PFD report

Keith John Charles Harper · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Apr 2016•Essex

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised3

  1. Lack of prior warning of the pedestrian crossing for drivers exiting the roundabout
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  2. Inadequate visibility and conspicuity of the pedestrian/cycle path and crossing for drivers
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  3. Obscured carriageway markings exiting the roundabout
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safety
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.1

  1. Action

    Refresh the segregated cycle facility lining, replace missing give-way triangles, and refresh worn edge-of-carriageway markings.

    Stated by Essex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 21 April 2016.

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

  1. Position

    The crossing type limits advance-signing options, and collision data does not support installing the proposed warning sign.

    Stated by Essex County 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

Lack of prior warning of the pedestrian crossing for drivers exiting the roundabout

Wider context from the report

“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A driver exiting the roundabout has no prior warning of the crossing. From the driver's position the aspect view of the pedestrian/cycle path is limited and the central reservation presents itself as a grassed area. A review should be carried out of features of the pedestrian crossing – warning signs/design/position etc etc (2) The carriageway markings exiting the roundabout have been obscured by resurfacing work and road debris. This work needs to be carried out ”

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

Inadequate visibility and conspicuity of the pedestrian/cycle path and crossing for drivers

Wider context from the report

“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A driver exiting the roundabout has no prior warning of the crossing. From the driver's position the aspect view of the pedestrian/cycle path is limited and the central reservation presents itself as a grassed area. A review should be carried out of features of the pedestrian crossing – warning signs/design/position etc etc (2) The carriageway markings exiting the roundabout have been obscured by resurfacing work and road debris. This work needs to be carried out ”

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

Obscured carriageway markings exiting the roundabout

Wider context from the report

“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) A driver exiting the roundabout has no prior warning of the crossing. From the driver's position the aspect view of the pedestrian/cycle path is limited and the central reservation presents itself as a grassed area. A review should be carried out of features of the pedestrian crossing – warning signs/design/position etc etc (2) The carriageway markings exiting the roundabout have been obscured by resurfacing work and road debris. This work needs to be carried out ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety.

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

Refresh the segregated cycle facility lining, replace missing give-way triangles, and refresh worn edge-of-carriageway markings.

Verbatim wording from the response

““Following our site investigations we have identified that the lining as part of the segregated cycle facility clearly needs refreshing, as the central segregation line has worn, and the give-way triangles are both missing (either side of the A132 Southmayne)”

Source location

2016-0151-Response-by-Essex-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 21 April 2016

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 crossing type limits advance-signing options, and collision data does not support installing the proposed warning sign.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The crossing area from the central reserve to each footway is an uncontrolled crossing facility, therefore this limits the signing options available to give road users advanced warning of pedestrians crossing at this location. The Traffic Signs and general directions regulations allow the use of ‘other danger ahead’ signage which can be coupled with a ‘pedestrians crossing’ sub-plate. The pedestrian collision data at this site does not support the use of this sign (in the past 10 years there has only been one other collision involving a non-motorised user, this collision was a slight injury collision involving a 12 year old boy pedal cyclist).”

Source location

2016-0151-Response-by-Essex-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 21 April 2016

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