is sufficient room to segregate cyclists, vehicles and pedestrians effectively on this section of Moss Lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current layout of the section of Moss Lane between Manor Road and Stamford New Road was designed in accordance with the Department of Transport guidance, namely ‘Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/98 September 1998’ for Contraflow cycling and was constructed in November 2002. Physical segregation of cyclists and vehicular traffic was provided at the entry and exit from the one way street because there was sufficient room to do so and the route is lined and signed in accordance with this document. This layout also corresponds with ‘Transport for Greater Manchester’s current ‘Greater Manchester Cycling Design Guidance’ document. The Council does not concur that there is insufficient room for the three forms of traffic to be effectively segregated on this road.”

Source location

2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 September 2015

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 Council considers the existing road layout, crossings and related arrangements adequate, so no improvements are required in this instance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current layout of the section of Moss Lane between Manor Road and Stamford New Road was designed in accordance with the Department of Transport guidance, namely ‘Traffic Advisory Leaflet 6/98 September 1998’ for Contraflow cycling and was constructed in November 2002. Physical segregation of cyclists and vehicular traffic was provided at the entry and exit from the one way street because there was sufficient room to do so and the route is lined and signed in accordance with this document. This layout also corresponds with ‘Transport for Greater Manchester’s current ‘Greater Manchester Cycling Design Guidance’ document. The Council does not concur that there is insufficient room for the three forms of traffic to be effectively segregated on this road.”

Source location

2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 September 2015

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 current layout is not confusing, and pedestrians use the mandatory cycle lane knowingly to shorten their journeys.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following its introduction no recorded injury accidents had taken place on this link until the accident in question and there haven’t been any recorded accidents to date since. It is the Councils opinion that the current layout is not confusing and pedestrians who walk along the mandatory cycle lane do so knowingly to shorten their journey.”

Source location

2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 September 2015

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

Pedestrians travelling between the railway station and Tesco do not need to cross Moss Lane twice because controlled crossings are available at both ends.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are controlled crossings on Moss Lane at the traffic signals junctions at either end of its one way section and the Council does not consider that pedestrians travelling between the railway station and the Tesco Supermarket have to cross the road twice to reach their destination.”

Source location

2015-0388-Response-by-Trafford-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 September 2015

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026