PFD report

George James Ainsworth · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Sep 2015•Manchester West

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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 raised2

  1. Insufficient pedestrian crossing time at the Deansgate and Knowsley Street junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
  2. Failure to restrict pedestrians to the pedestrian crossing where drivers have a restricted view
    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.3

  1. Action

    Request Transport for Greater Manchester’s Traffic Control Unit to review the pedestrian crossing timings and assess extending the green-man phase.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 September 2015.
  2. Action

    Investigate the suitability of zig-zag markings at the pedestrian crossing approaches.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 September 2015.
  3. Action

    Review the Deansgate and Knowsley Street junction, including its geometry, pedestrian crossing arrangements, guard-rail provision and relevant safety evidence.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 September 2015.

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

  1. Position

    A blind-spot mirror is considered unsuitable because different vehicles have different blind-spot positions and no suitable location is available.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 crossing time at the Deansgate and Knowsley Street junction

Wider context from the report

“i. The junction of Deansgate into Knowsley Street is a 90 degree left hand bend with no restrictions on the vehicles entering the junction, other than the pedestrian crossing. Greater Manchester Police gave evidence that there is a “pinch point” when two large vehicles, such as buses, attempt to negotiate the bend at the same time resulting in one or the other having to give way. There was further evidence that the driver of a bus at the junction from Deansgate into Knowsley Street would have blind spots on the vehicle together with a limited pre-junction view around the bend due to the building line, which would affect the driver’s view of the road, particularly to the front nearside of the vehicle. The blind spots and limitations to the driver’s view of the road occur at a time when a driver is negotiating a narrow bend where there is a “pinch point” at the apex of the bend. Accordingly pedestrians who are free to cross the road outside the areas of the pedestrian crossing are at risk due to the driver’s restricted view. The presence of guard rails, particularly along the stretch of pavement on the left hand side from Deansgate into Knowsley Street from where Mr Ainsworth crossed the road, with the exception of the area of the pedestrian crossing, would take account of the driver’s restricted view and would prevent pedestrians crossing the road outside the area of the pedestrian crossing, where a driver would have a restricted view. ii. The time allowed for a pedestrian to cross the pedestrian crossing may not allow sufficient time for some pedestrians to cross the junction between Deansgate and Knowsley Street and an increase of the pedestrian crossing time would allow sufficient time for all pedestrians to cross the junction. ”

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

Failure to restrict pedestrians to the pedestrian crossing where drivers have a restricted view

Wider context from the report

“i. The junction of Deansgate into Knowsley Street is a 90 degree left hand bend with no restrictions on the vehicles entering the junction, other than the pedestrian crossing. Greater Manchester Police gave evidence that there is a “pinch point” when two large vehicles, such as buses, attempt to negotiate the bend at the same time resulting in one or the other having to give way. There was further evidence that the driver of a bus at the junction from Deansgate into Knowsley Street would have blind spots on the vehicle together with a limited pre-junction view around the bend due to the building line, which would affect the driver’s view of the road, particularly to the front nearside of the vehicle. The blind spots and limitations to the driver’s view of the road occur at a time when a driver is negotiating a narrow bend where there is a “pinch point” at the apex of the bend. Accordingly pedestrians who are free to cross the road outside the areas of the pedestrian crossing are at risk due to the driver’s restricted view. The presence of guard rails, particularly along the stretch of pavement on the left hand side from Deansgate into Knowsley Street from where Mr Ainsworth crossed the road, with the exception of the area of the pedestrian crossing, would take account of the driver’s restricted view and would prevent pedestrians crossing the road outside the area of the pedestrian crossing, where a driver would have a restricted view. ii. The time allowed for a pedestrian to cross the pedestrian crossing may not allow sufficient time for some pedestrians to cross the junction between Deansgate and Knowsley Street and an increase of the pedestrian crossing time would allow sufficient time for all pedestrians to cross the junction. ”

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

Request Transport for Greater Manchester’s Traffic Control Unit to review the pedestrian crossing timings and assess extending the green-man phase.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the Council hasn’t received any complaints directly regarding the length of the time allowed for pedestrians to cross the road, the submission from ████████Mat the inquest being the first, it will request Transport for Greater Manchester man Traffic Control Unit, which is responsible for the installation and operation of the signals, to review the timings and see if there is an opportunity to extend the ‘green man’ timings.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 6 · response
Published 11 September 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

Investigate the suitability of zig-zag markings at the pedestrian crossing approaches.

Verbatim wording from the response

“iv. On 14th September 2015 a further site visit was made by Malcolm Fairhurst of Bolton Council and ████████ of Greater Manchester Police (See Appendix 1 for qualifications and experience) to look at possible improvements to the junction and crossing as a consequence of the Coroner’s request. Suggestions included the addition of zig-zag markings to increase the conspicuity of the crossing, the installation of a TRIXI mirror to help drivers with blind spot visibility and some method to reduce vehicle speeds around the bend.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 September 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

Review the Deansgate and Knowsley Street junction, including its geometry, pedestrian crossing arrangements, guard-rail provision and relevant safety evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“i. The Council has reviewed the junction as requested. This has involved looking at the geometry of the junction; the road network; a site inspection with Greater Manchester Police and a review of the provision of pedestrian guard rail. The Council is also grateful to the Coroner for allowing copies of the CCTV footage of the incident from both the bus and the town centre CCTV system to be made available to them which has been useful in carrying out this review.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 1 · response
Published 11 September 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

A blind-spot mirror is considered unsuitable because different vehicles have different blind-spot positions and no suitable location is available.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TRIXI mirrors are used at traffic signal junctions with left turns so that drivers of large vehicles can check for cyclists travelling up the nearside of the vehicle on which is a blind spot for many such vehicles which can result in left turning vehicles colliding with cyclists who are travelling straight on.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 September 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

Transport for Greater Manchester’s Traffic Control Unit is responsible for signal installation and operation, including reviewing pedestrian crossing timings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst the Council hasn’t received any complaints directly regarding the length of the time allowed for pedestrians to cross the road, the submission from ████████Mat the inquest being the first, it will request Transport for Greater Manchester man Traffic Control Unit, which is responsible for the installation and operation of the signals, to review the timings and see if there is an opportunity to extend the ‘green man’ timings.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 6 · response
Published 11 September 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

Pedestrian guardrails are not considered necessary because assessment under national guidance found they were unlikely to improve correct crossing use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, it also states that for many years now there have been calls to review the use of PGR as it inconvenienced pedestrians, cluttered up streets and made an unattractive environment giving vehicles a sense of priority in town centres. In the worst cases PGR has caused more accidents than it has solved as pedestrians walk around it in the carriageway or jump over it in order to get to their destination in the most direct route. In general, it is recommended that the installation of new guardrailing should not be considered if alternative safety measures could be used.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 3 · response
Published 11 September 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

    Consider introducing a 20mph speed limit on Deansgate and Knowsley Street, with associated carriageway roundel markings.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 11 September 2015.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

  1. 1

    A one-way system is considered unviable because it would reduce accessibility, increase passenger inconvenience and create possible road-safety issues.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. 2

    A shuttle system was discounted on safety grounds because pedestrians might mistakenly cross while vehicles approached from the opposite direction.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  3. 3

    Further widening is unlikely to change cautious bus-driver behaviour and would narrow pedestrian footways.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  4. 4

    Road humps and plateaus cannot feasibly be installed because of the differing footway and carriageway levels around the corner.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Consider introducing a 20mph speed limit on Deansgate and Knowsley Street, with associated carriageway roundel markings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was observed that whilst virtually all vehicles negotiated the corner below the maximum speed limit some vehicles, including buses were travelling too fast for the location.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 3 · response
Published 11 September 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

A one-way system is considered unviable because it would reduce accessibility, increase passenger inconvenience and create possible road-safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Making Deansgate and Knowsley St one way in either direction would reduce the conflict at the junction for large vehicles travelling in opposite directions but there are many disadvantages which make this option unviable and introduce possible road safety issues.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 September 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

A shuttle system was discounted on safety grounds because pedestrians might mistakenly cross while vehicles approached from the opposite direction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Finally a shuttle working system around the junction whereby traffic signals would alternate to allow vehicles to travel in one direction only at any time has been discounted on safety grounds. This is because pedestrians could see a vehicle stopped at the traffic signal and mistakenly believe that it is safe to cross whereas in fact a vehicle could be approaching from the opposite direction.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 11 September 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

Further widening is unlikely to change cautious bus-driver behaviour and would narrow pedestrian footways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“ii. The geometry of the junction has been reviewed to see if any alterations could be made to make it easier for buses and other large vehicles to pass in opposite directions at the same time. The difficulty is with negotiating the 90 degree bend rather than the width of the road as long rigid vehicles such as buses can turn only once the majority of the body of the vehicle has passed the apex of the bend in order to avoid overrunning the nearside kerb. The road is actually widened to 10m wide at the bend and in theory two buses can pass with the first bus on the outside of the bend uses the full width of the road. In practise the majority of bus drivers choose not to do this and prefer to be more cautious and give way to each other. It is unlikely that widening the road any further would alter this behaviour.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 1 · response
Published 11 September 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

Road humps and plateaus cannot feasibly be installed because of the differing footway and carriageway levels around the corner.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Road humps and plateaus have been considered but the level of the footway and carriageway around the corner mean that it is not feasible to install such features here. The Council is therefore considering the introduction of a 20mph speed limit on Deansgate and Knowsley St. 20 mph roundel markings could then also be put on the carriageway to which may help to keep speeds down.”

Source location

George Ainsworth - Response from Bolton Council
Page 3 · response
Published 11 September 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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026