Miss Beryl Brinkman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Jul 2014•Manchester North

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
2

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Parking bays reducing driver visibility when emerging onto the A58
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
  2. Risk of serious harm or death to road users and pedestrians

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. Rochdale Borough Council

    Submit and secure approval for funding to implement the proposed highway safety scheme.

  2. Rochdale Borough Council

    Review accident history and inspect the junction to assess highway safety issues.

  3. Rochdale Borough Council

    Implement removal of parking bays and introduction of ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on the A58, including required traffic orders.

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

  1. Rochdale Borough Council

    There was no departmental record that police had approached the local authority about problems at the location before the incident.

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

    The junction was not considered a priority for action because only one personal injury collision had been recorded there in 12 years.

    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

Parking bays reducing driver visibility when emerging onto the A58

Wider context from the report

“1. The proximity of the parking bays to the junction, resulting in a marked reduction of driver visibility when emerging on to the A58/parked cars are present. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely; 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

Risk of serious harm or death to road users and pedestrians

Wider context from the report

“2. The serious risk of harm/death to road users/pedestrians. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Submit and secure approval for funding to implement the proposed highway safety scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A commissioning form was submitted to Pennines Township for funding on the 23rd January and agreed approval on the 18th February. The Network Management Team is currently working on the scheme and the introducing the waiting restrictions.”

Source location

2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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 accident history and inspect the junction to assess highway safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As with any serious and fatal collision, it is normal protocol that on receipt of the Police Incident Report the Road Safety Team carries out a full review and site visit to determine any possible highway issues which may have had an impact on the accident.”

Source location

2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

Implement removal of parking bays and introduction of ‘At Any Time’ waiting restrictions on the A58, including required traffic orders.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A commissioning form was submitted to Pennines Township for funding on the 23rd January and agreed approval on the 18th February. The Network Management Team is currently working on the scheme and the introducing the waiting restrictions.”

Source location

2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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

There was no departmental record that police had approached the local authority about problems at the location before the incident.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the Greater Manchester Police statement that they approached the Local Authority prior to the incident, I have made enquiries within the department and we have no record as to any approaches being made with regard to problems at this location. There is no record via the monthly Traffic Management Unit Meetings (which the Police attend) or any other channel into the department.”

Source location

2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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 was not considered a priority for action because only one personal injury collision had been recorded there in 12 years.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to build up a picture of any previous incidents the accident database was reviewed and results showed that there had been only one recorded personal injury accident at this junction in the last 12 years, as such; the site was not on the priority list for action.”

Source location

2014-0314-Response-by-Rochdale-Borough-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 2 July 2014

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