Paul Coxon · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Jul 2015•Newcastle upon Tyne

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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 raised3

  1. Lack of illuminated signage for pedestrians in darkness
  2. Inadequate signage giving pedestrians guidance on safe crossing points
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Inappropriateness of a 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road with limited driver visibility
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Gateshead Borough Council

    Investigate whether pedestrian routes are appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead.

  2. Gateshead Borough Council

    Install infill panels in the guardrail gap beside the footway to deter pedestrians from entering the carriageway at an inappropriate location.

  3. Gateshead Borough Council

    Erect an additional sign identifying the pedestrian route and destination at the top of the steps.

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

  1. Gateshead Borough Council

    The 50mph speed limit is considered entirely appropriate for this section of road despite concerns about visibility and reaction time.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. Gateshead Borough Council

    No further action will be taken to illuminate pedestrian signage because illumination is not required and guidance provides no discretionary advice.

    No 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

Lack of illuminated signage for pedestrians in darkness

Wider context from the report

“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Inadequate signage giving guidance to pedestrians of safe crossing points (2) Lack of illuminated signage to assist pedestrians in the hours of darkness (3) Appropriateness of 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road where driver visibility is limited and reaction time to any hazard significantly impaired as a result ”

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

Inadequate signage giving pedestrians guidance on safe crossing points

Wider context from the report

“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Inadequate signage giving guidance to pedestrians of safe crossing points (2) Lack of illuminated signage to assist pedestrians in the hours of darkness (3) Appropriateness of 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road where driver visibility is limited and reaction time to any hazard significantly impaired as a result ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate road warning signage.

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

Inappropriateness of a 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road with limited driver visibility

Wider context from the report

“[BRIEF SUMMARY OF MATTERS OF CONCERN] (1) Inadequate signage giving guidance to pedestrians of safe crossing points (2) Lack of illuminated signage to assist pedestrians in the hours of darkness (3) Appropriateness of 50 mile per hour speed limit on a complex slip road where driver visibility is limited and reaction time to any hazard significantly impaired as a result ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

Investigate whether pedestrian routes are appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. An additional sign will be erected at the top of the steps (adjacent to the south east slip) which leads to the ‘underpass’. This will indicate the presence of a pedestrian route (via steps) and identify the pedestrian destination. Investigative work will be undertaken to confirm that the pedestrian route is appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead. This work will be completed within three months from the date of this letter.”

Source location

2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 July 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

Install infill panels in the guardrail gap beside the footway to deter pedestrians from entering the carriageway at an inappropriate location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The guardrail currently in situ along the footway in question terminated at the commencement of the bus stop layby at the time of the accident. The associated bus stop had not been observed for a number of years and there appeared to be no likelihood of it being brought back into use in the near future.”

Source location

2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 July 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

Erect an additional sign identifying the pedestrian route and destination at the top of the steps.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. An additional sign will be erected at the top of the steps (adjacent to the south east slip) which leads to the ‘underpass’. This will indicate the presence of a pedestrian route (via steps) and identify the pedestrian destination. Investigative work will be undertaken to confirm that the pedestrian route is appropriately signed on both sides of the bridgehead. This work will be completed within three months from the date of this letter.”

Source location

2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 20 July 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 50mph speed limit is considered entirely appropriate for this section of road despite concerns about visibility and reaction time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Again, your concerns are noted, however it is my belief that a 50mph speed limit is entirely appropriate for this section of road.”

Source location

2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 July 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

No further action will be taken to illuminate pedestrian signage because illumination is not required and guidance provides no discretionary advice.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Requirements and guidance for illumination of road traffic signs is contained within the Department for Transport’s ‘Traffic Signs, Regulations and General Directions’ document. Pedestrian signage is not required to be illuminated and the document does not contain discretionary advice suggesting it may be appropriate to do so. Accordingly, whilst I note your concern, I do not intend to take action in this regard.”

Source location

2015-0286-Response-by-Gateshead-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 20 July 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