PFD report

Malcolm Langford · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Mar 2017•Berkshire

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
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 raised1

  1. Restricted visibility at the Highmoor Road and Albert Road junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous 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.1

  1. Position

    The collision evidence indicates driver failure to stop, not the stop-line position; after stopping, drivers must edge forward to gain visibility.

    Stated by Reading Borough 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

Restricted visibility at the Highmoor Road and Albert Road junction

Wider context from the report

“His evidence was that visibility at the junction is restricted, particularly when looking to the right, due to a house with a large fence and trees. The following four important points were elicited during the inquest: (1) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the front offside corner of a vehicle travelling north along Albert Road at a distance of about 35 metres; (2) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the full width of the front of a vehicle travelling north along Albert Road at a distance of about 24 metres; (3) if a vehicle is travelling at 30mph along Albert Road, it will take only 2.6 seconds from being completely out of view of drivers on Highmoor Road to reaching the junction. It will take only 1.8 seconds from the time that the front of the vehicle is visible until it reaches the junction; (4) given a typical rate of acceleration, it is not possible for a ‘normal’ driver in a ‘normal’ car to pull safely out of Highmoor Road junction even when Albert Road appears to be clear. The only way to negotiate the junction safely is to edge forward, maintaining a constant look-out. ”

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; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous 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

The collision evidence indicates driver failure to stop, not the stop-line position; after stopping, drivers must edge forward to gain visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the views expressed by ████████, Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police are appreciated they do not reflect the evidence provided by the police to Reading Borough Council and that collected (by us) through CCTV video surveys.”

Source location

Response from Reading Borough Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 May 2017

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.3

  1. 1

    Implement road-safety changes at the junction, including revised road markings and further lining changes.

    Stated by Reading Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 May 2017.
  2. 2

    Gather and assess collision-risk evidence through CCTV video surveys and related investigations.

    Stated by Reading Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 May 2017.
  3. 3

    Keep the junction under ongoing road-safety review.

    Stated by Reading Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 May 2017.

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

Implement road-safety changes at the junction, including revised road markings and further lining changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of changes at this junction with the aim to improve road safety over a number of years. These changes have been implemented both before and after the fatality of Mr Langford and there remains an ongoing commitment to keep this junction under review.”

Source location

Response from Reading Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 May 2017

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

Gather and assess collision-risk evidence through CCTV video surveys and related investigations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Local concern was first raised following an accident on 14th November 2013 and a petition (for road safety improvements) was submitted to the Council’s Traffic Management Sub-committee on 16th January 2014. Since that time there have been a series of reports to the Traffic Management Sub-committee exploring the cause of accidents, possible options for improvements and recommending changes to be considered.”

Source location

Response from Reading Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 May 2017

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

Keep the junction under ongoing road-safety review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of changes at this junction with the aim to improve road safety over a number of years. These changes have been implemented both before and after the fatality of Mr Langford and there remains an ongoing commitment to keep this junction under review.”

Source location

Response from Reading Borough Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 May 2017

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