PFD report

Yogalakshmi Sinnaiah · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Jul 2016•Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure of lorry nearside visibility equipment to eliminate significant blind spots
  2. Pedestrians commonly cutting the corner and crossing from the wrong side of the traffic light
    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

    Bring forward replacement of the Pelican crossing with a Puffin crossing by three years.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 July 2016.
  2. Action

    Raise the tree crown on the northbound approach to improve crossing signal and pedestrian visibility.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 July 2016.

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

  1. Position

    The proposed guard railing is not supported because no pedestrian injury accidents or complaints are recorded, and barriers may create additional safety risks.

    Stated by Hampshire 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

Failure of lorry nearside visibility equipment to eliminate significant blind spots

Wider context from the report

“1. Whilst the mirrors fitted to the nearside of the lorry involved in the collision with Ms Sinnaiah met with all present construction and use requirements, they left a significant blind spot on the nearside of the vehicle and it is most likely that Ms Sinnaiah was in that blind spot when the lorry started to move after the lights changed in its favour on the pedestrian crossing. 2. I was told in evidence that the nearside cab window of the lorry had been fitted with a passenger side safety side lens, (e.g. a Fresnel Lens) this blind spot would have been reduced and the driver might have seen Ms Sinnaiah before the lorry started to move. 3. It occurs to me that if passenger side safety lenses were mandatory for heavy goods vehicles, it would make a significant contribution to reducing the risk of further fatalities in circumstances similar to Ms Sinnaiah’s death. ”

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

Pedestrians commonly cutting the corner and crossing from the wrong side of the traffic light

Wider context from the report

“1. Ms Sinnajah crossed Dragon Street using the pelican crossing and I was told in evidence that she started to cross the road from the "wrong side" of the traffic light at the crossing, "cutting the corner". 2. I was also told in evidence that using the crossing in this manner is a common occurrence and that there have been a number of near misses of pedestrians in consequence. 3. It occurs to me that provision of railings at this crossing either side of the actual crossing would prevent this happening and would thereby reduce the potential for future incidents of the type involving Ms Sinnajah. ”

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

Bring forward replacement of the Pelican crossing with a Puffin crossing by three years.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current pedestrian crossing is a ‘Pelican’ type and, as we are aware you understand from your investigations, these crossings have a high level ‘flashing green figure’ for pedestrians on the opposite side of the crossing which initially operates concurrently with the flashing amber for waiting vehicles. As shown by the Police evidence within the transcript of the inquest Ms Sinnaiah attempted to cross on a flashing green figure when she approached the crossing at the same time that the Mercedes lorry driver had the flashing amber light and no sight of Ms Sinnaiah. Due to significant reservations about the safety of installing pedestrian guard railing at this location and the lack of previous personal injury accidents at the location, the County Council proposes to bring forward the upgrading of the Pelican crossing by 3”

Source location

2016-0264-Response-by-Hampshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 25 July 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

Raise the tree crown on the northbound approach to improve crossing signal and pedestrian visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition to these works the crown on the trees on the northbound approach to the crossing will be raised to improve the visibility of the signals, intervisibility between pedestrians and oncoming vehicles and overall conspicuity of the crossing.”

Source location

2016-0264-Response-by-Hampshire-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 25 July 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 proposed guard railing is not supported because no pedestrian injury accidents or complaints are recorded, and barriers may create additional safety risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst on site we examined our entire database of personal injury accident history at the crossing and found no recorded personal injury accidents involving pedestrians between January 1990 and 30th November 2015. Our Traffic Management, Highway Maintenance and East Hants District Council colleagues confirmed no history of complaints or concerns from members of the public concerning the crossing.”

Source location

2016-0264-Response-by-Hampshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 25 July 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026