PFD report

Valerie WALTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Mar 2015•Coventry

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
3

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 raised1

  1. Unsafe positioning of a crossing on the apex of a sharp bend
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends
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

    Enhance zebra-crossing conspicuity by managing vegetation and street furniture, realigning the crossing, and installing additional illuminated Belisha beacon equipment.

    Stated by Coventry City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 March 2015.
  2. Action

    Review the crossing site and assess options for improving its safety and conspicuity.

    Stated by Coventry City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 March 2015.

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

  1. Position

    The Council does not propose relocating the crossing because relocation could reduce visibility, disrupt bus services, or encourage unprotected pedestrian crossings.

    Stated by Coventry City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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

Unsafe positioning of a crossing on the apex of a sharp bend

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from PC ████████ of the Regional Collision Investigation Unit that the positioning of the crossing on the apex of a sharp bend was contributory to this death. He opined that had the crossing been on the straight section of the road the death may not have occurred or alternatively whether the crossing should be controlled by traffic lights. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends.

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

Enhance zebra-crossing conspicuity by managing vegetation and street furniture, realigning the crossing, and installing additional illuminated Belisha beacon equipment.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Enhance the existing zebra crossing conspicuity”

Source location

2015-0107-Response-by-Coventry-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 19 March 2015

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 crossing site and assess options for improving its safety and conspicuity.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is impossible to make a highway where vehicles and pedestrians mix completely safe; we can only make it safer. In view of your recent comments we have reviewed again the site to consider what measures might be implemented to improve the safety. Four options have been considered:-”

Source location

2015-0107-Response-by-Coventry-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 19 March 2015

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 Council does not propose relocating the crossing because relocation could reduce visibility, disrupt bus services, or encourage unprotected pedestrian crossings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Middle of the straight from Robin Hoods Road to the bend. To do this we would have to remove most of the on street parking. ‘Due to the current level of demand for on-street parking in the local vicinity it is considered that under this option it would increase the likelihood that drivers would park illegally, including on the zig zag markings, thus restricting visibility between drivers and pedestrians using the crossing.”

Source location

2015-0107-Response-by-Coventry-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 19 March 2015

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

    Complete staged road-safety audits and post-implementation injury-accident monitoring for the zebra crossing.

    Stated by Coventry City CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 March 2015.

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

  1. 1

    The Council dismisses removing the zebra crossing because site observations show it is well used.

    Stated by Coventry City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    The Council does not propose upgrading the zebra crossing because a signalised crossing might reduce safety or have detrimental effects.

    Stated by Coventry City CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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

Complete staged road-safety audits and post-implementation injury-accident monitoring for the zebra crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In terms of the process we follow, all traffic and road safety schemes implemented by the Council are subject to a road safety audit by a team of engineers who are independent of the design team. The Road Safety Audit procedure has been developed “to ensure that operational road safety experience is applied during the design and construction process in order that the number and severity of collisions is kept to a minimum” (Department for Transport Design Manual for Roads and Bridges HD 19/15).”

Source location

2015-0107-Response-by-Coventry-City-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 March 2015

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 Council dismisses removing the zebra crossing because site observations show it is well used.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Remove the Zebra Crossing”

Source location

2015-0107-Response-by-Coventry-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 19 March 2015

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 Council does not propose upgrading the zebra crossing because a signalised crossing might reduce safety or have detrimental effects.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst this would increase the conspicuity of the crossing and encourage drivers to stop, observations of the use of the existing Zebra crossing by pedestrians suggests that this may be less safe. This is because we would anticipate that most pedestrians would not push the button and wait, as there are plenty of gaps in the traffic, and visibility is good enough to tempt people to cross. Even if they did push the button they may not wait the 10 to 45 seconds for a green man given the low flows and cross when traffic had a green light and drivers did not anticipate stopping.”

Source location

2015-0107-Response-by-Coventry-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 19 March 2015

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