PFD report

Grant Alexander Macdonald · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Jun 2020•Liverpool and the Wirral

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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 raised1

  1. Unsafe junction for cars crossing the carriageway to the central reservation to carry out a turn manoeuvre
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
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.2

  1. Position

    Existing engineering measures, signage, road markings and physical infrastructure did not contribute to the fatal collision.

    Stated by Liverpool City 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

Unsafe junction for cars crossing the carriageway to the central reservation to carry out a turn manoeuvre

Wider context from the report

“In this case there were a number of contributory factors to the collision, including the manner in which the motorcycle was being driven and the speed at which it had been driven, however, issues were raised at the inquest by the family and Merseyside Police suggestive of the fact that the junction is unsafe and that there have been a number of collisions at that junction. There is concern it is unsafe for a car to go across the carriageway to the central reservation to carry out a turn manoeuvre. The Court would request the Council to review the safety of this junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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

Existing engineering measures, signage, road markings and physical infrastructure did not contribute to the fatal collision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is our Highways Engineer’s opinion, that no engineering measures, signage, lines or physical infrastructure currently in place, or lack thereof, contributed to this fatal collision.”

Source location

2020-0131-Response-from-Liverpool-City-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 14 September 2020

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

Closing the central-reservation gaps is not justified at present because collision numbers are relatively low and closure could create further safety and access problems.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Of these, 4 collisions involved vehicles performing U-turns. 2 were at the gap in the central reservation at the main MHP Walton car park entrance to the west of Hornby Close (in 2010 and 2012), 1 was at the gap in the central reservation at Hornby Place (in 2018), and the other was the fatal collision at the gap in the central reservation at the service road leading to Walton train station in 2019.”

Source location

2020-0131-Response-from-Liverpool-City-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 14 September 2020

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

    Review collision statistics along the full extent of Hornby Road.

    Stated by Liverpool City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 September 2020.
  2. 2

    Continue monitoring Hornby Road for deterioration in road safety or increased collisions.

    Stated by Liverpool City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 September 2020.

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

  1. 1

    Additional 30mph signs are not required because the speed limit does not change and 30mph roundels are visible on adjacent roads.

    Stated by Liverpool City CouncilDisputes 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 collision statistics along the full extent of Hornby Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Engineers have reviewed the collision statistics along the full extent of Hornby Road, from Aintree Road to Rice Lane, and between 01/05/2010 and 30/04/2020 there have been 10 recorded injury collisions with 15 casualties (11 slight and 3 serious and 1 fatal).”

Source location

2020-0131-Response-from-Liverpool-City-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 14 September 2020

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

Continue monitoring Hornby Road for deterioration in road safety or increased collisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In view of this, the city council does not consider that there is adequate justification to consider closing these gaps at the present time. This route will continue to be monitored and should there be any marked deterioration in terms of road safety or an increase in collisions then appropriate action may be considered in the future.”

Source location

2020-0131-Response-from-Liverpool-City-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 14 September 2020

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

Additional 30mph signs are not required because the speed limit does not change and 30mph roundels are visible on adjacent roads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The posted speed limit is 30mph and as per Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions - there is no requirement to provide signs to this effect, save for when the speed limit changes. In this case, 30mph roundels are visible on adjacent side roads, which themselves are subject to a 20mph limit.”

Source location

2020-0131-Response-from-Liverpool-City-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 14 September 2020

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