PFD report

Beryl Fricker · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Jan 2020•Dorset

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
2

Described in 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 adequate street lighting at the Lake Road and Upwey Avenue junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
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

    Conduct a detailed light-meter survey of the junction and investigate whether illumination improvements are sensible and safety-justified.

    Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 February 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Required lighting inspections could not yet be completed because wet road surfaces would affect measured ambient lighting levels.

    Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilUnable 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 adequate street lighting at the Lake Road and Upwey Avenue junction

Wider context from the report

“i. Upwey Avenue is a wide junction, with the nearest street lamps some distance from the junction itself. As a consequence the middle of the junction appears to be the least well illuminated section of that stretch of road. The surrounding area is residential and there are a number of local schools, including infant and secondary schools, so there is likely a significant number of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users travelling along Lake Road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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 a detailed light-meter survey of the junction and investigate whether illumination improvements are sensible and safety-justified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to carry out a full and detailed assessment of the actual illumination levels on site using light meters, we are required to visit the location during the day to measure and mark out several light calculation points on the road and footway, and then follow up with a visit during the hours of darkness. Unfortunately, the streetlighting team haven’t been able to carry out the required site inspections due to the weather conditions. This is because the inclement conditions we have experienced recently have meant the road surfaces were still fairly wet in the evenings, and this factor can easily influence the ambient lighting levels we measure.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 2 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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

Required lighting inspections could not yet be completed because wet road surfaces would affect measured ambient lighting levels.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to carry out a full and detailed assessment of the actual illumination levels on site using light meters, we are required to visit the location during the day to measure and mark out several light calculation points on the road and footway, and then follow up with a visit during the hours of darkness. Unfortunately, the streetlighting team haven’t been able to carry out the required site inspections due to the weather conditions. This is because the inclement conditions we have experienced recently have meant the road surfaces were still fairly wet in the evenings, and this factor can easily influence the ambient lighting levels we measure.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 2 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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

Other factors may explain the collision, and improved street lighting may not have prevented it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are other possible explanations for the failure of the driver to see Beryl Fricker crossing the road which are unrelated to lighting levels. For example, the driver's visibility of the pedestrian could have been inhibited by the vehicle’s A-pillar rather than the lighting levels, and changing the lighting would not have prevented it.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 2 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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

Existing junction lighting meets the applicable British Standard and is considered standard and appropriate for the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“BCP Council’s policy is that it illuminates subsidiary roads and footpaths to lighting class P4 in accordance with BS5489-1:2013 (Code of practice for the design of road lighting). The Council Streetlighting Engineer has checked the current street lighting provision at the Upwey Avenue Lake Road junction by way of producing a lighting report using specialist design software.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 2 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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.1

  1. 1

    Assess pedestrian provision and determine whether a central refuge island or narrowed junction mouth is feasible as a road-safety engineering intervention.

    Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 February 2020.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    The location's low collision record makes another serious incident appear unlikely.

    Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. 2

    Funding for recommended pedestrian improvement schemes is limited and a long waiting list delays delivery.

    Stated by Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Assess pedestrian provision and determine whether a central refuge island or narrowed junction mouth is feasible as a road-safety engineering intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As with all similar requests received for pedestrian improvements of this nature, the Council will undertake an initial assessment of the pedestrian provision at the junction and determine whether it is feasible to either provide a central refuge island or alternatively narrow down the junction mouth to improve visibility as part of a road safety engineering intervention. The assessment process includes recording measurable factors such as the number of pedestrians crossing at peak times, the volume of traffic as well as judging the difficulty people have in crossing the road.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 3 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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 location's low collision record makes another serious incident appear unlikely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We do have a specific priority to reduce pedestrian casualties, particularly in our urban areas. The Council regularly reviews all collisions that result in casualties across its whole road network, and in the context of our objective of reducing casualties. We do this by focusing our limited resources on ‘hotspot’ locations that have 7 or more casualties within a 5 year period that also fall in a 50m radius.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 3 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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

Funding for recommended pedestrian improvement schemes is limited and a long waiting list delays delivery.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As with all similar requests received for pedestrian improvements of this nature, the Council will undertake an initial assessment of the pedestrian provision at the junction and determine whether it is feasible to either provide a central refuge island or alternatively narrow down the junction mouth to improve visibility as part of a road safety engineering intervention. The assessment process includes recording measurable factors such as the number of pedestrians crossing at peak times, the volume of traffic as well as judging the difficulty people have in crossing the road.”

Source location

Response from BCP Council
Page 3 · response
Published 9 February 2020

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