PFD report

John Watt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Mar 2016•Surrey

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
6

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. Lack of a safe or controlled pedestrian crossing means for the A25 at Abinger Hammer
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
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

    Inspect the existing vehicle-activated sign east of Felday Road.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
  2. Action

    Request funding and undertake a feasibility study for a safe pedestrian crossing facility at the location.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
  3. Action

    Investigate providing signs warning drivers that pedestrians cross the A25 near the village green.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 31 March 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The fatal collision did not form part of a pattern of similar incidents supporting casualty-reduction justification for crossing facilities.

    Stated by Surrey County 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

Lack of a safe or controlled pedestrian crossing means for the A25 at Abinger Hammer

Wider context from the report

“A Means of Crossing the A25 Guildford Road at Abinger Hammer Evidence at inquest indicated that there is no safe or controlled means for a pedestrian to cross the road in the village. Consideration should be given to providing a safe system of allowing pedestrians to cross the A25 at Abinger Hammer. ”

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

Inspect the existing vehicle-activated sign east of Felday Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is also a solar powered electronic vehicle activated sign that illuminates to drivers to remind them of the 30 mph speed limit and to “SLOW DOWN” if they are travelling too fast on the westbound approach to the pedestrian desire line near the Post Office/Tea Room. It is thought that the operation of the sign may be sporadic depending on the level of sunlight, number of activations and battery longevity. Consequently funding will be sought to undertake an inspection of the sign and to overhaul it if necessary.”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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

Request funding and undertake a feasibility study for a safe pedestrian crossing facility at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.3 Commissioning of a feasibility study for a crossing (based on some of the findings described above)”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 6 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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

Investigate providing signs warning drivers that pedestrians cross the A25 near the village green.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In the short term it is proposed to investigate the provision of signs to warn drivers that pedestrians are crossing the A25 in the vicinity of the village green.”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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 fatal collision did not form part of a pattern of similar incidents supporting casualty-reduction justification for crossing facilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It would appear that the circumstances that led to the fatal accident involving Mr Watt, in the vicinity of the Kingfisher Farm Shop entrance, did not form part of a pattern of similar incidents at the same location. The only other personal casualty took place over 100m to the west and involved an accident, described above, that could have taken place at any location.”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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

County Councillors decide which highway schemes to prioritise and where available resources are allocated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If the feasibility study concludes that there is a justifiable need for some work to take place, and the proposed solution is suitable for the location, then the proposal would be added to the Integrated Transport Schemes (ITS) List of schemes for possible future funding. The Mole Valley Forward Programme of schemes for design and construction is made up from schemes on the ITS List and this programme is presented to the Mole Valley Local Committee each year for decision. The County Councillors are responsible for deciding which schemes to prioritise and where to allocate resources. County Councillors will take into account representations from the public, the advice from the engineers and the availability of funding. It can take over 18 months before any improvement works are implemented, even if a scheme is approved and funding available.”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 7 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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

A formal crossing may be unsuitable because carriageway width, available land, lighting, power, conservation-area and environmental constraints limit feasible options.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The proposed feasibility study for improved crossing facilities would consider the extent of the public highway to assess whether there is sufficient width for the provision of suitably sized areas for pedestrians to wait to cross. The availability of an electrical power supply should also be considered (there is no street lighting on this road), as should the position of the bus stops in relation to the crossing point. Kerb build outs, to narrow the carriageway, would not be appropriate at this location given the nature and volume of traffic that uses the A25 through Abinger Hammer. There is insufficient carriageway width to provide a central pedestrian refuge island.”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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

    Analyse five years of personal-injury collision data along the A25 study length.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
  2. 2

    Progress the Bus Stop Clearway Order for obstructive parking at the bus stop.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 31 March 2016.
  3. 3

    Review the fatal collision through the area Road Safety Working Group for potential highway or police interventions.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 March 2016.

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

Analyse five years of personal-injury collision data along the A25 study length.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Investment, to reduce the risk of future road casualties, is prioritised by Surrey County Council by analysing data collected by the Police on the circumstances and locations of road traffic collisions leading to injuries. A summary of this information is available for the public to view via www.crashmap.co.uk. The detailed information collected by the Police is used to identify locations with a history of personal injury collisions (PIC). These locations are most likely to have the greatest risk of future collisions, unless any common incident patterns can be identified that could be addressed by safety improvements.”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 3 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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

Progress the Bus Stop Clearway Order for obstructive parking at the bus stop.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Parking and obstruction”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 6 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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 the fatal collision through the area Road Safety Working Group for potential highway or police interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.2 Summary of Road Safety Working Group Conclusions (based on the analysis above, local site knowledge and observations).”

Source location

John-WATT-Response
Page 4 · response
Published 31 March 2016

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