PFD report

Miriam BOULIA · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 28 Nov 2022•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
14

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 raised2

  1. Unusually high number of similar collisions at the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of recurring collision risks at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. Insufficient pedestrian crossing signal timings 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.10

  1. Action

    Ask scheme designers to consider pedestrian safety options at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
  2. Action

    Undertake further vehicle-speed surveys to assess whether physical speed-reduction measures are required.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
  3. Action

    Consider traffic-calming measures at the junction as part of the wider scheme.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    The proposed junction safety schemes were paused because pandemic-related fare losses created funding constraints pending a long-term Government funding agreement.

    Stated by Transport for LondonUnable 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

Unusually high number of similar collisions at the junction

Wider context from the report

“There have been 21 collisions involving injury at this junction over a recent three-year period, 9 of those involving injury to pedestrians. Of particular concern is that the number of collisions at this junction of a similar nature to that in which Ms Boulia died, is unusually high. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of recurring collision risks at hazardous road locations; 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 pedestrian crossing signal timings at the junction

Wider context from the report

“The current timings of the signals, both at the pedestrian crossing where Ms Boulia died (at the North West side of Curtain Road, which I refer to as crossing 1) and the crossing over Great Eastern Street at the South East side of Curtain Road (by the Old Blue Last pub, which I refer to as crossing 2) do not allow enough time for pedestrians to cross the road safely. The inter-green period (the period when the road traffic’s signals are not at green) at crossing 1 is only 10 seconds, made up of 6 seconds when the pedestrian signal is at green man and 4 seconds of “blackout” or “clearance” period. 10 seconds is insufficient time to allow pedestrians to cross the road safely before the road traffic’s signals change to green. The green man for pedestrians is an invitation to cross, hence the blackout period should allow enough time for any pedestrians who step onto the crossing a moment before the green man goes out to cross the road safely. The current blackout period does not allow for this. Although at crossing 1, the 10 second inter-green period extends to 16 seconds when there is no road traffic filtering from Curtain Road to Great Eastern Street, in practice this is rarely the case. There is no filtering traffic at crossing 2, but the inter-green period is still insufficient to allow pedestrians to cross safely. PC ████████ observed that pedestrians routinely cross on the red man at the crossings at the junction of Great Eastern Street and Curtain Road, probably due to the inadequate inter-green periods. ”

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

Ask scheme designers to consider pedestrian safety options at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“22. Since August 2022, TfL has been meeting with the Department for Transport (‘DfT’) to discuss plans on spending the funding. TfL will now be progressing the scheme for the Safer Junction programme at Great Eastern Street/Shoreditch High Street/Commercial Street. As part of this, TfL will formally include the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction within the scope of this scheme, subject to final approvals with the DfT. The scope of any briefing for the scheme will include asking the designers to consider the best options for pedestrians at this junction. The timescales for this scheme are 2-4 years, subject to funding.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Undertake further vehicle-speed surveys to assess whether physical speed-reduction measures are required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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 traffic-calming measures at the junction as part of the wider scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Progress the Safer Junction scheme and include Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, subject to final Department for Transport approvals.

Verbatim wording from the response

“21. On 30 August 2022, TfL reached a long-term agreement with the Government on funding until 31 March 2024. This has allowed TfL to recommence feasibility and design proposals for various schemes which were paused due to funding constraints during the pandemic.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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 restoring pedestrian guardrail at the junction as part of the wider scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“31. Consideration of restoring PGR to this junction will be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction referred to above.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Arrange a site visit to assess urgent safety improvements proposed for the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“38. TfL was made aware of the proposals in the MPS report on 31 October 2022. TfL is arranging a further site visit for early December 2022 to consider the proposals made in the MPS report and any findings made at the forthcoming inquest. The purpose of this site visit will be for TfL to consider any urgent safety improvements required at this junction.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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 modernising pedestrian signals, including possible countdown signals, as part of the junction scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. Potential improvements to the signal timings;”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Undertake a design review of the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction to identify ways to improve signal operation and provide additional pedestrian crossing time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was observed that a number of pedestrians would cross in gaps against the red signal and therefore a planned review of the operational timings at the junction (see below) will seek to minimise the waiting time for pedestrians as much as practically possible. TfL’s own studies into pedestrian crossing behaviour have shown that compliance with the crossing signals reduces as wait time increases. The wait time at this junction is typical for a major central London junction with similar signal controls (a maximum of 89 seconds and an average of 45 seconds.)”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Review operational timings and SCOOT settings across the Shoreditch Triangle to optimise movement phases, junction coordination and pedestrian waiting times.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TfL will also conduct a review of the operational timings for all traffic signals within the Shoreditch triangle, which includes the location of this tragic fatality. The purpose of this review will be to optimise the green times each traffic, cycle or pedestrian movement (otherwise known as a ‘phases’) receives at each junction. The review will also consider how adjacent junctions are coordinated with each other (known as ‘offsets’) and the waiting times between each successive green signal (known as the ‘cycle time’). All of the signals in this network operate an adaptive signal control system, known as ‘SCOOT’ and TfL will review all of the settings for that system with an objective to minimise the pedestrian waiting times as much as reasonably possible. It is anticipated that this will commence at the start of March 2023.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Progress the Safer Junction scheme, including the Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road junction, through feasibility, design and construction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TfL provided a report to the Coroner to assist with his investigation (please find attached the report). TfL explained in the report that the proposed Safer Junction scheme at Great Eastern Street/Shoreditch High Street/Commercial Street will incorporate the Road Safety scheme at the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road. One proposal put forward was a new layout for this junction. This would seek to align and widen pedestrian crossings to the desire line and implement physical measures to slow speeds around this junction.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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 junction safety schemes were paused because pandemic-related fare losses created funding constraints pending a long-term Government funding agreement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 and subsequent lockdowns devastated TfL’s fares income and meant TfL required emergency Government support to run its day-to-day transport services. Therefore, the proposals referred to above to investigate feasibility proposals for the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, as well as the wider Safer Junction scheme, were paused pending a long-term funding deal.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 2 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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 crossings’ existing signal timings are longer than reported and comply with Department for Transport and TfL standards and guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Period | Timing identified in PFD report (seconds) | Actual on street timing (seconds) Green man | 6 | 6 Black Out | 4 | 5 All Red | 4 | 5 Starting Amber | 2 | 2 Total Intergreen | 10 | 12”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 3 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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.4

  1. 1

    Introduce a 20mph speed limit around the Shoreditch Triangle.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
  2. 2

    Consider including early-release signals for cyclists in the junction modernisation scheme.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
  3. 3

    Enable Intelligent Speed Assistance on existing buses and retrofit the system to 1,200 buses.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2022.
  4. 4

    Inspect the junction, traffic-signal assets, operation and pedestrian safety following the fatal incident through TfL site visits.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 December 2022.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    At current surveyed speeds, signage and road markings are considered sufficient, so additional physical speed-reduction measures are not currently required.

    Stated by Transport for LondonExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    Funding constraints during the pandemic prevented TfL from progressing junction safety feasibility work until a long-term funding agreement was secured.

    Stated by Transport for LondonUnable 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

Introduce a 20mph speed limit around the Shoreditch Triangle.

Verbatim wording from the response

“13. The junction has a mixture of local businesses including a pub on the south-western corner of the junction and a new proposed development on the south-eastern corner. At the junction, there are examples where the street infrastructure acts as a physical barrier to the movement of people. Generally, the junction is dominated by vehicular traffic. However, in the peak periods there is a heavy cycle flow which has no provision. There are also narrow footways adjacent to crossing points, street clutter and relatively high levels of pedestrian flows in this area. In 2017, a 20mph speed limit was introduced around the Shoreditch Triangle.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 3 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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 including early-release signals for cyclists in the junction modernisation scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“c. Potential early release timings for cyclists.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Enable Intelligent Speed Assistance on existing buses and retrofit the system to 1,200 buses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“29. Intelligent Speed Assistance (‘ISA’) has been required on all new buses since 2019 through the Bus Safety Standard. TfL have also enabled a slightly different version of ISA on some of its existing fleet and 1,200 buses have been retrofitted to date. Further retrofitting of 1,800 buses is subject to available funding. Currently around 30% of the London bus fleet has ISA. TfL has published some initial research into ISA.⁸”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 6 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Inspect the junction, traffic-signal assets, operation and pedestrian safety following the fatal incident through TfL site visits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is our standard practice and part of our wider commitment to Vision Zero to organise a site visit to the location of every fatal incident that occurs on TfL’s road network. This is to identify any issues and actions that can be taken immediately to prevent future loss of life.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London
Page 4 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

At current surveyed speeds, signage and road markings are considered sufficient, so additional physical speed-reduction measures are not currently required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“32. In terms of instigating traffic calming measures on this stretch of road, such matters will also be considered as part of the wider scheme for this junction. TfL also reviews the speeds of vehicles on roads where speed limits have been changed. If speeds are not reducing or are not at the speed limit level, consideration can then be given to the use of physical measures to aid speed reduction. The most recent survey for Great Eastern Street shows a reduction in speed to 21mph which is within the category, below 24mph, that the DfT states signage and road markings can be used and that physical measures are not also required. We will undertake further surveys as part of the work highlighted in paragraph 22 to consider again if physical measures are required.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 7 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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

Funding constraints during the pandemic prevented TfL from progressing junction safety feasibility work until a long-term funding agreement was secured.

Verbatim wording from the response

“20. The pandemic devastated TfL’s fares income which meant TfL required emergency Government support to run its transport services. This has been in the form of several short term-agreements with Government. This led to pausing expenditure on non-critical spend for certain projects. Until TfL secured a long-term funding deal, it was vital to keep expenditure controls under continuous review. Therefore the proposals referred to above to investigate feasibility proposals for the junction at Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road, as well as the wider Safer Junction scheme, were also paused pending a long-term funding deal.”

Source location

Response from Transport for London report
Page 5 · response
Published 1 December 2022

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