PFD report

Rowan Lloyd · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Dec 2018•Dorset

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised3

  1. Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular trafficPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. Lack of safe cyclist accommodation at the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safetyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  3. Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision at the junction
    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.1

  1. Action

    Carry out the wider A354 route study and consider the junction crossing, cyclist stop-line and corridor safety recommendations within it.

    Stated by Dorset CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 12 May 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Pedestrian crossings and cyclists’ advanced stop lines cannot yet be committed to because the wider route study and available funding remain uncertain.

    Stated by Dorset 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

Lack of barriers separating the road and pavement on the northern approach to the junction

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. I heard evidence that the junction of Portland Road, Murley Road and Langton Avenue is a particularly busy junction during the rush hours and during the “school runs”, as Portland Road is the main road into Portland and this junction is close to a number of schools. However, I heard evidence that there are no crossing points for pedestrians at the junction, no advanced stop line for cyclists, no cycle lane and no barriers between the road and the pavement on the approach to the traffic signals. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. Pedestrians have to “guess” when the lights are in their favour, depending upon the road they intend to cross at the junction; there is no pelican crossing at the junction to assist pedestrians, many of who are of school age, to cross safely at this junction. ii. There is no barrier between the pavement and the road as the junction is approached from the north. This allows pedestrians and cyclists to potentially cross between cars that are held at the junction by the lights, and would mean cars travelling in a northerly direction up Portland Road would have an obscured view of those crossing the road between stationary vehicles. iii. There is no accommodation for cyclists. Given that many of the cyclists using this road will be of school age, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that cyclists can use the road safely and be clearly seen by drivers using Portland Road, perhaps by way of dedicated cycle lanes and/or advanced stop lines at the traffic signals. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic; 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

Lack of safe cyclist accommodation at the junction

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. I heard evidence that the junction of Portland Road, Murley Road and Langton Avenue is a particularly busy junction during the rush hours and during the “school runs”, as Portland Road is the main road into Portland and this junction is close to a number of schools. However, I heard evidence that there are no crossing points for pedestrians at the junction, no advanced stop line for cyclists, no cycle lane and no barriers between the road and the pavement on the approach to the traffic signals. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. Pedestrians have to “guess” when the lights are in their favour, depending upon the road they intend to cross at the junction; there is no pelican crossing at the junction to assist pedestrians, many of who are of school age, to cross safely at this junction. ii. There is no barrier between the pavement and the road as the junction is approached from the north. This allows pedestrians and cyclists to potentially cross between cars that are held at the junction by the lights, and would mean cars travelling in a northerly direction up Portland Road would have an obscured view of those crossing the road between stationary vehicles. iii. There is no accommodation for cyclists. Given that many of the cyclists using this road will be of school age, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that cyclists can use the road safely and be clearly seen by drivers using Portland Road, perhaps by way of dedicated cycle lanes and/or advanced stop lines at the traffic signals. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety; 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

Lack of safe pedestrian crossing provision at the junction

Wider context from the report

“1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. I heard evidence that the junction of Portland Road, Murley Road and Langton Avenue is a particularly busy junction during the rush hours and during the “school runs”, as Portland Road is the main road into Portland and this junction is close to a number of schools. However, I heard evidence that there are no crossing points for pedestrians at the junction, no advanced stop line for cyclists, no cycle lane and no barriers between the road and the pavement on the approach to the traffic signals. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. Pedestrians have to “guess” when the lights are in their favour, depending upon the road they intend to cross at the junction; there is no pelican crossing at the junction to assist pedestrians, many of who are of school age, to cross safely at this junction. ii. There is no barrier between the pavement and the road as the junction is approached from the north. This allows pedestrians and cyclists to potentially cross between cars that are held at the junction by the lights, and would mean cars travelling in a northerly direction up Portland Road would have an obscured view of those crossing the road between stationary vehicles. iii. There is no accommodation for cyclists. Given that many of the cyclists using this road will be of school age, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that cyclists can use the road safely and be clearly seen by drivers using Portland Road, perhaps by way of dedicated cycle lanes and/or advanced stop lines at the traffic signals. ”

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

Carry out the wider A354 route study and consider the junction crossing, cyclist stop-line and corridor safety recommendations within it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A pre-feasibility study of the signalled junction between Portland Road, Merley Road and Langton Avenue has been completed; a copy has been enclosed for your information. This study was completed in conjunction with a wider study that is being carried out of the A354 route between Portland and Weymouth.”

Source location

2018-0380-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 2019

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 crossings and cyclists’ advanced stop lines cannot yet be committed to because the wider route study and available funding remain uncertain.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you will read in the pre-feasibility study, recommendations have been made for pedestrian crossings and advanced stop lines for cyclists to be incorporated into the signalled junction. However, we are not able to commit to these works being carried out to the full extent of the A354 route study is not yet known. Funding for any improvement works on the A354 will be limited and will need to be focused on areas where the safety benefits will be greatest. The recommendations of the pre-feasibility study and safety along the whole corridor will be considered as part of the route study.”

Source location

2018-0380-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 2019

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

    Complete hatched lining on footways approaching the A354 signals to encourage pedestrians to avoid the footway edge.

    Stated by Dorset CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 12 May 2019.

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 hatched lining on footways approaching the A354 signals to encourage pedestrians to avoid the footway edge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The proposed hatched lining on the footways have been completed. As described in previous letter this lining is hoped to encourage people to avoid using the edge of the footway on the A354 approaches to the signals.”

Source location

2018-0380-Response-by-Dorset-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 12 May 2019

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