PFD report

Karl Olaf Nilsson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Dec 2013•West Yorkshire (Western)

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised3

  1. Inconsistent driver priority at the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. Failure of the STOP sign and stop line to be clearly visible
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Failure of the junction layout to provide clear driver orientation
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
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.2

  1. Action

    Remove five trees at each corner of the junction to improve visibility.

    Stated by Bradford City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 February 2014.
  2. Action

    Construct the junction improvement scheme with stronger signing, lining, junction demarcation, detection loops and queue-triggered puffin crossing control.

    Stated by Bradford City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 February 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The assessment under item 5.6 is disputed: trees masked building lines and enhanced the junction’s optical illusion.

    Stated by Bradford 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

Inconsistent driver priority at the junction

Wider context from the report

“1. There are a number of factors which could, in my opinion have caused or contributed to this fatality. Victoria Road is an absolutely straight road which is aligned in almost a perfect north-south direction. It is a wide avenue type of road, with large trees visible on both the east and west pavements. On both sides of the road there are parking bays, and the cars are able to park fully on the road, whilst still leaving ample room for cars to pass in both directions. The layout is the same on both sections of Victoria Road – both before and after it is bisected by the A657 Saltaire Road. There is a gradient of approximately 1:7 stretching uphill from north to south. The slope of the road is only interrupted by the A657, which is perfectly level, but due to the slope of the road, it is not seen until the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. Moreover, due to the slope of the road, the STOP sign and stop line painted on the road is only really visible when the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. The overall layout of the road (i.e. it being perfectly straight with a sort of symmetrical appearance on both sides) contrives to almost create an optical illusion. The driver’s eye is drawn to the horizon in the centre – and as such, the STOP sign at the mouth of the junction is only in the driver’s peripheral vision. 2. I am concerned that the overall layout of this junction was a substantial contributing factor to this fatal accident. 3. I am concerned that the STOP sign is not clearly visible in its current 4. Furthermore, I understand from the evidence which was given to me that this is the only junction on the entire length of Victoria Road where the driver does not have right of way. It is possible that Mr Nilsson became confused as to where he was on Victoria Road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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

Failure of the STOP sign and stop line to be clearly visible

Wider context from the report

“1. There are a number of factors which could, in my opinion have caused or contributed to this fatality. Victoria Road is an absolutely straight road which is aligned in almost a perfect north-south direction. It is a wide avenue type of road, with large trees visible on both the east and west pavements. On both sides of the road there are parking bays, and the cars are able to park fully on the road, whilst still leaving ample room for cars to pass in both directions. The layout is the same on both sections of Victoria Road – both before and after it is bisected by the A657 Saltaire Road. There is a gradient of approximately 1:7 stretching uphill from north to south. The slope of the road is only interrupted by the A657, which is perfectly level, but due to the slope of the road, it is not seen until the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. Moreover, due to the slope of the road, the STOP sign and stop line painted on the road is only really visible when the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. The overall layout of the road (i.e. it being perfectly straight with a sort of symmetrical appearance on both sides) contrives to almost create an optical illusion. The driver’s eye is drawn to the horizon in the centre – and as such, the STOP sign at the mouth of the junction is only in the driver’s peripheral vision. 2. I am concerned that the overall layout of this junction was a substantial contributing factor to this fatal accident. 3. I am concerned that the STOP sign is not clearly visible in its current 4. Furthermore, I understand from the evidence which was given to me that this is the only junction on the entire length of Victoria Road where the driver does not have right of way. It is possible that Mr Nilsson became confused as to where he was on Victoria Road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely; 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

Failure of the junction layout to provide clear driver orientation

Wider context from the report

“1. There are a number of factors which could, in my opinion have caused or contributed to this fatality. Victoria Road is an absolutely straight road which is aligned in almost a perfect north-south direction. It is a wide avenue type of road, with large trees visible on both the east and west pavements. On both sides of the road there are parking bays, and the cars are able to park fully on the road, whilst still leaving ample room for cars to pass in both directions. The layout is the same on both sections of Victoria Road – both before and after it is bisected by the A657 Saltaire Road. There is a gradient of approximately 1:7 stretching uphill from north to south. The slope of the road is only interrupted by the A657, which is perfectly level, but due to the slope of the road, it is not seen until the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. Moreover, due to the slope of the road, the STOP sign and stop line painted on the road is only really visible when the driver is approximately 20 meters from the junction. The overall layout of the road (i.e. it being perfectly straight with a sort of symmetrical appearance on both sides) contrives to almost create an optical illusion. The driver’s eye is drawn to the horizon in the centre – and as such, the STOP sign at the mouth of the junction is only in the driver’s peripheral vision. 2. I am concerned that the overall layout of this junction was a substantial contributing factor to this fatal accident. 3. I am concerned that the STOP sign is not clearly visible in its current 4. Furthermore, I understand from the evidence which was given to me that this is the only junction on the entire length of Victoria Road where the driver does not have right of way. It is possible that Mr Nilsson became confused as to where he was on Victoria Road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Unsafe road design and layout.

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

Remove five trees at each corner of the junction to improve visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I concur with your assessment of the junction under Item 5, Coroner's concerns with the exception of 5.6. The trees (trunks and canopies) assisted with the uneven effect by masking the building lines at the junction. Therefore the optical illusion effect was enhanced by this. This was qualified by attending police officers at the time of the incident. Under my duties as Principal Engineer, I arranged for five trees to be removed at each corner of the junction. This immediately opened up the building lines and improved the visibility of the junction.”

Source location

Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 February 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

Construct the junction improvement scheme with stronger signing, lining, junction demarcation, detection loops and queue-triggered puffin crossing control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A public realm scheme for Victoria Road has recently been awarded funding. This will involve the restoration of Victoria Road back to it's historical beginnings. One of the proposals is to remove all the trees for both sides of Victoria Road as the trees were a later addition to Victoria Road and did not feature in the original plan for the street. A consultant is currently taking place on this. As part of the public realm/safety improvements, a junction improvement scheme is about to be constructed (please find attached plan). The design incorporates stronger signing and lining and a clear, on-road demarcation of the junction from both approaches into Saltaire Road. An addition of detection loops to Victoria Road will assist with right turning vehicles into Saltaire Road. A puffin crossing 10 yards away from the junction will be triggered (i.e.”

Source location

Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 February 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 assessment under item 5.6 is disputed: trees masked building lines and enhanced the junction’s optical illusion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I concur with your assessment of the junction under Item 5, Coroner's concerns with the exception of 5.6. The trees (trunks and canopies) assisted with the uneven effect by masking the building lines at the junction. Therefore the optical illusion effect was enhanced by this. This was qualified by attending police officers at the time of the incident. Under my duties as Principal Engineer, I arranged for five trees to be removed at each corner of the junction. This immediately opened up the building lines and improved the visibility of the junction.”

Source location

Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 February 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

    Monitor the junction closely after construction through the traffic and highways office.

    Stated by Bradford City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 February 2014.

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

Monitor the junction closely after construction through the traffic and highways office.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The situation will be closely monitored by my office post construction. If there is any further detail you require, please let me know at your own convenience.”

Source location

Response from Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 February 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

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026