PFD report

Anais Chantal Thouvenot · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Mar 2015•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
1

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. Inadequate visibility at the road traffic junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
  2. Absence or inadequacy of filter lanes at the road traffic junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
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 junction design, signalling and gradient comply with applicable design requirements and provide adequate safety controls.

    Stated by Leicester City CouncilExisting 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

Inadequate visibility at the road traffic junction

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the investigation I was made aware of specific concerns regarding the safety of the road traffic junction at Upper Kings Street and Regent Road, Leicester. These concerns were highlighted to me by the Leicester Cycling Campaign Group (LCCG) and a member of the public ████████ who has also raised these concerns for the attention of Councillors ████████ and ████████. The LCCG have informed me that they believe the junction to be inherently dangerous quoting a number of 'near misses' as experienced by their cycling group. The specific concerns relate to visibility at the junction and absent or inadequate filter lanes, exacerbated by heavy traffic and the contour of the road at this junction. It is also known to be on a major cycle route into the city. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions.

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

Absence or inadequacy of filter lanes at the road traffic junction

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the investigation I was made aware of specific concerns regarding the safety of the road traffic junction at Upper Kings Street and Regent Road, Leicester. These concerns were highlighted to me by the Leicester Cycling Campaign Group (LCCG) and a member of the public ████████ who has also raised these concerns for the attention of Councillors ████████ and ████████. The LCCG have informed me that they believe the junction to be inherently dangerous quoting a number of 'near misses' as experienced by their cycling group. The specific concerns relate to visibility at the junction and absent or inadequate filter lanes, exacerbated by heavy traffic and the contour of the road at this junction. It is also known to be on a major cycle route into the city. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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 junction design, signalling and gradient comply with applicable design requirements and provide adequate safety controls.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The junction design and signalling arrangements have taken account of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (Volume 6, Section 2, Part 3 - TD 50/04, The Geometric Layout of Signal Controlled Junction and Signalised Roundabouts). As such, constraints such as existing road geometry, buildings and availability of land have been considered in accordance with TD50/04 and junction inter-visibility has been maximised.”

Source location

2015-0110-Response-by-Leicester-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 18 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

Existing road geometry makes providing both cycle and all-vehicle lanes difficult, while removing the right-turn lane could harm traffic flow and cyclist safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The existing road geometry at the junction renders the provision of both cycle and all-vehicle lanes difficult. In addition, loss of the right turn lane into King Street may not be of any benefit to cyclists, but could cause problems with traffic flow through the junction, adding to congestion. It may also result in inappropriate driver behaviour which could have a detrimental effect on the safety of cyclists through the junction.”

Source location

2015-0110-Response-by-Leicester-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 18 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

    Investigate potential junction improvements, including cycle stop lines, crossing and queueing markings, parking or loading restrictions, cycle lanes, and revised signal staging.

    Stated by Leicester City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 March 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The junction has no identifiable accident pattern and is significantly safer than comparable signal-controlled junctions.

    Stated by Leicester City CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Investigate potential junction improvements, including cycle stop lines, crossing and queueing markings, parking or loading restrictions, cycle lanes, and revised signal staging.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, during the review of the junction and in the interest of improving general amenity, reducing road danger for cyclists and other road users and in line with current best practice guidance, several potential actions have been identified for investigation:”

Source location

2015-0110-Response-by-Leicester-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 18 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 junction has no identifiable accident pattern and is significantly safer than comparable signal-controlled junctions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have examined recorded personal injury accidents information relating to accidents that have occurred over the past 25 years at the junction. In that time there have been five such accidents, including the tragic event of 9th November 2014. The five accidents resulted in six casualties – one fatal and five slight. The five slight casualties consisted of; two vehicle drivers, one vehicle passenger, one motorcyclist and one pedestrian. Detailed examination of the circumstances of each accident has demonstrated no common traits to which a pattern could be attributed.”

Source location

2015-0110-Response-by-Leicester-City-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 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