PFD report

Paul Millis · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Apr 2014•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Delayed lines of sight between opposing traffic flows
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. Insufficient separation between the junction, lane merger and joining traffic flows
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
  3. Acute rightward movement of the inner lane
    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.1

  1. Action

    Undertake a fourth road safety audit after 12 months, reviewing serious accident records and causes and making recommendations on potential design and safety issues.

    Stated by Leicester City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 17 April 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 junction design complies with mandatory standards, and the merge length, alignment, visibility and traffic arrangement are considered reasonable and customary.

    Stated by Leicester 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

Delayed lines of sight between opposing traffic flows

Wider context from the report

“1. The merger of the 2 lanes occurs within a very short distance of the junction: approximately 35 metres. The process of merger by the 2 lanes is that the traffic moves in opposite directions – i.e. the inner lane moves to the right, thereby avoiding the verge, and the outer lane is directed by arrows to the left. 2. The westbound carriageway merges as described, and then as a single lane continues to the right until it straightens out into a single carriageway adjoining the eastbound traffic. The joining of the two flows of traffic occurs only 90 metres after the junction described above. 3. The situation described in 2 above means that any vehicle either behind another vehicle, or even beside it, will have a very delayed line of sight for traffic travelling eastbound, and likewise applies to eastbound traffic’s line of sight to a vehicle behind a first vehicle travelling westbound. As stated all of this movement of traffic is occurring in a very short distance and time. 4. It would appear that when the inner lane makes its sudden, very acute move to the right, that there is vacant verge area that would have allowed the lane to move less acutely. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

Insufficient separation between the junction, lane merger and joining traffic flows

Wider context from the report

“1. The merger of the 2 lanes occurs within a very short distance of the junction: approximately 35 metres. The process of merger by the 2 lanes is that the traffic moves in opposite directions – i.e. the inner lane moves to the right, thereby avoiding the verge, and the outer lane is directed by arrows to the left. 2. The westbound carriageway merges as described, and then as a single lane continues to the right until it straightens out into a single carriageway adjoining the eastbound traffic. The joining of the two flows of traffic occurs only 90 metres after the junction described above. 3. The situation described in 2 above means that any vehicle either behind another vehicle, or even beside it, will have a very delayed line of sight for traffic travelling eastbound, and likewise applies to eastbound traffic’s line of sight to a vehicle behind a first vehicle travelling westbound. As stated all of this movement of traffic is occurring in a very short distance and time. 4. It would appear that when the inner lane makes its sudden, very acute move to the right, that there is vacant verge area that would have allowed the lane to move less acutely. ”

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 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

Acute rightward movement of the inner lane

Wider context from the report

“1. The merger of the 2 lanes occurs within a very short distance of the junction: approximately 35 metres. The process of merger by the 2 lanes is that the traffic moves in opposite directions – i.e. the inner lane moves to the right, thereby avoiding the verge, and the outer lane is directed by arrows to the left. 2. The westbound carriageway merges as described, and then as a single lane continues to the right until it straightens out into a single carriageway adjoining the eastbound traffic. The joining of the two flows of traffic occurs only 90 metres after the junction described above. 3. The situation described in 2 above means that any vehicle either behind another vehicle, or even beside it, will have a very delayed line of sight for traffic travelling eastbound, and likewise applies to eastbound traffic’s line of sight to a vehicle behind a first vehicle travelling westbound. As stated all of this movement of traffic is occurring in a very short distance and time. 4. It would appear that when the inner lane makes its sudden, very acute move to the right, that there is vacant verge area that would have allowed the lane to move less acutely. ”

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

Undertake a fourth road safety audit after 12 months, reviewing serious accident records and causes and making recommendations on potential design and safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A fourth safety audit is required to be undertaken after 12 months. This will take into account records of accidents and make recommendations for any changes where significant levels of risk to users are identified.”

Source location

2014-0176-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 17 April 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 junction design complies with mandatory standards, and the merge length, alignment, visibility and traffic arrangement are considered reasonable and customary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm and provide assurance that the highway design does comply with relevant standards, including the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 6, Section 2, Part 3 - TD 50/04). I can also confirm that although the A563 Troon Way is not a trunk road, the higher design standards for trunk roads have been applied during the design process. In particular, the mandatory standards relating to visibility on approach to junctions have been met.”

Source location

2014-0176-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 17 April 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026