PFD report

Bartosz Cezary KUSIAK · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Jul 2020•County Durham and Darlington

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
6

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. Insufficient pedestrian visibility distance for safe stopping
  2. Lack of a footpath alongside the A690
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads
  3. Foreseeable pedestrian crossing of an unlit high-speed dual carriageway
    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.5

  1. Action

    Clear foliage and install a timber post-and-rail fence to improve the retained footpath and discourage access to the A690 beyond the footbridge.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
  2. Action

    Install signs directing pedestrians from the northern A690 footway through the Gilesgate footbridge route.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.
  3. Action

    Complete an independent road safety assessment covering street lighting and pedestrian-route provision along the A690.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 30 September 2020.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The section of the A690 has no fundamental safety issues requiring further action.

    Stated by Durham 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

Insufficient pedestrian visibility distance for safe stopping

Wider context from the report

“The evidence established that at the point in the road where the impact occurred, a pedestrian was visible to a car being driven appropriately with headlights on and well within the prescribed speed limit only at a distance of 29 metres. The emergency stopping distance for such a car is between 75 and 87 metres. ”

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

Lack of a footpath alongside the A690

Wider context from the report

“There is no footpath alongside the A690 along the stretch where the accident occurred. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside 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

Foreseeable pedestrian crossing of an unlit high-speed dual carriageway

Wider context from the report

“The evidence established that the collision between Mr Kusiak and a motor vehicle occurred on an unlit dual carriageway subject to the national speed limit that runs alongside a housing estate and an industrial estate in Belmont. It is foreseeable that pedestrians will attempt to cross the road. ”

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

Clear foliage and install a timber post-and-rail fence to improve the retained footpath and discourage access to the A690 beyond the footbridge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The council is committed to reducing the potential for similar accidents to occur. To that end the recommendation in the independent consultant’s report is accepted to introduce interventions to proactively deter access to the A690 dual carriageway and promote existing pedestrian routes. These measures include:”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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

Install signs directing pedestrians from the northern A690 footway through the Gilesgate footbridge route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The council is committed to reducing the potential for similar accidents to occur. To that end the recommendation in the independent consultant’s report is accepted to introduce interventions to proactively deter access to the A690 dual carriageway and promote existing pedestrian routes. These measures include:”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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

Complete an independent road safety assessment covering street lighting and pedestrian-route provision along the A690.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of these discussions it has been agreed that an independent road safety assessment will be commissioned at the earliest possibility. The results of which will be reviewed and discussed further with our partners, Durham Constabulary. 2 | In addition to the request outlined in Item 1, the Police have also asked if a similar assessment process can be undertaken in consideration of footway provision adjacent to this section of the A690. | This matter has been discussed with both Traffic Assets Team, Street Lighting Team and Strategic Highways Team in relation to the provision of street lighting and footways. As a result of these discussion it has been agreed that an independent road safety assessment will be commissioned at the earliest possibility. The results of which will be reviewed and discussed further with our partners, Durham Constabulary.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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 access to the public footpath on the south-westbound on-slip at the C13 junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The council is committed to reducing the potential for similar accidents to occur. To that end the recommendation in the independent consultant’s report is accepted to introduce interventions to proactively deter access to the A690 dual carriageway and promote existing pedestrian routes. These measures include:”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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

Install guardrail and wayfinding signs to discourage pedestrian access to the south-westbound carriageway and south-eastern verge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The council is committed to reducing the potential for similar accidents to occur. To that end the recommendation in the independent consultant’s report is accepted to introduce interventions to proactively deter access to the A690 dual carriageway and promote existing pedestrian routes. These measures include:”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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 section of the A690 has no fundamental safety issues requiring further action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The council is aware of the concerns expressed about this section of the A690 and have reviewed safety issues on a number of occasions, most recently in the form of an independent consultant’s report. The council remain of the view that there are no fundamental issues with this section of road which need to be addressed; however, a number of minor beneficial improvements have been identified and implemented as a result of a previous accident. These are listed in the Table 1 below.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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

Street lighting and associated footway works are not proposed because lighting is cost-neutral and additional footway and fencing would increase scheme costs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“No. | Action | Recommendation 1 | Appropriateness of introducing street lighting on the A690 between Gilesgate and A1(M) Junction 62. | A Cost / Benefit Analysis (C/BA) for a street lighting scheme between Gilesgate and the C13 Belmont Link Road junction, with costs estimated at £1.65 million discounted to 2010 prices, resulted in a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.01.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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 parallel, street-lit, lower-speed pedestrian routes are considered sufficient, so lighting and footways will not be added to the A690.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This means the investment would be cost neutral with no positive return on the investment, particularly as the lighting appraisal undertaken in accordance Department of Transport Document TA 501 (Road Lighting Appraisal) does not include non-lighting costs that would be required, for example provision of a footway and associated fencing along the length of the A690. 2 | Review of pedestrian footway provision along the A690. | The predominant movements between trip generators in the area are provided for via existing footway / footpath routes including:”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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

    Arrange for renewal of deteriorating road markings and missing or damaged road studs to be considered through routine maintenance.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 30 September 2020.

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

Arrange for renewal of deteriorating road markings and missing or damaged road studs to be considered through routine maintenance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“| Any deteriorating road markings and missing/damaged road stud inserts should be recovered as part of the Council’s ongoing maintenance programme at the earliest convenience. | Information contained within this report regarding the condition of road markings and missing /damaged road studs has been raised with the Traffic Assets team. Although not a contributory factor and still retaining some residual life, they will arrange for the renewal of road markings to be considered as part of future routine maintenance.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 30 September 2020

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