PFD report

Maria Nekrasova · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 20 Feb 2015•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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised4

  1. Inadequate night-time lighting of the bridge carriageway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
  2. Lack of prevention of pedestrian crossing of the bridge carriageway
  3. Failure to maintain driver visibility of pedestrians in the bridge carriageway during oncoming headlight glare
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.2

  1. Action

    Carry out a detailed investigation of lighting levels and light distribution across Westminster Bridge by August 2015.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 February 2015.
  2. Action

    Consider appropriate or possible alterations to Westminster Bridge lighting after completing the lighting investigation.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 February 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Pedestrian barriers will not be erected because they could isolate pedestrians and create a safety hazard.

    Stated by Transport for LondonDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Inadequate night-time lighting of the bridge carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(2) At night the level of street lighting is low, the lamp standards producing pools of light which have the effect of leaving contrasting areas of the carriageway in relative darkness; ”

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 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 prevention of pedestrian crossing of the bridge carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is nothing to prevent pedestrians crossing the carriageway of the bridge (such as a central fence) and neither is there any protection for pedestrians who have reached the middle of the carriageway (such as a central reservation); ”

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

Failure to maintain driver visibility of pedestrians in the bridge carriageway during oncoming headlight glare

Wider context from the report

“(3) The glare of the headlights of oncoming vehicles makes it impossible for drivers of vehicles crossing the bridge to see pedestrians standing in the carriageway until it is too late to avoid hitting them. ”

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 protection for pedestrians in the middle of the bridge carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is nothing to prevent pedestrians crossing the carriageway of the bridge (such as a central fence) and neither is there any protection for pedestrians who have reached the middle of the carriageway (such as a central reservation); ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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

Carry out a detailed investigation of lighting levels and light distribution across Westminster Bridge by August 2015.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The light output from each of the ‘heritage’ lighting points on the bridge is similar to that provided from conventional street lights. However, TfL will be carrying out a detailed investigation of the lighting levels and the distribution of light over the bridge by August 2015. Following the outcome of the investigation, we will consider what alterations might be appropriate or possible, taking into account the physical constraints of providing additional lighting points across the bridge deck and in such a historic location.”

Source location

2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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 appropriate or possible alterations to Westminster Bridge lighting after completing the lighting investigation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The light output from each of the ‘heritage’ lighting points on the bridge is similar to that provided from conventional street lights. However, TfL will be carrying out a detailed investigation of the lighting levels and the distribution of light over the bridge by August 2015. Following the outcome of the investigation, we will consider what alterations might be appropriate or possible, taking into account the physical constraints of providing additional lighting points across the bridge deck and in such a historic location.”

Source location

2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Pedestrian barriers will not be erected because they could isolate pedestrians and create a safety hazard.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TfL’s policy is a presumption against the provision of pedestrian guardrail, except where there is a proven safety requirement. Having considered this location, and the possible physical segregation of pedestrians from vehicular traffic, the erection of a barrier could potentially create a safety hazard for pedestrians, joggers or cyclists who could become isolated on the wrong side of the barrier. For this reason, no barriers will be erected. Central reservations are usually provided to separate the flow of opposing high speed traffic, to prevent overtaking on the approaches to junctions or at designated pedestrian crossing points.”

Source location

2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 1 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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

Headlight glare is not addressed because it is outside the respondent’s ability to influence or control.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Glare from headlights is not a matter that TfL has any ability to influence or control, and no further comment is made in this respect.”

Source location

2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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 central reserve is not considered appropriate because the bridge has a 30mph limit and no locations justify a pedestrian crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Given that Westminster Bridge is subject to a 30mph speed limit and that there are no junctions or locations across the bridge which justify the provision of a pedestrian crossing, the provision of a central reserve would be inconsistent with other urban locations and TfL do not feel it would be appropriate to install one.”

Source location

2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 1 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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.1

  1. 1

    Consult the public during summer 2015 on the road layout across Westminster Bridge through the Better Junctions programme.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 20 February 2015.

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 the public during summer 2015 on the road layout across Westminster Bridge through the Better Junctions programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will be consulting the public in the summer of 2015 on the road layout across the bridge as part of TfL’s ‘Better Junctions’ works programme. More information can be found at https://www.tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/improvements-and-projects/road-modernisation-plan”

Source location

2015-0141-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 20 February 2015

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