PFD report

Oscar Anthony SEAMAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Jul 2021•Norfolk

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
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 raised3

  1. Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
  2. Inadequate stop-sign control at the crossroads
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  3. Failure to prevent repeated speeding on the road
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.5

  1. Action

    Undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 August 2021.
  2. Action

    Review visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 August 2021.
  3. Action

    Reduce the speed limit to 50 mph.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 August 2021.

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

  1. Position

    STOP markings and signs are not warranted because junction visibility meets applicable national guidance requirements.

    Stated by Norfolk 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

Reduced junction visibility at night and in inclement weather

Wider context from the report

“I am informed that the road where Oscar was killed is the scene of at least 126 road traffic collisions. The speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but this has not deterred people using the road from ignoring the limits. The crossroads where Oscar, who was just 17 years old, emerged onto the main road has give way signs but not stop signs painted on it. The view from one direction appears to be reasonable in daylight but at night, and if the weather is inclement, visibility is reduced. The person who lives on the corner of that junction has had to buttress his garden fence against collisions. The parish council has reported many concerns about people speeding on the road specially HGV lorries as well as cars. It is apparent that people regularly break the law on this stretch of road and that a speed camera or average speed cameras would address the problem and slow motorists down. A mirror would be able to be placed at the junction, an inexpensive but important item which is likely to reduce death and accident when people venture onto the main highway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous 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

Inadequate stop-sign control at the crossroads

Wider context from the report

“I am informed that the road where Oscar was killed is the scene of at least 126 road traffic collisions. The speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but this has not deterred people using the road from ignoring the limits. The crossroads where Oscar, who was just 17 years old, emerged onto the main road has give way signs but not stop signs painted on it. The view from one direction appears to be reasonable in daylight but at night, and if the weather is inclement, visibility is reduced. The person who lives on the corner of that junction has had to buttress his garden fence against collisions. The parish council has reported many concerns about people speeding on the road specially HGV lorries as well as cars. It is apparent that people regularly break the law on this stretch of road and that a speed camera or average speed cameras would address the problem and slow motorists down. A mirror would be able to be placed at the junction, an inexpensive but important item which is likely to reduce death and accident when people venture onto the main highway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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

Failure to prevent repeated speeding on the road

Wider context from the report

“I am informed that the road where Oscar was killed is the scene of at least 126 road traffic collisions. The speed limit was reduced from 60mph to 50mph, but this has not deterred people using the road from ignoring the limits. The crossroads where Oscar, who was just 17 years old, emerged onto the main road has give way signs but not stop signs painted on it. The view from one direction appears to be reasonable in daylight but at night, and if the weather is inclement, visibility is reduced. The person who lives on the corner of that junction has had to buttress his garden fence against collisions. The parish council has reported many concerns about people speeding on the road specially HGV lorries as well as cars. It is apparent that people regularly break the law on this stretch of road and that a speed camera or average speed cameras would address the problem and slow motorists down. A mirror would be able to be placed at the junction, an inexpensive but important item which is likely to reduce death and accident when people venture onto the main highway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of highway safety interventions introduced to include: red centre hatch treatment, provision of bend warning chevron boards which better reflect the alignment of the bend to the southeast, sign relocations, provision of hedges to control visibility, provision of ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway, cutting back of other vegetation, and addition of side road triggers to the existing junction warning vehicle activated signs. In addition to the above interventions, the speed limit was reduced to 50mph in response to this incident. In light of your comments concerning vehicle speed, it is agreed that NCC will undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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 visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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

Reduce the speed limit to 50 mph.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of highway safety interventions introduced to include: red centre hatch treatment, provision of bend warning chevron boards which better reflect the alignment of the bend to the southeast, sign relocations, provision of hedges to control visibility, provision of ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway, cutting back of other vegetation, and addition of side road triggers to the existing junction warning vehicle activated signs. In addition to the above interventions, the speed limit was reduced to 50mph in response to this incident. In light of your comments concerning vehicle speed, it is agreed that NCC will undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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 whether STOP markings and signs were warranted at the junctions under national guidance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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

Implement highway safety measures including centre hatching, bend chevrons, sign relocations, visibility controls, slow markings, vegetation cutting and junction warning triggers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There have been a number of highway safety interventions introduced to include: red centre hatch treatment, provision of bend warning chevron boards which better reflect the alignment of the bend to the southeast, sign relocations, provision of hedges to control visibility, provision of ‘Slow’ markings on the carriageway, cutting back of other vegetation, and addition of side road triggers to the existing junction warning vehicle activated signs. In addition to the above interventions, the speed limit was reduced to 50mph in response to this incident. In light of your comments concerning vehicle speed, it is agreed that NCC will undertake speed surveys to measure driver compliance.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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

STOP markings and signs are not warranted because junction visibility meets applicable national guidance requirements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With regard to the provision of “STOP” road markings and signs, such measures are restricted to those locations where visibility of a junction is severely impaired whereby highways users are reminded to stop and giveway to traffic before proceeding ensuring it is safe to do so. This has been investigated previously in accordance with national guidance contained within the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3), and neither junction met the requirements for the introduction of “STOP” markings and signs. This is particularly so for the southeast arm, where existing visibility is well above the minimum requirements even for a 60mph speed limit. However, a further review will be undertaken to reassess the visibility approaching the A134 from the northeast arm of the junction.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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

Speed-camera provision cannot be pursued because the site does not meet Department for Transport injury-accident criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Your report mentions that the provision of a speed camera or an average speed camera system would help with speed limit compliance. Highway Authorities are required to follow Department for Transport (DfT) guidance when considering whether speed camera provisions are required to improve road safety. DfT circular 01/2007 recommends that only those sites with three recorded injury accidents within 36month period could be considered where excessive speed was a factor. This is not the case at A134 Northwold.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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

Junction mirrors cannot be installed because they are not authorised or recommended due to potential glare and distance-judgement risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I acknowledge your observation concerning the provision of a mirror at the junction. I regret that the installation of mirrors is not authorised or recommended by the County Council. This is because mirrors can dazzle highway users and can affect driver’s ability to judge the distance of on-coming traffic.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Collision-only data is not sufficiently consistent or reliable to inform prioritisation of road-safety interventions.

    Stated by Norfolk County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Collision-only data is not sufficiently consistent or reliable to inform prioritisation of road-safety interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You report that the road where the incident occurred is the scene of at least 126 traffic collisions. Highway authorities (including NCC) do not analyse collision only data; this is because collisions are generally not reported in a consistent manner to the police and therefore cannot be accurately relied upon when prioritising road safety interventions. Rather, highway authorities only analyse personal injury accident data from the police in order to identify where the greatest casualty reduction benefits can be achieved.”

Source location

2021-0252-Response-from-Norfolk-County-Council_Published
Page 1 · response
Published 3 August 2021

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