PFD report

Daniel Bancroft · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Nov 2020•Cumbria

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 raised3

  1. Failure to control traffic speed on the initial stretch of the A66
  2. Lack of measures discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to keep pedestrians out of cycle paths through clear safety guidance
  3. Lack of lighting on the initial stretch of the A66
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart 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.

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.4

  1. Action

    Assess the suitability of existing road lighting and speed-limit extents at the A66 Stairnburn Bypass in daylight and darkness.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 December 2020.
  2. Action

    Investigate options to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 December 2020.
  3. Action

    Consult Cumbria Constabulary on a Traffic Regulation Order to restrict pedestrian use of the bypass.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 December 2020.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    The existing road-lighting extent is appropriate and guidance-compliant, so no additional lighting is proposed; further lighting may encourage pedestrian use.

    Stated by National HighwaysExisting 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 control traffic speed on the initial stretch of the A66

Wider context from the report

“1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage 2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout. 3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66 4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66 ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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 measures discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66

Wider context from the report

“1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage 2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout. 3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66 4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66 ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to keep pedestrians out of cycle paths through clear safety guidance.

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 on the initial stretch of the A66

Wider context from the report

“1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage 2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout. 3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66 4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66 ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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

Assess the suitability of existing road lighting and speed-limit extents at the A66 Stairnburn Bypass in daylight and darkness.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have visited the site in both daylight and dark conditions to assess the suitability of the current road lighting provision and speed limit extents. The illuminated section at the end of the bypass ensures consistent and uniform lighting levels around the full footprint of the junction, and approaches, within the restricted 30mph speed limit. This is in line with the guidance and recommendations contained within BS EN 5489-1 ‘Design of Road Lighting’.”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Investigate options to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have investigated the options to reduce any potential conflict between motor vehicles and pedestrians along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass at this location. Whilst the bypass route was constructed as a rural All Purpose Trunk Road it was not intended to support pedestrian traffic and has a robust physical layout at the junction to direct pedestrians and vulnerable road users along the line of the original route (Stairnburn Road) and hence away from the bypass.”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Consult Cumbria Constabulary on a Traffic Regulation Order to restrict pedestrian use of the bypass.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst there is a clear and secure routing for pedestrians along Stairnburn Road there are no physical barriers or signing to indicate that pedestrians should not use the route of the bypass. This is a common layout in relation to rural routes where no footpath facilities are in place and does not generally cause any road safety concerns. However, there is now evidence to indicate that there are issues with the presence of pedestrians at this location, consequently Highways England are proposing to consult with Cumbria Constabulary with a view to making a legal order to prohibit pedestrians from using the bypass, with associated regulatory signing, together with pedestrian direction signs”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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 pedestrian-direction signs along existing footpaths at the roundabout and along Stairnburn Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst there is a clear and secure routing for pedestrians along Stairnburn Road there are no physical barriers or signing to indicate that pedestrians should not use the route of the bypass. This is a common layout in relation to rural routes where no footpath facilities are in place and does not generally cause any road safety concerns. However, there is now evidence to indicate that there are issues with the presence of pedestrians at this location, consequently Highways England are proposing to consult with Cumbria Constabulary with a view to making a legal order to prohibit pedestrians from using the bypass, with associated regulatory signing, together with pedestrian direction signs”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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 existing road-lighting extent is appropriate and guidance-compliant, so no additional lighting is proposed; further lighting may encourage pedestrian use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The current road lighting provides the interface with the roundabout lighting, specifically on the westbound approach, and supports the lighting infrastructure along the adjacent road network. Having assessed the site, we have concluded that the current extent of the road lighting at this location is appropriate and in line with guidance outlined within BS EN 5489-1 and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Technology appraisal guidance TA 501(formerly TA 49/07) ‘Road Lighting Appraisal’, and therefore no action is proposed. Lighting additional lengths of the bypass may also further encourage pedestrian use.”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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 existing highway layout and speed-limit extents are appropriate, so no further action is proposed to address traffic speed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The roundabout junction provides a physical speed reduction feature which serves to moderate speeds as drivers enter the bypass. In normal circumstances the national speed restriction (and signing) would be located at the interface with the roundabout. However, at this location, the 30mph speed restriction already extends a short distance along the bypass to coincide with the start / end of the road lighting. Having assessed the site, we have concluded the current highway layout and speed limit extents are appropriate at this location and consequently no action is proposed.”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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 road network and collision concerned are outside the County Council’s responsibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having examined the report, I wish to advise that the Road Traffic Collision that resulted in the death of Mr Bancroft occurred entirely on the road network that is the responsibility of the Highways England Authority.”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Cumbria-County-Council-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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

Highways England will address the safety issue raised because it concerns its road network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for bringing this to our attention, but in this case Highways England will address the issue raised.”

Source location

2020-0244-Response-from-Cumbria-County-Council-Redacted.pdf
Page 1 · response
Published 24 December 2020

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