PFD report

PAUL ANDREW FREAR · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Jan 2024•Black Country

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 clear and visible pedestrian crossing indications at the junction
    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.1

  1. Action

    Commission an independent road safety audit of the proposed pedestrian markings and traffic signal relocation works.

    Stated by Sandwell Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 12 February 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The current layout meets all applicable design standards, notwithstanding the planned additional pedestrian safety measures.

    Stated by Sandwell Borough 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 clear and visible pedestrian crossing indications at the junction

Wider context from the report

“5. My concern is that the design of this junction means that it is not obvious to a pedestrian that the only place to look for indications as to whether it is safe to cross the road is to their left. There are no such indicators on the opposite side of the carriageway which is ordinarily where a pedestrian would be looking. The signals were situated immediately to the left of where Mr Frear was stood/where any pedestrian would be standing. 6. Within the police report the collision investigator (who visited the scene) states as follows; I do however find the layout very confusing with the right turn filter lane (lane 3) not being separated from the main carriageway a pedestrian is faced with stationary traffic. If a pedestrian chose to look up to their right they would be presented with a red traffic light and the only indication that it is still not safe to cross is the pedestrian controls to their immediate left. The green light for lanes 1 and 2 is not visible to pedestrians and there is no pedestrian light indication on the opposite side.’ I share this concern. 7. Coroner understands from the police that there were two previous incidents at this location which occurred prior to the changes resulting in the current road layout. Coroner also understands Sandwell Highways have completed safety reviews and processes throughout the design, implementation and post installation of the junction design. 8. Whilst the current road layout may be legal, the death of Mr Frear highlights the safety issue for pedestrians present at this junction crossing from BOTH sides and highlights that the signage for pedestrians in not clear enough and there is a risk of further deaths now and in the future. ”

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

Commission an independent road safety audit of the proposed pedestrian markings and traffic signal relocation works.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Therefore, as an additional reminder to pedestrians, the Council intends to introduce ‘Look Left’ or ‘Look Right’ road markings in appropriate places and to relocate two of the existing traffic signal heads.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell Council
Page 1 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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 current layout meets all applicable design standards, notwithstanding the planned additional pedestrian safety measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the current layout meets all current design standards, the Council is keen to do all it can to prevent any future incidents occurring.”

Source location

Response from Sandwell Council
Page 1 · response
Published 12 February 2024

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026