PFD report

Michael John Draper and Rafal Wojdyl · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 May 2022•Manchester West

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. Driver distraction at a busy junction with traffic travelling at 50mph
  2. Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way
    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
  3. Lack of a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads
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

    Investigate the junction's collision circumstances, operation, collision history and traffic data with Greater Manchester Police.

    Stated by Salford City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 17 May 2022.

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

Driver distraction at a busy junction with traffic travelling at 50mph

Wider context from the report

“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Restricted visibility for vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way

Wider context from the report

“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”

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 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 a footpath on one side of Cadishead Way

Wider context from the report

“1) During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- a) The junction is very busy allowing access to industrial and retail units, including Tesco, Lidl and Screwfix off Fairhills Road, Irlam. b) Cadishead Way, Irlam is a very busy designated ‘A’ road, namely the A57 road, which is an access road towards Manchester in one direction and the M6 motorway in the other direction. c) At the junction there is no footpath on one side of Cadishead Way and approaching the junction with Fairhills Road from the direction of the M6 motorway there is a bend, a bridge, trees and bushes, all of which obscure and affect the line of vision of vehicles exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam. d) The junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam is very busy with vehicles turning into both Fairhills Road and Cadishead Way from both directions, which could cause distractions to drivers, particularly a driver exiting Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way with vehicles travelling at 50mph along Cadishead Way and the restricted view. 2) I request that you conduct a review of the following issues in relation to the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam: a) The layout of the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. b) The speed limit of 50mph on Cadishead Way in the area of the junction with Fairhills Road, Irlam. c) The restricted views of vehicles pulling out of Fairhills Road into Cadishead Way, Irlam, particularly caused by trees, bushes and undergrowth. d) The provision of traffic signals at the junction of Fairhills Road with Cadishead Way, Irlam. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads.

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

Investigate the junction's collision circumstances, operation, collision history and traffic data with Greater Manchester Police.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I would like to inform you that Salford City Council’s Collision Investigation Team have carried out a detailed investigation into the junction following the collision. This involved a site visit on the 30th of June 2021 with Greater Manchester Police’s Specialist Operations Roads Policing Unit to understand the circumstances of the collision and to review the operation of the junction. A desktop exercise was also undertaken to review the collision history and traffic survey data in the immediate vicinity of the junction.”

Source location

Response from Salford City Council
Page 1 · response
Published 17 May 2022

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