PFD report

Julia Luxmore Peto · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 4 Apr 2019•Inner South London

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
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 raised2

  1. Lack of louvres preventing pedestrian see-through at two-stage pedestrian crossings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  2. Lack of road markings warning pedestrians of traffic direction at two-stage pedestrian crossings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safety
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Existing pedestrian-crossing guidance, soon to be updated in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6, makes further action unnecessary.

    Stated by Department for TransportExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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

Lack of louvres preventing pedestrian see-through at two-stage pedestrian crossings

Wider context from the report

“TfL informed me, at the inquest, that they are putting in place “Look Left” and “Look Right” markings on the road to inform pedestrians on the direction of approaching traffic (A copy of the TfL report to me is appended for ease of reference. This contains a useful plan and photographs). From the evidence I heard I am satisfied that these particular changes would not have a wider impact on traffic flow but would improve the safety of pedestrians. I was pleased to hear that TfL had taken proactive practical measures to reduce the risk at this particular junction but I remain concerned that there are likely be other “two stage” pedestrian crossings throughout England and Wales which also do not currently have louvres to prevent pedestrian ‘see-through’ and road markings to warn pedestrians of traffic direction. I am therefore of the view that I am under a duty to report this wider concern to the Department of Transport to take appropriate action to reduce the risk of fatalities and serious injuries at two stage crossings throughout England and Wales. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

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

Lack of road markings warning pedestrians of traffic direction at two-stage pedestrian crossings

Wider context from the report

“TfL informed me, at the inquest, that they are putting in place “Look Left” and “Look Right” markings on the road to inform pedestrians on the direction of approaching traffic (A copy of the TfL report to me is appended for ease of reference. This contains a useful plan and photographs). From the evidence I heard I am satisfied that these particular changes would not have a wider impact on traffic flow but would improve the safety of pedestrians. I was pleased to hear that TfL had taken proactive practical measures to reduce the risk at this particular junction but I remain concerned that there are likely be other “two stage” pedestrian crossings throughout England and Wales which also do not currently have louvres to prevent pedestrian ‘see-through’ and road markings to warn pedestrians of traffic direction. I am therefore of the view that I am under a duty to report this wider concern to the Department of Transport to take appropriate action to reduce the risk of fatalities and serious injuries at two stage crossings throughout England and Wales. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate road markings for road-user safety.

Open source report

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 pedestrian-crossing guidance, soon to be updated in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6, makes further action unnecessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Guidance on pedestrian crossings is currently provided in two documents: Traffic Advisory Leaflet 5/05: Pedestrian Facilities at Signal-Controlled Junctions, and Local Transport Note 2/95: The Design of Pedestrian Crossings. These provide advice on the phasing and staging of pedestrian movements as well pedestrian crossing display sequencing.”

Source location

2019-0119-Response-from-the-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Local traffic management responsibility rests with Transport for London as the relevant highways authority, rather than the Department.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The responsibility for traffic management on local roads rests with the relevant local highways authority; in this case Transport for London, as they are best placed to consider how to use a range of traffic management measures so that local needs can be effectively met. My Department’s role is to provide the overarching strategy and policy context, as well as guidance to help them in managing their roads.”

Source location

2019-0119-Response-from-the-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

    Publish a new Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 consolidating and updating pedestrian-crossing guidance, including consideration of misleading pedestrian-facility layouts.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

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

Publish a new Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 6 consolidating and updating pedestrian-crossing guidance, including consideration of misleading pedestrian-facility layouts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You may be interested to know that this advice will shortly be superseded by a new Chapter of the Traffic Signs Manual. Chapter 6 will cover Traffic Control, and will bring together and update many guidance documents, including the two previously mentioned. It will be published later this year.”

Source location

2019-0119-Response-from-the-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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