PFD report

Esther HartSilver · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Feb 2017•Inner South 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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
16

Described in 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 raised4

  1. Junction design permitting left-turning traffic from Lane 2 to cross straight-ahead traffic
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
  2. Lack of road-surface warning of turning-traffic conflict
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safety
  3. Failure of junction information to warn cyclists of vehicles turning across the bus lane
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road 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.8

  1. Action

    Progress the Camberwell Green junction safety scheme, including cyclist and pedestrian safety measures, through consultation, design updates and final road safety audit.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  2. Action

    Install raised entry treatment at the Orpheus Street–Denmark Hill junction to encourage vehicles to slow when turning.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  3. Action

    Paint cycle symbols at the Denmark Hill–Orpheus Street junction to highlight cyclists in the nearside lane.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkStated 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

    Changes affecting the Strategic Route Network require TfL approval and cannot be implemented unilaterally.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking 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

Junction design permitting left-turning traffic from Lane 2 to cross straight-ahead traffic

Wider context from the report

“The junction predisposes itself to the very risk materialising that sadly caused Miss HartSilver’s death. Traffic wishing to turn left may, at the moment, turn left from Lane 2. This means that they cross a lane of traffic that may well be travelling straight ahead. Miss HartSilver was an experienced London cyclist and the HGV driver an experienced driver also. It is the junction that is unusual. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Unsafe road design and layout.

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 road-surface warning of turning-traffic conflict

Wider context from the report

“It may not be unusual for a lorry turning into a side road to have to cross a bus lane. The junction can be distinguished from this, however. This is a more major junction than it appears. It is a major because it feeds all the traffic that would have wanted to turn right as well as left, from a very busy road into what is effectively a side road. Further, it has a pedestrian crossing just before it. This means that although there is an early sign warning traffic of the banned right turn and to turn left instead, there are mandatory zig-zag lines on the road leading up to the junction and therefore there is no signage on the road surface warning any user of the potential for conflict. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety.

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 of junction information to warn cyclists of vehicles turning across the bus lane

Wider context from the report

“I am told if the bus lane were to end earlier there would still be a risk with larger vehicles needing to swing into lane 2, from lane 1, in turning the corner. It would not reduce the risk to zero. I understand all that. If I was cycling in that bus lane, even having seen the sign saying that there is a left turn for those wanting to turn right ahead, I would not be reminded of the risk of vehicles turning anything in the road layout. There is also a significant amount of traffic turning across a bus lane. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; 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

Ambiguous road-surface indication of the bus-lane termination

Wider context from the report

“The red coloured road surface that is present in the bus lane goes across this junction and will make vehicles think it is still a bus lane. Officially, the bus lane stops because the zig-zags take over as there is a pedestrian crossing present immediately before the turning on the left. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety.

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

Progress the Camberwell Green junction safety scheme, including cyclist and pedestrian safety measures, through consultation, design updates and final road safety audit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Orpheus Street junction is close to the junctions of Denmark Hill/Coldharbour Lane and Denmark Hill/Camberwell Church Street/Camberwell New Road junction adjacent to Camberwell Green and regularly referred to by that name. The latter Camberwell Green junction is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) for which TfL is the highway and traffic authority. It has the highest collision record in the area and is the 14th highest ranked junction in London based on recorded collisions for the 36 months to the end of December 2015. TfL has therefore been progressing with proposals to improve road safety at this junction, and as part of the design and approvals process recently received traffic management endorsement from TfL’s Road Space Performance Group on 16th March 2017 to proceed to public consultation.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Transport-for-London
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

Install raised entry treatment at the Orpheus Street–Denmark Hill junction to encourage vehicles to slow when turning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. The installation of entry treatment (whereby the entrance to the side road is raised to the level of the adjacent footway, to encourage vehicles turning into the side road to slow down on the approach) on Orpheus Street at the junction with Denmark Hill. The photograph below shows the entry treatment applied to another junction within the borough and it is intended to apply a similar treatment to the junction of Orpheus Street/Denmark Hill.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Paint cycle symbols at the Denmark Hill–Orpheus Street junction to highlight cyclists in the nearside lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Cycle symbol markings being painted on Denmark Hill, at the junction with Orpheus Street to highlight presence of cyclists using the nearside lane;”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Install durable cycle-symbol markings near the Denmark Hill–Orpheus Street junction to highlight cyclists in the nearside lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The following long-term safety improvements were agreed to proceed and be implemented by Southwark as part of the Denmark Hill town centre upgrade project (during 2017-18), subject to design, feasibility and safety audit:”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Remove the southbound bus-lane line between bus stop Q and the existing pelican-crossing zig-zag lines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The removal of bus lane line on the southbound lane between bus stop Q and the existing pelican crossing zig-zag lines; and”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Install left-turn and through-lane arrows between bus stop Q and the existing pelican-crossing zig-zag lines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. The installation of left turn lane arrows on the nearside lane, and through arrows on the offside lane between bus stop Q and the existing pelican crossing zig-zag lines, subject to available space.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Install durable left-turn and through-lane arrows between the relocated bus stop Q and the pelican-crossing zig-zag lines.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The following long-term safety improvements were agreed to proceed and be implemented by Southwark as part of the Denmark Hill town centre upgrade project (during 2017-18), subject to design, feasibility and safety audit:”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Install an advisory sign specifying left-turn-only movement except buses in the nearside lane and through movement only in the offside lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The following long-term safety improvements were agreed to proceed and be implemented by Southwark as part of the Denmark Hill town centre upgrade project (during 2017-18), subject to design, feasibility and safety audit:”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Changes affecting the Strategic Route Network require TfL approval and cannot be implemented unilaterally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Denmark Hill is also part of the designated Strategic Route Network (SRN) in London. This means that although Southwark is the Highway and Traffic Authority for this area that it must notify TfL of any proposals which may have an impact on the Strategic Route Network. TfL must give approval to any such proposals before they can be implemented. As such, any changes to road design in this area cannot be made unilaterally if they may impact on the SRN, which anything altering the traffic flow along Denmark Hill may do.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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 proposed interim sign could not be installed because no suitable location existed given the bus stops and pelican crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The sign proposed in the long-term solution was considered as an interim option but, unfortunately, there were no suitable locations to site the sign due to the current positions of the bus stops and the pelican crossing.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-Council
Page 3 · 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.8

  1. 1

    Obtain traffic management endorsement to proceed to public consultation for the Camberwell Green junction safety proposals.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  2. 2

    Resurface the Transport for London Road Network carriageway at the Camberwell Green junction.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  3. 3

    Complete a Road Safety Audit of the Camberwell Green junction safety scheme designs.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  4. 4

    Continue providing financial and technical support to develop safety improvements along the A215 Denmark Hill and Camberwell Road corridor.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  5. 5

    Relocate the controlled pedestrian crossing on Orpheus Street northwards towards Butterfly Walk shopping centre.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  6. 6

    Resurface the Denmark Hill carriageway and renew the footways.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  7. 7

    Keep cyclist and vulnerable-road-user safety as a major consideration in designing, consulting on and implementing future Camberwell improvements.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  8. 8

    Introduce two new pelican crossings near Love Walk and Camberwell Passage.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkStated 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

    Reintroducing the right turn was not achievable because right-turn collision risks and resulting congestion raised safety concerns.

    Stated by London Borough of SouthwarkUnable 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

Obtain traffic management endorsement to proceed to public consultation for the Camberwell Green junction safety proposals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Orpheus Street junction is close to the junctions of Denmark Hill/Coldharbour Lane and Denmark Hill/Camberwell Church Street/Camberwell New Road junction adjacent to Camberwell Green and regularly referred to by that name. The latter Camberwell Green junction is part of the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) for which TfL is the highway and traffic authority. It has the highest collision record in the area and is the 14th highest ranked junction in London based on recorded collisions for the 36 months to the end of December 2015. TfL has therefore been progressing with proposals to improve road safety at this junction, and as part of the design and approvals process recently received traffic management endorsement from TfL’s Road Space Performance Group on 16th March 2017 to proceed to public consultation.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Transport-for-London
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

Resurface the Transport for London Road Network carriageway at the Camberwell Green junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, we plan to resurface the TLRN carriageway. This should improve the level of comfort for cyclists, and reduce the risk of sudden manoeuvres to avoid defects in the road surface.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Transport-for-London
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

Complete a Road Safety Audit of the Camberwell Green junction safety scheme designs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The designs have been subject to a Road Safety Audit. We are of the view that the TLRN scheme will deliver a marked improvement in the conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. The designs will be updated following feedback from the public consultation, which is planned for June 2017. A further Road Safety Audit will then be undertaken on the final design in advance of construction.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Transport-for-London
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

Continue providing financial and technical support to develop safety improvements along the A215 Denmark Hill and Camberwell Road corridor.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TfL will therefore continue to provide financial and technical support to Southwark to develop further safety improvements to the A215 Denmark Hill and Camberwell Road corridor, which includes the Orpheus Street junction.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Transport-for-London
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

Relocate the controlled pedestrian crossing on Orpheus Street northwards towards Butterfly Walk shopping centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The relocation of Orpheus Street controlled pedestrian crossing northwards towards Butterfly Walk shopping centre;”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-Council
Page 5 · 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

Resurface the Denmark Hill carriageway and renew the footways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Resurfacing the road.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-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

Keep cyclist and vulnerable-road-user safety as a major consideration in designing, consulting on and implementing future Camberwell improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The safety of cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) should continue to be a major consideration at this junction when the final decisions are made about the larger planned improvement of Camberwell.”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-Council
Page 1 · 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

Introduce two new pelican crossings near Love Walk and Camberwell Passage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The introduction of two new pelican crossings (by Love Walk and Camberwell Passage);”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-Council
Page 5 · 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

Reintroducing the right turn was not achievable because right-turn collision risks and resulting congestion raised safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“(a) The introduction of two way working on Daneville Road would reduce the capacity on Denmark Hill, as it reduces the exit onto Denmark Hill from two lanes to one lane adding to delays. These delays would primarily affect buses that use this location to terminate. Discussions and consideration of these proposals have concluded that there are no other viable locations in the immediate area for this facility for the termination of buses. Delays to buses would also clearly impact on other traffic using the roads in this area and increase congestion even further;”

Source location

2017-0052-Response-by-Southwark-Council
Page 5 · 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

Official responses located
2/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026