PFD report

Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Jan 2018•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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
10

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. Inadequate signage directing cyclists where the cycle lane ends
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  2. Failure to control excessive vehicle speeds on Barrack Road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads
  3. Failure to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Barrack Road dangerously
    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.2

  1. Action

    Remove the segregated footway/cycleway sign and relocate the end-of-cycle-route sign closer to the toucan crossing.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  2. Action

    Continue delivering Bikeability cycle-safety training at local schools.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.

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

  1. Position

    Realigning the electricity sub-station fence is impractical because it would compromise engineers’ safety when accessing the sub-station.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County 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

Inadequate signage directing cyclists where the cycle lane ends

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. The road where the incident occurred that lead to Aaron’s death, the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset is a road which has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Evidence was given that people regularly drive at excessive speeds on this road. The location of the incident is near to a school and evidence was given that people, especially school children, do not always use the designated crossing just prior to the junction of Clarendon Road and Barrack Road. Evidence was given that school children often flood out of the school and run into the road. Evidence was given that this was perceived to be a danger and that there could be the death of a person in the future. ii. The placement of barriers along this section of road would assist in reducing the access to the road and encouraging pedestrians to use the crossing to cross the road safely, reducing the potential dangers and risk to life. It was also suggested that a fixed speed camera may assist in regulating the speed of vehicles that use the road. iii. Evidence was also given in relation to the cycle lane along Barrack Road. The cycle lane along Barrack Road heading towards Christchurch is on the footpath and is a shared cycle lane and footpath. The cycle lane comes to an end just before the junction of Clarendon Road and evidence was given by the Collision Reduction Team Manager that the expectation is that when the cycle lane comes to an end, cyclists will cross the road and use the cycle path on the footpath on the other side of the road. Although there is a sign at the end of the cycle lane it is not clear that the expectation is for the cyclist to cross over the road at the crossing. The lack of signage is therefore very confusing and could lead to a further collision. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use Barrack Road, Christchurch where the incident that led to Aaron’s death occurred. I would therefore request that there is a review of the safety measures in place and consideration is given to the erection of barriers along the pavement and also along the central reservation to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the road in a dangerous manner. ii. I would also request that a review is undertaken regarding the signage given to cyclists at this location and consideration be given to having a fixed speed camera at this location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

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

Failure to control excessive vehicle speeds on Barrack Road

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. The road where the incident occurred that lead to Aaron’s death, the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset is a road which has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Evidence was given that people regularly drive at excessive speeds on this road. The location of the incident is near to a school and evidence was given that people, especially school children, do not always use the designated crossing just prior to the junction of Clarendon Road and Barrack Road. Evidence was given that school children often flood out of the school and run into the road. Evidence was given that this was perceived to be a danger and that there could be the death of a person in the future. ii. The placement of barriers along this section of road would assist in reducing the access to the road and encouraging pedestrians to use the crossing to cross the road safely, reducing the potential dangers and risk to life. It was also suggested that a fixed speed camera may assist in regulating the speed of vehicles that use the road. iii. Evidence was also given in relation to the cycle lane along Barrack Road. The cycle lane along Barrack Road heading towards Christchurch is on the footpath and is a shared cycle lane and footpath. The cycle lane comes to an end just before the junction of Clarendon Road and evidence was given by the Collision Reduction Team Manager that the expectation is that when the cycle lane comes to an end, cyclists will cross the road and use the cycle path on the footpath on the other side of the road. Although there is a sign at the end of the cycle lane it is not clear that the expectation is for the cyclist to cross over the road at the crossing. The lack of signage is therefore very confusing and could lead to a further collision. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use Barrack Road, Christchurch where the incident that led to Aaron’s death occurred. I would therefore request that there is a review of the safety measures in place and consideration is given to the erection of barriers along the pavement and also along the central reservation to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the road in a dangerous manner. ii. I would also request that a review is undertaken regarding the signage given to cyclists at this location and consideration be given to having a fixed speed camera at this location. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads.

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

Failure to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing Barrack Road dangerously

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. The road where the incident occurred that lead to Aaron’s death, the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset is a road which has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Evidence was given that people regularly drive at excessive speeds on this road. The location of the incident is near to a school and evidence was given that people, especially school children, do not always use the designated crossing just prior to the junction of Clarendon Road and Barrack Road. Evidence was given that school children often flood out of the school and run into the road. Evidence was given that this was perceived to be a danger and that there could be the death of a person in the future. ii. The placement of barriers along this section of road would assist in reducing the access to the road and encouraging pedestrians to use the crossing to cross the road safely, reducing the potential dangers and risk to life. It was also suggested that a fixed speed camera may assist in regulating the speed of vehicles that use the road. iii. Evidence was also given in relation to the cycle lane along Barrack Road. The cycle lane along Barrack Road heading towards Christchurch is on the footpath and is a shared cycle lane and footpath. The cycle lane comes to an end just before the junction of Clarendon Road and evidence was given by the Collision Reduction Team Manager that the expectation is that when the cycle lane comes to an end, cyclists will cross the road and use the cycle path on the footpath on the other side of the road. Although there is a sign at the end of the cycle lane it is not clear that the expectation is for the cyclist to cross over the road at the crossing. The lack of signage is therefore very confusing and could lead to a further collision. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use Barrack Road, Christchurch where the incident that led to Aaron’s death occurred. I would therefore request that there is a review of the safety measures in place and consideration is given to the erection of barriers along the pavement and also along the central reservation to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the road in a dangerous manner. ii. I would also request that a review is undertaken regarding the signage given to cyclists at this location and consideration be given to having a fixed speed camera at this location. ”

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

Remove the segregated footway/cycleway sign and relocate the end-of-cycle-route sign closer to the toucan crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.9 Paragraph 7.9 – Risk of collision between cyclist and pedestrians – Barrack Road toucan crossing”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Continue delivering Bikeability cycle-safety training at local schools.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.1 Paragraph 7.1 in report by TMS – Risk of accidents involving cyclists travelling too from school – minority of school pupils choosing to cross away from toucan crossing on Barrack Road.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Realigning the electricity sub-station fence is impractical because it would compromise engineers’ safety when accessing the sub-station.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recommendation – If practical, the perimeter fence of the electricity sub-station should be realigned or adjusted to improve inter-visibility between exiting drivers and approaching cyclists.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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.8

  1. 1

    Add a high-visibility coloured band to the local direction-sign post.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  2. 2

    Identify and contact the landowner responsible for reducing the hedge at Bailey Roundabout.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  3. 3

    Identify and contact the landowner responsible for cutting back the hedge at the Arthur Road junction.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  4. 4

    Identify and contact the landowner responsible for cutting back vegetation obscuring the warning sign.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  5. 5

    Liaise with the filling station to arrange relocation of damaged or misaligned cyclist-warning signs.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  6. 6

    Assess pavement levels at the crossing points and order any required work.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  7. 7

    Remove the redundant deflection arrow from the north-westbound approach to Bailey Bridge.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 June 2018.
  8. 8

    Inspect nearby drainage gullies and order any required work.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 June 2018.

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

  1. 1

    Privately owned vegetation is the relevant landowner’s responsibility to cut back as recommended.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    Fuel-station warning signs are not on the highway; the filling station is responsible for relocating them.

    Stated by Dorset Highways, Dorset County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Add a high-visibility coloured band to the local direction-sign post.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.7 Paragraph 7.7 – Risk of injury to pedestrian – post of local direction sign in footway.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Identify and contact the landowner responsible for reducing the hedge at Bailey Roundabout.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.4 Paragraph 7.4 – Risk of head-on collisions between cyclists due to dense hedge affect visibility – footway/cycleway at Bailey Roundabout”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Identify and contact the landowner responsible for cutting back the hedge at the Arthur Road junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.3 Paragraph 7.3 – Risk of pull-out collisions at side road junction (Arthur Road)”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Identify and contact the landowner responsible for cutting back vegetation obscuring the warning sign.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.5 Paragraph 7.5 – Risk of collision involving cyclists – warning sign obscured by overhanging vegetation.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Liaise with the filling station to arrange relocation of damaged or misaligned cyclist-warning signs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.2 Paragraph 7.2 - Risk of collisions involving cyclists – shell fuel station access.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Assess pavement levels at the crossing points and order any required work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recommendation – Pavement levels should be adjusted to improve drainage at the crossing points.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Remove the redundant deflection arrow from the north-westbound approach to Bailey Bridge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.8 Paragraph 7.8 – Risk of side swipe collisions – Barrack Road north-westbound approach to Bailey Bridge – anomalous deflection arrow in offside lane.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Inspect nearby drainage gullies and order any required work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2.6 Paragraph 7.6 – Risk of pedestrian trips and slips (Barrack Road/Stour Road junction)”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Privately owned vegetation is the relevant landowner’s responsibility to cut back as recommended.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recommendation – Overhanging hedge should be cut back clear of the junction visibility splay.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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

Fuel-station warning signs are not on the highway; the filling station is responsible for relocating them.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recommendation - Signs warning of cyclists at the fuel station forecourt have become damaged or misaligned.”

Source location

2018-0028-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 June 2018

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