PFD report

Mrs Doreen Fell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Feb 2019•Cumbria

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised4

  1. Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions
    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
  2. Exposure of children, elderly people and people with physical or mental impairments to crossing risk on the village road section
  3. Lack of signs indicating the alternative underpass route across the A590
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide reliable directional signage to pedestrian underpasses
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 the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Investigate ownership of the missing public footpath sign at the southbound bus layby.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  3. Action

    Arrange reinstatement of the missing sign at the southbound bus layby.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing routes and signing are considered sufficient, so additional signage directing pedestrians to the underpass is not considered justified.

    Stated by National HighwaysExisting 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

Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions

Wider context from the report

“1. The application of the national speed limit for this short section of trunk road whilst it passes through the village of Backbarrow directly impacts on: a) reaction times for pedestrians b) reaction times for drivers c) the size of gap in traffic required to execute a safe pedestrian crossing ”

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

Exposure of children, elderly people and people with physical or mental impairments to crossing risk on the village road section

Wider context from the report

“3. There is a village hall on the southbound side and a primary school on the northbound side of Backbarrow. It is foreseeable that children: the elderly or those with a physical or mental impairment will have occasion to cross this section of road. This aspect has a direct impact on the risk analysis applicable to points 1 & 2 above. ”

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

Lack of signs indicating the alternative underpass route across the A590

Wider context from the report

“As a footnote, it would seem that there are no signs indicating to residents, or visitors to the village, that there is an alternative route across the A590 via an underpass some 500m to the south of this accident. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide reliable directional signage to pedestrian underpasses.

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

Lack of street lighting on the road section

Wider context from the report

“2. The low levels of natural light on this section accentuates the present lack of any street lighting on this section of road which may otherwise assist pedestrians with executing a safe crossing during the hours of darkness. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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 the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As requested by the Coroner in his Regulation 28 Report dated 22 February 2019, Highways England have reviewed the speed limit, the street lighting, the safety of pedestrians and the provision of signing to the underpass at the location of the accident on 17 January 2018.”

Source location

2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Investigate ownership of the missing public footpath sign at the southbound bus layby.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location

2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Arrange reinstatement of the missing sign at the southbound bus layby.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location

2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Existing routes and signing are considered sufficient, so additional signage directing pedestrians to the underpass is not considered justified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.”

Source location

2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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 60 mph national speed limit is considered appropriate and consistent with current guidance for this stretch of the A590.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits advises that speed limits should reflect the function of the road and its environment. They should also reinforce people’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. The A590 is part of the Strategic Road Network and as such its primary function is to cater for through traffic between the M6 motorway and Barrow-in-Furness. Whilst the A590 trunk road bisects the village of Backbarrow into two distinct sections, practically none of the village itself fronts directly onto the road. The western and eastern sides of the village are accessed via two junctions situated to the north and south of the pedestrian refuge island. Much of the village is screened from the A590 by trees and the only frontage development is a small parking area to the rear of Brow Edge Road and the driveway to South Lakes Boarding Kennels.”

Source location

2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Existing conditions and the low collision record are considered sufficient, so installing street lighting on this A590 stretch is not considered appropriate or beneficial.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The A590 is unlit throughout the National Park area with the exception of the major roundabout junctions at Meathop, Newby Bridge and Greenodd. The pedestrian refuge itself contains a basic lit bollard and high-level beacon on either side which highlights the refuge to approaching motorists. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document TA 49/07 which covers the appraisal of new lighting on the trunk road network states that the role of road lighting as a safety benefit has limitations and should be considered alongside measures with less adverse environmental impact. It should not be used to mitigate a high darkness collision record unless an investigation carried out a qualified Road Safety Engineer indicates this would be the best solution. In this case there are a low proportion of collisions in the dark (section b.”

Source location

2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026