Terence William Gillard · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Nov 2024•West London

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
10

Described in responses

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 raised2

  1. Lack of certainty that the pedestrian crossing safety redesign will be implemented
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to implement identified safety actionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  2. Absence of effective pedestrian crossing controls at Jersey Road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.10

  1. London Borough of Hounslow

    Conduct discussions and site meetings with TfL to improve A4 traffic conditions for vulnerable road users.

  2. London Borough of Hounslow

    Continue working with TfL and stakeholders to secure priority implementation of the proposed pedestrian and cyclist crossing safety measures.

  3. London Borough of Hounslow

    Consult on TfL’s proposed crossing designs and ensure they are technically sound and aligned with local users’ needs.

  4. London Borough of Hounslow

    Work with TfL to facilitate interim temporary pedestrian warning signs at the crossing location.

  5. Transport for London

    Review nearby pedestrian and vehicle collisions using historic collision data to identify additional collision-risk reductions.

  6. Transport for London

    Reduce the A4 speed limit from 40mph to 30mph through the Lowering Speed Limits Programme.

  7. Transport for London

    Develop shared-space designs around the crossing and install signage advising pedestrians and cyclists to respect each other’s needs.

  8. Transport for London

    Consider further highway-layout changes to reduce collision risk, including changes to the service road to improve access to the crossing.

  9. Transport for London

    Develop a formal signalised crossing scheme across the A4 and both sections of Jersey Road, with associated highway-layout amendments.

  10. Transport for London

    Place temporary customer-information signage warning pedestrians to take care when crossing at the junction.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.6

  1. London Borough of Hounslow

    TfL is responsible for safety, maintenance, signs and signals on the A4, while the borough’s highway authority role is limited to Jersey Road.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. Department for Transport

    The Department does not oversee or consent to TfL’s traffic schemes, including this pedestrian crossing.

    Outside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  3. Department for Transport

    TfL and the Mayor of London decide, prioritise and approve investment funding for the pedestrian crossing redesign.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  4. Department for Transport

    TfL and the London Borough of Hounslow are responsible for implementing the crossing redesign, subject to funding and public consultation.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  5. Transport for London

    DfT consent is not required, and LBH consent is needed only for minor works on its road network.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  6. Transport for London

    Earlier implementation is constrained by required design, modelling, consultation, governance, contractor mobilisation and funding steps.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 certainty that the pedestrian crossing safety redesign will be implemented

Wider context from the report

“The A4 Great West Road is a major route for vehicles of all types travelling in and out of west London. The crossing area, where Mr Gillard collided with the moving vehicle on 11 September 2022, is a designated uncontrolled crossing area across Jersey Road. There are no pedestrian traffic lights, no demand button, no sound signals. This pedestrian crossing area spans across a dual carriageway subject to a speed limit of 40mph. It has three lanes in both directions, separated by a raised central kerb. This crossing point also leads pedestrians into the cycling lane. I understand that at no point during the normal use of the traffic light controlled junction does traffic cease to flow at the marked crossing area, making it difficult for pedestrian to judge when and from where the next vehicle would approach. This means that pedestrians will need to use their own judgment as to when it is safe to cross this road without the aid of pedestrian traffic lights. I received evidence that there have been other accidents involving pedestrians and moving vehicles at this pedestrian crossing in the past. I received evidence from the TFL of existing plans to re-design this pedestrian crossing to improve pedestrian safety. However, their implementation may not take place before the end of 2026 and it remains subject to the consent of the DFT and LBH, the outcome of any public consultation as well as funding considerations. I am concerned that there appears to be no certainty that the redesign plans for the pedestrian crossing in question will be implemented. I understand that the TFL, LBH and DFT are the organisations with the power to take the necessary actions to improve pedestrian safety at this junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to implement identified safety actions; 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

Absence of effective pedestrian crossing controls at Jersey Road

Wider context from the report

“The A4 Great West Road is a major route for vehicles of all types travelling in and out of west London. The crossing area, where Mr Gillard collided with the moving vehicle on 11 September 2022, is a designated uncontrolled crossing area across Jersey Road. There are no pedestrian traffic lights, no demand button, no sound signals. This pedestrian crossing area spans across a dual carriageway subject to a speed limit of 40mph. It has three lanes in both directions, separated by a raised central kerb. This crossing point also leads pedestrians into the cycling lane. I understand that at no point during the normal use of the traffic light controlled junction does traffic cease to flow at the marked crossing area, making it difficult for pedestrian to judge when and from where the next vehicle would approach. This means that pedestrians will need to use their own judgment as to when it is safe to cross this road without the aid of pedestrian traffic lights. I received evidence that there have been other accidents involving pedestrians and moving vehicles at this pedestrian crossing in the past. I received evidence from the TFL of existing plans to re-design this pedestrian crossing to improve pedestrian safety. However, their implementation may not take place before the end of 2026 and it remains subject to the consent of the DFT and LBH, the outcome of any public consultation as well as funding considerations. I am concerned that there appears to be no certainty that the redesign plans for the pedestrian crossing in question will be implemented. I understand that the TFL, LBH and DFT are the organisations with the power to take the necessary actions to improve pedestrian safety at this junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Conduct discussions and site meetings with TfL to improve A4 traffic conditions for vulnerable road users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the incident, we have had a number of discussions and site meetings with TfL to improve traffic conditions in the A4 especially for the vulnerable road users. We understand that TfL has undertaken a detailed study of the collision data in the area and is now reviewing the junction with a view to provide a formal pedestrian crossing facility at this location.”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 2 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Continue working with TfL and stakeholders to secure priority implementation of the proposed pedestrian and cyclist crossing safety measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“- a signal-controlled crossing for pedestrian and cyclists across the A4,”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 2 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Consult on TfL’s proposed crossing designs and ensure they are technically sound and aligned with local users’ needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The proposals being considered are amending the existing design to accommodate improvements as follows.”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 2 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Work with TfL to facilitate interim temporary pedestrian warning signs at the crossing location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are also working with TfL to facilitate some interim temporary measures such as additional signs to warn pedestrians to take care when crossing the road at this location.”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 2 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Review nearby pedestrian and vehicle collisions using historic collision data to identify additional collision-risk reductions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“d. With regards to other collisions involving pedestrians and moving vehicles, we have undertaken a thorough review of the nearby collisions based on the historic collision data and will consider any other changes to the highway layout which may reduce collision risk in addition to changes to the crossing itself. For example, we are also proposing changes to the service road next to the crossing to make it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to access the crossing.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 5 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Reduce the A4 speed limit from 40mph to 30mph through the Lowering Speed Limits Programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. You note that the pedestrian crossing area spans across a dual carriageway subject to a speed limit of 40mph. At the time of the tragic incident involving Mr Gillard this was the speed limit. On 18 March 2024 a traffic order came into force to reduce the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph as part of our Lowering Speed Limits Programme.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 4 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Develop shared-space designs around the crossing and install signage advising pedestrians and cyclists to respect each other’s needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b. You have observed that the crossing point currently leads pedestrians into a cycle lane. We are working on new designs that propose to make the area around the crossing point a “shared space” to encourage cyclists and pedestrians to be respectful of each other’s needs, the proposals are subject to engagement. There will be signage installed advising users that this is a shared space for pedestrians and cyclists.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 4 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Consider further highway-layout changes to reduce collision risk, including changes to the service road to improve access to the crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“d. With regards to other collisions involving pedestrians and moving vehicles, we have undertaken a thorough review of the nearby collisions based on the historic collision data and will consider any other changes to the highway layout which may reduce collision risk in addition to changes to the crossing itself. For example, we are also proposing changes to the service road next to the crossing to make it easier for pedestrians and cyclists to access the crossing.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 5 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Develop a formal signalised crossing scheme across the A4 and both sections of Jersey Road, with associated highway-layout amendments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As previously advised at the inquest, we are developing a formal crossing proposal at this location. The proposals are as follows:”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 3 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Place temporary customer-information signage warning pedestrians to take care when crossing at the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the short term and further to our update to you dated 31 October 2024, it is our intention to place temporary customer information signage that warn pedestrians to take care when crossing the road at this junction. This is intended as a temporary step until a permanent crossing scheme can be implemented. Our supplier is working towards implementing within the timeframe that we advised”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 5 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

TfL is responsible for safety, maintenance, signs and signals on the A4, while the borough’s highway authority role is limited to Jersey Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The incident took place on A4 which is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and TfL is the Highways and Traffic Authority for roads that falls under this network. Similarly, TfL is responsible for road maintenance, traffic signs, traffic signals and road safety of TLRN. LBH is the Highway Authority for Jersey Road which forms a junction with the A4.”

Source location

Response from London Borough of Hounslow
Page 1 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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 Department does not oversee or consent to TfL’s traffic schemes, including this pedestrian crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The highway authority, in this case Transport for London (TfL), is responsible for how traffic is managed on its roads. This includes the design and maintenance of traffic light junctions and any associated pedestrian crossings. While the Department for Transport issues guidance to highway authorities, the Department does not oversee or consent to traffic schemes of this nature.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

TfL and the Mayor of London decide, prioritise and approve investment funding for the pedestrian crossing redesign.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the issue of funding, the Government engages regularly with TfL to understand its investment plans and funding requirements. The Government announced £250 million capital funding in December 2023, and a further £485 million for the coming 2025/26 financial year at the Budget, for TfL’s major capital projects. This is in addition to almost £2.2 billion of business rates for transport retained by TfL in 2024/25. The Mayor of London and TfL consider, prioritise and approve its investment decisions. The re-design of the pedestrian crossing would be funded by TfL from revenue sources outside the Department’s funding.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

TfL and the London Borough of Hounslow are responsible for implementing the crossing redesign, subject to funding and public consultation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I am not aware of any consents required from the Department to enable TfL to make changes to this site. I understand my officials have been in contact with TfL and it has confirmed that the new crossing designs are in TfL and the Borough's gift to implement, subject to funding and public consultation, and no DfT involvement is required.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

DfT consent is not required, and LBH consent is needed only for minor works on its road network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e. Finally, I turn to your concern that the implementation of TfL’s plans to redesign the pedestrian crossing will not be until 2026 and it remains subject to the consent of the DfT and LBH, the outcome of any public consultation as well as funding considerations. I explain above the steps which must be undertaken, and the timings involved with delivering appropriate and safe improvement works. In relation to consent from LBH, this is only necessary in relation to any minor works on their road network that may be required to facilitate delivery of the wider scheme. In addition, there is no requirement for consent or approvals to be obtained from the DfT.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 5 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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

Earlier implementation is constrained by required design, modelling, consultation, governance, contractor mobilisation and funding steps.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As my colleague ████████ advised during the inquest, it is likely that delivery of the scheme will take place in 2026, to enable time for the completion of traffic modelling, public engagement, concept and detailed design and contractor mobilisation (including relocating any utility services that are required to be moved by statutory undertakers as part of scheme delivery).”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 3 · response
Published 10 June 2025

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026