PFD report

Pauline Howell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Aug 2019•Newcastle upon Tyne

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised2

  1. Junction and crossing design allowing no margin for pedestrian or driver error
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
  2. Foreseeable risk of pedestrian error at the crossing
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

    Revise light phasing, install detection sensors, relocate the primary traffic signal head, and raise pedestrian repeater signals.

    Stated by Newcastle Upon Tyne City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2019.
  2. Action

    Install “Look both ways” text on kerb edges at pedestrian crossing points.

    Stated by Newcastle Upon Tyne City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2019.
  3. Action

    Commissioned and completed two independent Stage 4 road safety audits of the junction layout and signal phasing.

    Stated by Newcastle Upon Tyne City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 August 2019.

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

Junction and crossing design allowing no margin for pedestrian or driver error

Wider context from the report

“(1) The risk of pedestrian error at the John Dobson Street crossing is foreseeable. (2) The crossing is situated close to the junction. (3) The crossing is situated on a busy bus route. (4) The Junction is “tight” and challenging for public service vehicle drivers to negotiate. (5) The design/layout of the junction/crossing allow no margin for error by either or both pedestrian and driver. (6) The deaths of two pedestrians resulted from injuries sustained whilst crossing this junction in similar circumstances and the risk of future deaths continues. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; 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

Foreseeable risk of pedestrian error at the crossing

Wider context from the report

“(1) The risk of pedestrian error at the John Dobson Street crossing is foreseeable. (2) The crossing is situated close to the junction. (3) The crossing is situated on a busy bus route. (4) The Junction is “tight” and challenging for public service vehicle drivers to negotiate. (5) The design/layout of the junction/crossing allow no margin for error by either or both pedestrian and driver. (6) The deaths of two pedestrians resulted from injuries sustained whilst crossing this junction in similar circumstances and the risk of future deaths continues. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Revise light phasing, install detection sensors, relocate the primary traffic signal head, and raise pedestrian repeater signals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Other minor scheme improvements will include:”

Source location

2019-0498-Response-from-Newcastle-City-Council-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 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

Install “Look both ways” text on kerb edges at pedestrian crossing points.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Potential confusion over road layout as the segregated cycle lane could be mistaken as southbound carriageway – there had been an original suggestion to install text on the kerb edge at pedestrian crossing points to state ‘Look both ways’ which was discounted at the time as not permitted under the regulations. This is now permitted by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions and will be installed.”

Source location

2019-0498-Response-from-Newcastle-City-Council-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 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

Commissioned and completed two independent Stage 4 road safety audits of the junction layout and signal phasing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to give full consideration to the issues you raised, we commissioned two independent Stage 4 Road Safety Audits by different experienced Civil Engineers to review the current junction layout and signal phasing. Should you wish to see copies of the independent road safety audits we will make them available to you.”

Source location

2019-0498-Response-from-Newcastle-City-Council-Redacted-1
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 2019

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.2

  1. 1

    Replace damage on the splinter island between the cycle lane and general traffic lane for westbound traffic on New Bridge Street West.

    Stated by Newcastle Upon Tyne City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2019.
  2. 2

    Amend tactile paving on the junction’s north-west corner to improve consistency for blind and partially sighted users.

    Stated by Newcastle Upon Tyne City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 August 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Independent audits found the pedestrian crossing points were not problematic, so relocating them was not considered necessary.

    Stated by Newcastle Upon Tyne City CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Replace damage on the splinter island between the cycle lane and general traffic lane for westbound traffic on New Bridge Street West.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Other minor scheme improvements will include:”

Source location

2019-0498-Response-from-Newcastle-City-Council-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 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

Amend tactile paving on the junction’s north-west corner to improve consistency for blind and partially sighted users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Other minor scheme improvements will include:”

Source location

2019-0498-Response-from-Newcastle-City-Council-Redacted-1
Page 2 · response
Published 9 August 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

Independent audits found the pedestrian crossing points were not problematic, so relocating them was not considered necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the issues you have raised neither of the Road Safety Audits consider the locations of the pedestrian crossing points to be problematic. In fact, one of the independent consultants noted that:”

Source location

2019-0498-Response-from-Newcastle-City-Council-Redacted-1
Page 1 · response
Published 9 August 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