PFD report

Jason Robert Imi and John Carl Shackley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 12 Jul 2019•Berkshire

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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. Seasonal tree canopy shading the road near the hotel
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility
  2. Lack of a footpath on the hotel side of the A329 requiring pedestrians to cross the road
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads
  3. Road-surface dip impairing forward visibility on the eastbound approach to the hotel
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely
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.1

  1. Action

    Review tree canopy surrounding the road for specific road safety issues.

    Stated by Royal Borough of Windsor and MaidenheadStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 September 2019.

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

  1. Position

    No specific road safety issues have been identified as being associated with tree cover.

    Stated by Royal Borough of Windsor and MaidenheadDisputes 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

Seasonal tree canopy shading the road near the hotel

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that there is no footpath on the A329 on the side of the road where the Royal Berkshire Hotel is located, meaning that any pedestrians walking into or out of the hotel entrance have to cross the A329 to get from or to a footpath, and that there is no street lighting in the vicinity of the hotel. Street lights end 100 metres west of the hotel entrance. This means that pedestrians entering or leaving the hotel during the hours of darkness have to cross the road in a place where there is no illumination, and so they are not easily visible to motorists driving along the A329. There is also a tree canopy in the summer, further shading the road, and a dip in the road surface on the eastbound approach to the hotel which adversely affects forward visibility towards the hotel for motorists. I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of pedestrians entering or leaving the Royal Berkshire Hotel being run over as they cross the A329 at night. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility.

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 a footpath on the hotel side of the A329 requiring pedestrians to cross the road

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that there is no footpath on the A329 on the side of the road where the Royal Berkshire Hotel is located, meaning that any pedestrians walking into or out of the hotel entrance have to cross the A329 to get from or to a footpath, and that there is no street lighting in the vicinity of the hotel. Street lights end 100 metres west of the hotel entrance. This means that pedestrians entering or leaving the hotel during the hours of darkness have to cross the road in a place where there is no illumination, and so they are not easily visible to motorists driving along the A329. There is also a tree canopy in the summer, further shading the road, and a dip in the road surface on the eastbound approach to the hotel which adversely affects forward visibility towards the hotel for motorists. I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of pedestrians entering or leaving the Royal Berkshire Hotel being run over as they cross the A329 at night. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads.

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

Road-surface dip impairing forward visibility on the eastbound approach to the hotel

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that there is no footpath on the A329 on the side of the road where the Royal Berkshire Hotel is located, meaning that any pedestrians walking into or out of the hotel entrance have to cross the A329 to get from or to a footpath, and that there is no street lighting in the vicinity of the hotel. Street lights end 100 metres west of the hotel entrance. This means that pedestrians entering or leaving the hotel during the hours of darkness have to cross the road in a place where there is no illumination, and so they are not easily visible to motorists driving along the A329. There is also a tree canopy in the summer, further shading the road, and a dip in the road surface on the eastbound approach to the hotel which adversely affects forward visibility towards the hotel for motorists. I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of pedestrians entering or leaving the Royal Berkshire Hotel being run over as they cross the A329 at night. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely.

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 street lighting near the hotel crossing route

Wider context from the report

“I am concerned that there is no footpath on the A329 on the side of the road where the Royal Berkshire Hotel is located, meaning that any pedestrians walking into or out of the hotel entrance have to cross the A329 to get from or to a footpath, and that there is no street lighting in the vicinity of the hotel. Street lights end 100 metres west of the hotel entrance. This means that pedestrians entering or leaving the hotel during the hours of darkness have to cross the road in a place where there is no illumination, and so they are not easily visible to motorists driving along the A329. There is also a tree canopy in the summer, further shading the road, and a dip in the road surface on the eastbound approach to the hotel which adversely affects forward visibility towards the hotel for motorists. I consider that unless some action is taken there is a continuing risk of pedestrians entering or leaving the Royal Berkshire Hotel being run over as they cross the A329 at night. ”

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

Review tree canopy surrounding the road for specific road safety issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Colleagues have reviewed the tree canopy surrounding the road in this rural area but have not identified any specific road safety issues associated with tree cover.”

Source location

Response from The Highways Authority
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 2019

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

No specific road safety issues have been identified as being associated with tree cover.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Colleagues have reviewed the tree canopy surrounding the road in this rural area but have not identified any specific road safety issues associated with tree cover.”

Source location

Response from The Highways Authority
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 2019

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

Existing signing adequately alerts approaching drivers to the hotel entrance, so further signing or traffic measures are not necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Although there is a slight dip in the road in the vicinity of the Hotel entrance, there is adequate signing to advise of the Hotel entrance as well as signing immediately opposite the Hotel entrance. Further signing or traffic measures are not considered necessary to alert approaching drivers to the presence of the Hotel entrance.”

Source location

Response from The Highways Authority
Page 2 · response
Published 13 September 2019

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

Low anticipated pedestrian use and the rural setting do not support providing a new north-side footway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no footway on the north side of London Road in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Berkshire Hotel, the likely number of users of a possible new footway is very low as there are only a small number of properties on the north side of the road and very few of the Hotel guests walk along this section of road. The lack of a footway is not unusual in a rural setting such as this, although there is a continuous footway along the south side of the road. We will nevertheless monitor and review pedestrian activity in the area.”

Source location

Response from The Highways Authority
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 2019

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

    Monitor and review pedestrian activity near the Royal Berkshire Hotel.

    Stated by Royal Borough of Windsor and MaidenheadStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 September 2019.

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

Monitor and review pedestrian activity near the Royal Berkshire Hotel.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no footway on the north side of London Road in the immediate vicinity of the Royal Berkshire Hotel, the likely number of users of a possible new footway is very low as there are only a small number of properties on the north side of the road and very few of the Hotel guests walk along this section of road. The lack of a footway is not unusual in a rural setting such as this, although there is a continuous footway along the south side of the road. We will nevertheless monitor and review pedestrian activity in the area.”

Source location

Response from The Highways Authority
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 2019

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