PFD report

David Stewart MOORE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Dec 2019•County Durham and Darlington

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
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 raised2

  1. Failure to set a vehicle speed limit compatible with pedestrian detection and stopping distances
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads
  2. Lack of lighting at a pedestrian crossing point
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risksPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Additional street lighting or engineering measures were not considered appropriate because risk assessment, accident history, visibility and warning signage indicated existing controls were sufficient.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 set a vehicle speed limit compatible with pedestrian detection and stopping distances

Wider context from the report

“The section of the A693 where the collision occurred is: • a de facto pedestrian crossing point connecting footpaths intersecting that road; • an area to which the national speed limit applies (60mph for cars); • very dark at night, being unaffected by ambient illumination; • without street lighting The material section of road is a natural crossing point for pedestrians travelling between two footpaths leading between the collision site: and (i) the village of No Place, to the south of the A693 and (ii) the village of Kip Hill, to the north of the A693. I accepted the following evidence about the material section of road (given by a police Collision Investigator): (i) the road is approximately 12m wide, and after nightfall is “in complete darkness”, being bordered by dense trees and unaffected by discernible ambient light; (ii) drivers are entirely reliant on headlamp illumination to detect pedestrians; (iii) in reliance on his own dipped headlamps, a driver could gain first sight of a static pedestrian in the carriageway at a distance of no more than 40m from that pedestrian; and (iv) a motor car travelling at 60mph would require significantly more than 40m (around 80m) to come to a halt (taking into account driver reaction time and mechanical stopping distance). In this case, the driver first saw the deceased “just prior to the collision” when the latter was running “with large strides” towards the southern side of the A693. Despite emergency braking, he failed to avoid the collision. It was impossible to stop in the available distance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads.

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 lighting at a pedestrian crossing point

Wider context from the report

“The section of the A693 where the collision occurred is: • a de facto pedestrian crossing point connecting footpaths intersecting that road; • an area to which the national speed limit applies (60mph for cars); • very dark at night, being unaffected by ambient illumination; • without street lighting The material section of road is a natural crossing point for pedestrians travelling between two footpaths leading between the collision site: and (i) the village of No Place, to the south of the A693 and (ii) the village of Kip Hill, to the north of the A693. I accepted the following evidence about the material section of road (given by a police Collision Investigator): (i) the road is approximately 12m wide, and after nightfall is “in complete darkness”, being bordered by dense trees and unaffected by discernible ambient light; (ii) drivers are entirely reliant on headlamp illumination to detect pedestrians; (iii) in reliance on his own dipped headlamps, a driver could gain first sight of a static pedestrian in the carriageway at a distance of no more than 40m from that pedestrian; and (iv) a motor car travelling at 60mph would require significantly more than 40m (around 80m) to come to a halt (taking into account driver reaction time and mechanical stopping distance). In this case, the driver first saw the deceased “just prior to the collision” when the latter was running “with large strides” towards the southern side of the A693. Despite emergency braking, he failed to avoid the collision. It was impossible to stop in the available distance. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

Open source report

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

Additional street lighting or engineering measures were not considered appropriate because risk assessment, accident history, visibility and warning signage indicated existing controls were sufficient.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The A693 is a principal road through the County which is primarily rural in nature and follows the topography of the land through which it passes. The road bisects many Public Footpaths, Bridleways and footways linking communities. Along the route there are sections of the road which have systems of street lighting where there are areas of conflict such as at junctions and roundabouts. However, the street lighting does not cover all pedestrian or bridleway crossing points. The non-provision of street lighting along the route was considered and examined through a robust Risk Assessment process between 2013 and 2015, with this location being assessed in 2013.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 29 December 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.5

  1. 1

    Replace the junction-ahead warning sign with a larger sign.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 December 2019.
  2. 2

    Consider introducing an additional westbound pedestrian-crossing warning sign west of the accident location.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2019.
  3. 3

    Consider formalising or stopping up the informal pedestrian route on the southern side of the A693.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2019.
  4. 4

    Rotate the combined road-narrows-ahead and pedestrian-crossing warning sign plates to face westbound traffic.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2019.
  5. 5

    Provide dropped kerbs on the northern side of the A693 to mirror those on the southern side.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 29 December 2019.

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

  1. 1

    A formal crossing cannot be introduced because design standards do not permit it and the Department for Transport considers it potentially dangerous.

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

    Engineering measures cannot ensure that accidents will not recur where safety depends on unpredictable human decisions by pedestrians and drivers.

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

    A subway cannot practicably be introduced at this location because of the topography.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  4. 4

    Changing the current junction layout is not practicable because removing the climbing lane could increase unsafe overtaking and riskier driver behaviour.

    Stated by Durham County 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

Replace the junction-ahead warning sign with a larger sign.

Verbatim wording from the response

“5. Observation / Recommendation: With reference to the previous point, the junction ahead warning sign provided for approaching road users appears small given the 60mph speed limit. If the junction is to remain to operate as it does currently, a larger sign should be provided.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 29 December 2019

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

Consider introducing an additional westbound pedestrian-crossing warning sign west of the accident location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. | No warning sign is provided for westbound road users for the pedestrian crossing immediately east of the accident location. As this crossing appears similar to the crossing further west (for which signs are provided) the provision of warning signs should be considered. | An additional warning sign indicating that pedestrians may be crossing will be considered for introduction west of the accident location as part of future highway maintenance work.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 December 2019

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

Consider formalising or stopping up the informal pedestrian route on the southern side of the A693.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Observation / Recommendation: The informal pedestrian route on the south side, which has been created through the trees to provide a more direct route to cross the A693, should be appropriately ‘stopped up’ to prevent pedestrians being led to an inappropriate location from where to cross.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 2019

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

Rotate the combined road-narrows-ahead and pedestrian-crossing warning sign plates to face westbound traffic.

Verbatim wording from the response

“6. Observation / Recommendation: The sign plates which are rotated on the same assembly (road narrows ahead & pedestrians crossing warning signs) should be rotated to face oncoming westbound traffic.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 29 December 2019

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

Provide dropped kerbs on the northern side of the A693 to mirror those on the southern side.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Observation / Recommendation: The location of the existing pedestrian crossing should be assessed and, if still deemed appropriate, then dropped kerbs on the north side of the A693 should be provided to mirror those already in place on the south side.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 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

A formal crossing cannot be introduced because design standards do not permit it and the Department for Transport considers it potentially dangerous.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Design Standards and Regulations do not permit the introduction of a formalised crossing such as a Zebra or Puffin Crossing at this location. The Department for Transport advise indicating that such a crossing could be dangerous. It would not be practicable to introduce a subway at this location due to the topography. However, even the presence of a subway does not remove the possibility of an accident occurring. This is evidenced by a relatively recent incident a few miles east on this road, where a pedestrian chose to cross the road rather than use the subway which ran beneath his chosen crossing point.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 29 December 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

Engineering measures cannot ensure that accidents will not recur where safety depends on unpredictable human decisions by pedestrians and drivers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where there is an element of human interaction with the highway and its users, it is not practicable or possible to introduce engineering measures to ensure that an accident will not re-occur. Unfortunately, this may be due to any one or more of many indeterminate scenarios such as a poor decision made in judging and timing when it is safe to cross. Unlike most locations, this crossing point does benefit from warning signage to advise approaching motorists. These signs are manufactured from a highly reflective material which makes the sign face visible even if the vehicle is being operated on dipped-beam headlights.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 5 · response
Published 29 December 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

A subway cannot practicably be introduced at this location because of the topography.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Design Standards and Regulations do not permit the introduction of a formalised crossing such as a Zebra or Puffin Crossing at this location. The Department for Transport advise indicating that such a crossing could be dangerous. It would not be practicable to introduce a subway at this location due to the topography. However, even the presence of a subway does not remove the possibility of an accident occurring. This is evidenced by a relatively recent incident a few miles east on this road, where a pedestrian chose to cross the road rather than use the subway which ran beneath his chosen crossing point.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 29 December 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

Changing the current junction layout is not practicable because removing the climbing lane could increase unsafe overtaking and riskier driver behaviour.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Observation / Recommendation: Given the A693 in this location is a wide single 2 + 1 lane carriageway (two lanes westbound & one lane eastbound), guidance would suggest that simple priority junctions should not be provided on a road of this type without the appropriate turning facilities. The access road leading to Park Nook Farm is considered a simple junction and as turning facilities are not currently provided, measures should be considered in order to provide appropriate access.”

Source location

Response from Durham County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 29 December 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026