PFD report

Francis Nelson GOLDING · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Apr 2014•Inner North London

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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Particular vulnerability of cyclists at the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. Insufficient space for cycles in the oncoming bus lane
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safetyPart of recurring concern: Insufficient width for safe cyclist passage
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.2

  1. Action

    Commission traffic consultants to model signals across the Holborn area scheme, including Vernon Place and Southampton Row, and assess options for improving cyclist facilities.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 April 2014.
  2. Action

    Permit cyclists to use the Bloomsbury Way contra-flow bus lane with bollards, signing and a clear box junction under an experimental order.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 April 2014.

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

  1. Position

    Implementation of major junction changes cannot occur immediately because it depends on consultation, funding and coordination with other projects.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenUnable 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

Particular vulnerability of cyclists at the junction

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest, I heard evidence of three fatalities at this junction in the last ten years, each involving a cyclist colliding with a left turning vehicle. Whilst of course every road user has a responsibility to take care at junctions, it does seem that this junction leaves cyclists particularly vulnerable. There is also, I heard, an issue with the oncoming bus lane not leaving any additional space for cycles. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road 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

Insufficient space for cycles in the oncoming bus lane

Wider context from the report

“During the course of the inquest, I heard evidence of three fatalities at this junction in the last ten years, each involving a cyclist colliding with a left turning vehicle. Whilst of course every road user has a responsibility to take care at junctions, it does seem that this junction leaves cyclists particularly vulnerable. There is also, I heard, an issue with the oncoming bus lane not leaving any additional space for cycles. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety; Insufficient width for safe cyclist passage.

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

Commission traffic consultants to model signals across the Holborn area scheme, including Vernon Place and Southampton Row, and assess options for improving cyclist facilities.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A brief will be issued to traffic consultants by the end of May 2014 to invite tenders for the next stage of development. Consultants will be commissioned to undertake traffic signal modelling for the whole Holborn area based scheme area, which includes the Southampton Row/Vernon Place junction. Under the current programme it is anticipated that consultants will be appointed in mid June 2014. A range of options will be considered as part of this commission which will explore possibilities to significantly improve facilities for cyclists. This stage of the process is expected to take 9 months.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 April 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

Permit cyclists to use the Bloomsbury Way contra-flow bus lane with bollards, signing and a clear box junction under an experimental order.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where it is possible for Camden to implement changes we do so. One of the most recent examples, which is also referred to in the report, is allowing cyclists to use the contra-flow bus lane on Bloomsbury Way. When the bus priority scheme was first implemented, in 2009, cyclists were not permitted to use the contra-flow bus lane as, due to lack of road space and issues with junction capacity, the bus lane could not be widened to safely accommodate cyclists passing buses. This resulted in cyclists travelling west having to use the Holborn gyratory via Drake Street, Proctor Street and High Holborn to re-join the corridor at New Oxford Street, which has been raised as a concern by cyclists.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 14 April 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

Implementation of major junction changes cannot occur immediately because it depends on consultation, funding and coordination with other projects.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A brief will be issued to traffic consultants by the end of May 2014 to invite tenders for the next stage of development. Consultants will be commissioned to undertake traffic signal modelling for the whole Holborn area based scheme area, which includes the Southampton Row/Vernon Place junction. Under the current programme it is anticipated that consultants will be appointed in mid June 2014. A range of options will be considered as part of this commission which will explore possibilities to significantly improve facilities for cyclists. This stage of the process is expected to take 9 months.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 April 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

Collision data shows no consistent pattern at the junction requiring targeted safety action based on the reported cyclist vulnerability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Collision statistics As part of Camden’s approach to improving road safety, officers undertake a robust analysis of casualty data for the whole borough, to identify those locations (corridors and neighbourhoods) with the highest number of KSI (killed and seriously injured) over the most recent three year period. This analysis includes looking at a level of detail that will enable officers to identify patterns or common issues, such as being a ‘left hook’ issue or all collisions occurring at a particular time of day (light or dark). This is the standard industry approach and is considered a sufficient period of time to pick up trends and identify areas of concern, not least to reflect that as traffic and vehicle movement patterns change over time, situations can be very different from longer periods ago.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 April 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

Significant signal changes require Transport for London’s agreement and implementation, and it can veto highway works affecting the strategic road network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The road network in Camden is large and complex with a number of different demands and it is necessary for Camden to take a strategic view of that network when implementing change and developing proposals. Implementing changes to any signal junction on the central London network impacts upon the wider area, and the result is that no significant change at any one location can or should be considered in isolation. Furthermore, the introduction of such changes is not solely within the control of Camden as it would require working closely with and approval from TfL, particularly in relation to what the wider impacts would be. I explain the wider roles of each authority below.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 April 2014

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.2

  1. 1

    Complete lagging anti-skid surfacing across the junction to address collision risks.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 April 2014.
  2. 2

    Develop the Holborn area strategy with the Camden Cycling Campaign and collect traffic, cycle and pedestrian data to inform safer improvement proposals.

    Stated by London Borough of CamdenStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 April 2014.

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 lagging anti-skid surfacing across the junction to address collision risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the ten year data that was referred to in the report and at the inquest this shows that, prior to the collision involving Mr Golding, there were two other collisions which resulted in the death of two cyclists. The previous fatal collisions occurred in 2008 and 2009. Of those two fatalities one involved a cyclist in collision with a left turning vehicle. As the investigation into the circumstances leading to the collision did not result in any recommendations put forward by the Police, officers did not need to take any immediate action. However following a study on the Bloomsbury Way / Theobald’s Road corridor that was undertaken in 2011 officers did make recommendations to address collisions and these measures, lagging anti-skid material across the junction, were completed in 2012.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 April 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

Develop the Holborn area strategy with the Camden Cycling Campaign and collect traffic, cycle and pedestrian data to inform safer improvement proposals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Holborn Area Based Scheme The Holborn area based scheme was already part of our work programme before Mr Golding’s death, driven in significant part by concerns for cyclist safety across the area. Funding had been allocated to develop options for transformative change in the area and deliver significant improvements for pedestrians and cyclists. A scheme of this scale and complexity will necessarily take a significant amount of time to complete in order to understand the wider impacts. Those impacts are not only about delays and congestion but in themselves can have safety implications at other sites, so it is right and proper that we consider matters in this wider holistic way.”

Source location

2014-0136-Response-by-Camden-Council
Page 5 · response
Published 14 April 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026