Mr Leslie Bingham · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Jul 2018•South Yorkshire (Western)

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

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

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 raised1

  1. Risk of pedestrians being misled by conflicting pedestrian signals when crossing the northbound lanes of the A61
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. the Council

    Install a Visirail pedestrian barrier around the junction corner to deter pedestrians from crossing at the hazardous location.

  2. the Council

    Re-aligned the narrow-field pedestrian signal units to minimise misleading signal views.

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

  1. the Council

    Further realignment or relocation of the pedestrian signals is not feasible because it would compromise crossing visibility, accessibility, or available island space.

    Unable 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

Risk of pedestrians being misled by conflicting pedestrian signals when crossing the northbound lanes of the A61

Wider context from the report

“The evidence showed that there was a significant possibility that a pedestrian approaching the A61 from Owlerton Green adjacent to the Pizza Hut may be misled by a green light intended for pedestrians crossing the mouth of Owlerton Green and thus miss a red light prohibiting them crossing the northbound lanes of the A61. I therefore make this report. ”

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

Install a Visirail pedestrian barrier around the junction corner to deter pedestrians from crossing at the hazardous location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst further alterations to the signals on the triangular island do not appear to be feasible, an effective alternative would be to deter pedestrians from cutting across the slip road in the wrong location and guide them to the designated crossing point. This can be done by providing a length of barrier rail around this corner of the junction.”

Source location

2018-0228-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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

Re-aligned the narrow-field pedestrian signal units to minimise misleading signal views.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The PNS at this location are ‘Narrow Field of View’ units (for the Green Man display), to overcome the possibility of misread at the crossing points. Their alignment was checked and they were re-aligned post installation in 2015 to minimise this problem. It was subsequently noted when approaching the crossings from the tactile paving at the correct crossing positions opposite the island on Owlerton Green, there is no longer such potential for the PNS to be misread (see the photograph below).”

Source location

2018-0228-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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

Further realignment or relocation of the pedestrian signals is not feasible because it would compromise crossing visibility, accessibility, or available island space.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There does not appear to be any scope to further re-align the PNS, without losing the benefit of this signal for pedestrians crossing Owlerton Green. Additionally, there is no scope to move the PNS to an alternative location. This is due to the small size of the island and the need to cater for blind and partially sighted pedestrians, who need to be able to find the PNS and push button below it on their right-hand side when standing on the tactile paving waiting to cross.”

Source location

2018-0228-Response-by-Sheffield-City-Council_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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