Lorraine Sheridan
PFD Report
Historic (No Identified Response)
Ref: 2014-0496
No published response · Over 2 years old
Response Status
Responses
0 of 1
56-Day Deadline
7 Jan 2015
Over 2 years old — no identified published response
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Coroner’s Concerns
(1) There have now been two documented collision’s at this location and in order to prevent similar collisions occurring in the future, the Police have suggested that an audible phase indication (red and green man) on the opposing side of the carriageway would reinforce the phase for pedestrians and make them far less likely to cross when it is unsafe to do so.
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 30 June 2014, I commenced an investigation into the death of Lorraine Sheridan. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 22 October 2014. The conclusion of the inquest was the deceased died on the 17 June 2014 from 1a. Multiple organ failure due to 1b) Multiple injuries due to 1c) Road traffic collision. I recorded a conclusion of Road traffic collision.
Circumstances of the Death
1. Mrs Sheridan was involved in a road traffic collision on 30 May 2013 at 10.35am on High Bullen Road, Wednesbury. She was hit by an articulated lorry when she attempted to cross at a pedestrian crossing.
2. High Bullen Road is a dual carriageway consisting of two lanes and is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The carriageway in which the collision occurred is on the approach to the traffic island at the junction with the A462. The collision occurred at a pedestrian crossing approach to the traffic island.
3. The type of crossing is described as a pedestrian activated, traffic light controlled puffin crossing. There is a traffic island a short distance from the crossing if a driver is heading away from the M6 motorway. It is evident that if a vehicle approaches queuing traffic, then there is a risk that it may cause confusion to pedestrians at the pelican crossing who may be tempted to cross not appreciating that the lights were against them because there is no audible sound to indicate this.
4. During the inquest, evidence emerged that Mrs Sheridan had pressed a button to activate the pedestrian crossing sequence. A lorry had slowed down due to the queuing traffic and that she may have misinterpreted this and crossed not realising the lights were in favour of the lorry and a collision took place.
5. At the conclusion of the inquest, I asked the Police collision investigator to ascertain if there had been any further collisions at this location and upon receipt of this information, I would consider writing a report.
6. The Police have now provided me with a further report and have confirmed that there has been a second collision at this location. Sadly, on the 23 April 2013 three children were involved in a collision within the confines of the crossing. A vehicle had stopped in lane one and the children crossed and were struck in
[IL1: PROTECT] [IL1: PROTECT]
2. High Bullen Road is a dual carriageway consisting of two lanes and is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The carriageway in which the collision occurred is on the approach to the traffic island at the junction with the A462. The collision occurred at a pedestrian crossing approach to the traffic island.
3. The type of crossing is described as a pedestrian activated, traffic light controlled puffin crossing. There is a traffic island a short distance from the crossing if a driver is heading away from the M6 motorway. It is evident that if a vehicle approaches queuing traffic, then there is a risk that it may cause confusion to pedestrians at the pelican crossing who may be tempted to cross not appreciating that the lights were against them because there is no audible sound to indicate this.
4. During the inquest, evidence emerged that Mrs Sheridan had pressed a button to activate the pedestrian crossing sequence. A lorry had slowed down due to the queuing traffic and that she may have misinterpreted this and crossed not realising the lights were in favour of the lorry and a collision took place.
5. At the conclusion of the inquest, I asked the Police collision investigator to ascertain if there had been any further collisions at this location and upon receipt of this information, I would consider writing a report.
6. The Police have now provided me with a further report and have confirmed that there has been a second collision at this location. Sadly, on the 23 April 2013 three children were involved in a collision within the confines of the crossing. A vehicle had stopped in lane one and the children crossed and were struck in
[IL1: PROTECT] [IL1: PROTECT]
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Revise signal sighting standard to explicitly consider signal readability
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Define additional time required for reading gantry-mounted and complex signals
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Clarify "very short duration" definition within the signal sighting standard
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Identify and retrospectively review locations affected by "very short duration" ambiguity
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Clarify "overhead line equipment" in signal sighting standard to mean wires and droppers
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Define acceptable limits for temporary signal obscuration in sighting standards
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Explicitly define cab sight lines for signal positioning based on driver's eye
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Railtrack to conduct safety examination of Paddington station layout and operations.
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.