PFD report

Lucia CICCIOLI · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 May 2018•Inner West 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
6

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

Described in 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 raised6

  1. Narrow road width placing cyclists in a vulnerable position
    Part of recurring concern: Insufficient width for safe cyclist passage
  2. Failure to repair dangerous road dip in LAVENDER HILL
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair
  3. Inadequate cycle lane provision leading up to the traffic lights
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety
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

    Consider providing an improved cycle feeder lane within the revised junction design, accounting for western-arm constraints.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.

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

  1. Position

    A cycle lane cannot currently be provided because insufficient carriageway space would require wider vehicles to enter it, creating a false sense of security.

    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

Narrow road width placing cyclists in a vulnerable position

Wider context from the report

“5) The narrow aspect of LAVENDER HILL immediately past the said junction places cyclists a vulnerable position when they arrive in LAVENDER HILL from the said junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Insufficient width for safe cyclist passage.

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 repair dangerous road dip in LAVENDER HILL

Wider context from the report

“6) The dip in the road in LAVENDER HILL (between position 4 and position 5 on the Reconstruction Plan) is dangerous and is in need of urgent repair. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

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 cycle lane provision leading up to the traffic lights

Wider context from the report

“1) There is an inadequate cycle lane leading up to the traffic lights leading up to the traffic lights at the junction of LATCHMERE ROAD and ELSPETH ROAD (the cycle lane is coloured pink on the Reconstruction Plan). ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety.

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

Yellow box preventing cyclists from legally stopping in the junction

Wider context from the report

“3) There is a yellow box in the middle of the said junction (situated between position 3 and 4 on The Reconstruction Plan) which causes concerns to cyclists when they are either proceeding straight through or turning right from the junction as they are prevented from legally stopping in the said yellow box. ”

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

Inadequate protection for cyclists approaching the junction

Wider context from the report

“2) There is inadequate protection generally for cyclists riding towards the junction with LATCHMERE ROAD and ELSPETH ROAD particularly for those cyclists that wish to go straight over the said junction towards LAVENDER HILL or for those cyclists that wish to turn right at that junction into LATCHMERE ROAD. ”

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

Lack of cycle lane provision in LAVENDER HILL immediately past the junction

Wider context from the report

“4) There is no cycle lane provision in LAVENDER HILL immediately past the said junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety.

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

Consider providing an improved cycle feeder lane within the revised junction design, accounting for western-arm constraints.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provision of an improved cycle feeder lane will also be considered as part of the revised design, with consideration of the constraints on the western arm (see also response to points 4 and 5, below).”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 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

A cycle lane cannot currently be provided because insufficient carriageway space would require wider vehicles to enter it, creating a false sense of security.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no existing cycle lane on the exit side of the western arm of Lavender Hill, because there is insufficient carriageway space given the need to accommodate general traffic progressing from the two existing straight-ahead lanes on the eastern arm of Lavender Hill.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 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

The yellow box should be retained because it prevents junction obstructions and reduces road danger from vehicles remaining in the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A yellow box has been provided at the junction to help prevent obstructions. All vehicles, including pedal cycles, may only enter a yellow box when the exit is clear. Our observations have indicated that the junction does potentially experience exit blocking from adjacent junctions. Without the yellow box facility, vehicles would remain in the centre of the junction at the end of each traffic light green stage. Vehicles entering the junction during the next traffic light green stage would then need to navigate around those vehicles already in the junction. This increases road danger, as inter-visibility between vehicles is reduced. For this reason, we consider that the yellow box should be retained.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

    Investigate relocating the loading bay to Lavender Gardens or reducing its operating hours, with local-community consultation for any changes.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  2. 2

    Continue collaborative work with Wandsworth Council to address road-safety concerns at the junction.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  3. 3

    Complete a revised junction design and set out next steps by December 2019.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.
  4. 4

    Investigate, including traffic modelling, removing the dedicated left-turn lane and reducing traffic lanes from three to two.

    Stated by Transport for LondonStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2018.

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

  1. 1

    The loading bay cannot be relocated off the carriageway because the adjacent footway is too narrow, although alternative arrangements will be investigated.

    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

Investigate relocating the loading bay to Lavender Gardens or reducing its operating hours, with local-community consultation for any changes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note that there is an existing loading bay adjacent to local businesses on the exit side of the western arm of Lavender Hill which is dedicated to loading between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Saturday but can be occupied by any vehicle outside the hours of 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday. Cyclists must navigate around this box when it is occupied, bringing them into further potential conflict with adjacent traffic. Unfortunately, because the footway is narrow adjacent to this loading bay (excluding the private forecourt), it prevents the loading bay being relocated off the carriageway. However, working with LBW, TfL will investigate whether the loading bay can be relocated to nearby Lavender Gardens or reduce the operating hours so that cyclists are less likely to encounter an occupied bay. Any changes to the loading bay will require consultation with the local community.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 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

Continue collaborative work with Wandsworth Council to address road-safety concerns at the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The London Borough of Wandsworth (LBW) and TfL as traffic and highway authorities for the roads at the junction of Lavender Hill and Elspeth / Latchmere Road will work together to reduce road danger at this junction.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 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

Complete a revised junction design and set out next steps by December 2019.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Working with the LBW, TfL proposes to complete a revised design of the junction and set out next steps by December 2019. Subject to public consultation, any necessary approvals, and available funding, construction could begin in 2020.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 4 · response
Published 8 July 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

Investigate, including traffic modelling, removing the dedicated left-turn lane and reducing traffic lanes from three to two.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Working with LBW, TfL will investigate, including traffic modelling, whether the dedicated ‘left-turn’ lane can be removed at this location, reducing the number of traffic lanes from three to two. This would enable the footway on the south side of the eastern arm of Lavender Hill to be widened, and the remaining two traffic lanes to operate as a near-side ‘ahead and left-turn’ lane, and an off-side dedicated ‘right-turn’ lane.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 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

The loading bay cannot be relocated off the carriageway because the adjacent footway is too narrow, although alternative arrangements will be investigated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We note that there is an existing loading bay adjacent to local businesses on the exit side of the western arm of Lavender Hill which is dedicated to loading between the hours of 10am and 4pm Monday to Saturday but can be occupied by any vehicle outside the hours of 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday. Cyclists must navigate around this box when it is occupied, bringing them into further potential conflict with adjacent traffic. Unfortunately, because the footway is narrow adjacent to this loading bay (excluding the private forecourt), it prevents the loading bay being relocated off the carriageway. However, working with LBW, TfL will investigate whether the loading bay can be relocated to nearby Lavender Gardens or reduce the operating hours so that cyclists are less likely to encounter an occupied bay. Any changes to the loading bay will require consultation with the local community.”

Source location

2018-0148-Response-by-Transport-for-London
Page 3 · response
Published 8 July 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026