PFD report

Thomas Moore Unsworth · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Mar 2017•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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised1

  1. Restricted driver visibility of pedestrians at the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
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.1

  1. Action

    Review collision CCTV, inquest witness statements and the junction through a multi-agency site visit.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.

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

  1. Position

    The reconstruction works cannot be extended to the crossing area because that area is outside the current site investigation scope.

    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

Restricted driver visibility of pedestrians at the junction

Wider context from the report

“1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that:- The driver of the bus that came into collision with Mr Unsworth gave evidence that the nature of the junction into which she was turning together with the position into which pedestrians are guided to cross the road meant that her view of such pedestrians was limited and in certain situations there was a “blind spot” in which she was unable to see pedestrians at all. Police Officers likewise gave evidence that as vehicles were manoeuvring round this junction their driver's views of pedestrians were limited by the building line and then restricted by street furniture. The area in question is presently under reconstruction giving an opportunity for these issues to be reviewed and addressed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions.

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

Review collision CCTV, inquest witness statements and the junction through a multi-agency site visit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To consider and address your concerns, a meeting was convened on 24th March 2017 with relevant local authority officers and Greater Manchester Police Area Traffic Manager from the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, at which a review of the CCTV footage from the time of the collision was undertaken, all witness statements obtained for the purpose of the Inquest were considered and a site visit was undertaken.”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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 reconstruction works cannot be extended to the crossing area because that area is outside the current site investigation scope.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Vehicle Blind Spots and Re-construction works”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Relocating the pedestrian crossing would not improve visibility because the building line would continue to obstruct motorists’ line of sight.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Consideration has been given as to whether any risks would be reduced by alterations or relocation of the pedestrian crossing. Following investigation, I can confirm that the position of the crossing in relation to the junction is determined by position of the stop line, which in turn is determined by the swept path of vehicles turning into the junction. The distance between the stop line and the crossing must be between 2.0 - 3.0m and in this case the crossing could be re-located by approximately 1.0m towards Bradshawgate. However, this would have no benefit in terms of visibility between motorists and pedestrians as the building line would still obstruct the line of sight.”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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.4

  1. 1

    Assess the junction’s street-lighting provision and operating condition.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  2. 2

    Review injury accident data for the junction and identify collision patterns.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  3. 3

    Review the pedestrian crossing stage indicators and consider replacing the far-side indicator with a near-side indicator.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  4. 4

    Replace existing nearby lanterns with Holophane 114 LED lighting units to improve visibility.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.

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

  1. 1

    Transport for Greater Manchester is responsible for reviewing and potentially replacing the pedestrian crossing’s far-side indicator with a near-side indicator.

    Stated by Bolton Borough CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Assess the junction’s street-lighting provision and operating condition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Bolton Council’s Principal Street Lighting Engineer has undertaken an assessment of the street lighting and his comments are as follows:”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 2 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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 injury accident data for the junction and identify collision patterns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Review of Accident Data”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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 pedestrian crossing stage indicators and consider replacing the far-side indicator with a near-side indicator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following investigation, I can confirm that the pedestrian stage of the crossing cycle is indicated to pedestrians by a far side indicator. The local authority will request that Transport for Greater Manchester undertake a review, with a request to replace the far side indicator with a near side indicator. This has the advantage that pedestrians waiting to cross will look towards the oncoming traffic when seeking confirmation from the indicator to cross.”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Replace existing nearby lanterns with Holophane 114 LED lighting units to improve visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your request of making the junction safer to prevent future deaths, I can confirm that there was an improvement scheme under 278 works to improve Great Moor Street (Sept 2016), to which street lighting is associated to.”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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 is responsible for reviewing and potentially replacing the pedestrian crossing’s far-side indicator with a near-side indicator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following investigation, I can confirm that the pedestrian stage of the crossing cycle is indicated to pedestrians by a far side indicator. The local authority will request that Transport for Greater Manchester undertake a review, with a request to replace the far side indicator with a near side indicator. This has the advantage that pedestrians waiting to cross will look towards the oncoming traffic when seeking confirmation from the indicator to cross.”

Source location

Response from Bolton Council
Page 4 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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