Malcolm Langford
PFD Report
Partially Responded
Ref: 2017-0099
1 of 2 responded · Over 2 years old
Response Status
Responses
1 of 2
56-Day Deadline
11 Jul 2017
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
Coroners Concerns
In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: During the inquest; the court heard evidence from] Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police: He attended the scene shortly after the collision and examined the junction. His evidence was that visibility at the junction is restricted, particularly when looking to the right, due to house with large fence and trees The following four important points were elicited during the inquest: vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the front offside corner of a vehicle travelling north Albert Road at a distance of about 35 metres; (2) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the full width of the front of a vehicle travelling north Albert Road at a distance of about 24 metres; (3) if a vehicle is travelling at 3Omph along Albert Road, it will take only 2.6 seconds from completely of view of drivers on Highmoor Road to reaching the junction: It will take only 1.8 seconds from the time that the front of the vehicle is visible until it reaches the junction; given typical rate of acceleration, it is not possible for a *normal' driver in a `normal car t0 pull safely out of Highmoor Road junction even when Albert Road appears to be clear. The only way to negotiate the junction safely is to edge forwardmaintaining & constant look-out: Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE along driving speed opposite duty along along being out
Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS Mr Henderson was of the opinion that the junction could be improved by bringing it forward, thereby increasing visibility Albert Road, and reducing the likelihood of further collisions. 6_
Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS Mr Henderson was of the opinion that the junction could be improved by bringing it forward, thereby increasing visibility Albert Road, and reducing the likelihood of further collisions. 6_
Responses
Response received
View full response
Dear Peter Bedford Thank you for your email of 3rd April 2017 and your issue of a Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths in relation to the death of Mr Malcolm Langford on 14tn May 2016. There have been a number of changes at this junction with the aim to improve road safety over a number of years. These changes have been implemented both before and after the fatality of Mr Langford and there remains an ongoing commitment to keep this junction under review. Local concern was first raised following an accident on 14th November 2013 and a petition (for road safety improvements) was submitted to the Council’s Traffic Management Sub-committee on 16th January
2014. Since that time there have been a series of reports to the Traffic Management Sub-committee exploring the cause of accidents, possible options for improvements and recommending changes to be considered. On 11th September 2014 the Sub-committee considered restricting the eastbound Highmoor Road general traffic movement across the junction to reduce the risk of collisions. As a result of significant local objection supported by the local MP this proposal was deferred with a further review of the options. On 15th January 2015 the Sub-committee considered this review of options but in the meantime a large tree overhanging the junction had been removed. The result of the removal of the tree was such that the junction became much more visible (as opposed to always being cast in shadow). The Sub-committee again deferred any other changes at the junction in consideration of further local representation. The next report to the Sub-committee was on 15th June 2016 and after the death of Mr Langford. As a. result of this report the Sub-committee agreed to changes in road markings on the Highmoor Road eastbound approach and to meet with two local campaign groups, Highmoor and Albert Road Campaign (HARC) and Caversham and District Residents Association (CADRA). Further reports have followed and further lining changes have been carried out at the junction. DX 40124 Reading (Castle Street.)
Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
The latest report on works carried out and further commitments to improving road safety at this is being presented to the next meeting of the Sub-committee on 14tn June 2017. This details woi debate on improving road safety at the junction of Highmoor Road with Albert Road since 2013. AU of these reports are publically available on-line (within the Council’s website) but can be made available to you if you so wish. However, it is important to express that the junction is presented with STOP signs on both Highmoor Road approaches coupled with contrasting coloured road surfaces and associated signing. Prior to the accident on 14th November 2013 the junction had no significant casualty record that justified road safety improvements. The position of the STOP line and central hatching on Albert Road through the junction was in response to a previous casualty reduction scheme involving right turning vehicles. During the period from 14th November 2013 (as detailed within the Traffic Management Sub-committee cepactoLthere has been gathering of evidence as to what the collision risk is at the junction. The evidence of drivers failing to stop at the stop line on the eastbound Highmoor Road approach is overwhelming hence the original recommendation to restrict vehicle movements on this approach. Whilst the views expressed by , Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police are appreciated they do not reflect the evidence provided by the police to Reading Borough Council and that collected (by us) through CCTV video surveys. As you may be aware, the local highway authority is often asked to attend a site meeting following a road death to establish any highway related issues that may need to be considered. In response to the death of Mr Langford a site meeting was held between representatives of the council and Thames Valley Police. At this site meeting it was clearly indicated that the death of Mr Langford was as a result of the driver failing to stop at the eastbound Highmoor Road approach. This, as already indicated, is consistent with other collisions at the junction resulting in casualties and the CCTV gathered evidence. On this point the two local campaign groups (HARC & CADRA) also agree although they continue to campaign for additional traffic calming measures. The visibility restrictions at the junction are obvious hence the reason for the regulatory STOP requirement and the other associated measures. It is the professional view of officers that once a driver has stopped, by slowly edging forward to gain improved visibility, it is irrelevant as to where the STOP line is positioned. This point is made by the Forensic Collision Investigator in 5(4) of the regulation 28 report. Therefore, regardless of the exact position of the STOP line drivers will still have to ‘nudge out’ slowly to gain sufficient visibility before crossing the junction. As it is believed by us that Mr Langford died as a result of a failure to stop there appears to be conflicting evidence. For us, as the local highway authority, to properly ensure that we meet our duty as highway authority I request absolute clarity on the circumstances of this collision. If you require further information, evidence and/or copies of the Traffic Management Subcommittee reports please do not hesitate to contact me either by email or telephone.
2014. Since that time there have been a series of reports to the Traffic Management Sub-committee exploring the cause of accidents, possible options for improvements and recommending changes to be considered. On 11th September 2014 the Sub-committee considered restricting the eastbound Highmoor Road general traffic movement across the junction to reduce the risk of collisions. As a result of significant local objection supported by the local MP this proposal was deferred with a further review of the options. On 15th January 2015 the Sub-committee considered this review of options but in the meantime a large tree overhanging the junction had been removed. The result of the removal of the tree was such that the junction became much more visible (as opposed to always being cast in shadow). The Sub-committee again deferred any other changes at the junction in consideration of further local representation. The next report to the Sub-committee was on 15th June 2016 and after the death of Mr Langford. As a. result of this report the Sub-committee agreed to changes in road markings on the Highmoor Road eastbound approach and to meet with two local campaign groups, Highmoor and Albert Road Campaign (HARC) and Caversham and District Residents Association (CADRA). Further reports have followed and further lining changes have been carried out at the junction. DX 40124 Reading (Castle Street.)
Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE
The latest report on works carried out and further commitments to improving road safety at this is being presented to the next meeting of the Sub-committee on 14tn June 2017. This details woi debate on improving road safety at the junction of Highmoor Road with Albert Road since 2013. AU of these reports are publically available on-line (within the Council’s website) but can be made available to you if you so wish. However, it is important to express that the junction is presented with STOP signs on both Highmoor Road approaches coupled with contrasting coloured road surfaces and associated signing. Prior to the accident on 14th November 2013 the junction had no significant casualty record that justified road safety improvements. The position of the STOP line and central hatching on Albert Road through the junction was in response to a previous casualty reduction scheme involving right turning vehicles. During the period from 14th November 2013 (as detailed within the Traffic Management Sub-committee cepactoLthere has been gathering of evidence as to what the collision risk is at the junction. The evidence of drivers failing to stop at the stop line on the eastbound Highmoor Road approach is overwhelming hence the original recommendation to restrict vehicle movements on this approach. Whilst the views expressed by , Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police are appreciated they do not reflect the evidence provided by the police to Reading Borough Council and that collected (by us) through CCTV video surveys. As you may be aware, the local highway authority is often asked to attend a site meeting following a road death to establish any highway related issues that may need to be considered. In response to the death of Mr Langford a site meeting was held between representatives of the council and Thames Valley Police. At this site meeting it was clearly indicated that the death of Mr Langford was as a result of the driver failing to stop at the eastbound Highmoor Road approach. This, as already indicated, is consistent with other collisions at the junction resulting in casualties and the CCTV gathered evidence. On this point the two local campaign groups (HARC & CADRA) also agree although they continue to campaign for additional traffic calming measures. The visibility restrictions at the junction are obvious hence the reason for the regulatory STOP requirement and the other associated measures. It is the professional view of officers that once a driver has stopped, by slowly edging forward to gain improved visibility, it is irrelevant as to where the STOP line is positioned. This point is made by the Forensic Collision Investigator in 5(4) of the regulation 28 report. Therefore, regardless of the exact position of the STOP line drivers will still have to ‘nudge out’ slowly to gain sufficient visibility before crossing the junction. As it is believed by us that Mr Langford died as a result of a failure to stop there appears to be conflicting evidence. For us, as the local highway authority, to properly ensure that we meet our duty as highway authority I request absolute clarity on the circumstances of this collision. If you require further information, evidence and/or copies of the Traffic Management Subcommittee reports please do not hesitate to contact me either by email or telephone.
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and [ believe your organisation has the power to take such action:
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On the 25th May 2016 the Senior Coroner; Peter Bedford commenced an Investigation into the death of Malcolm ford. L concluded the investigation by way of a one inquest on the 2"d day of March 2017. concluded that death was due t0 road traffic collision_ CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH On the 14th of May 2016, at approximately 10.30am, Mr Langford was walking along Albert Road, Caversham, Berkshire, with his wife_ Albert Road is a residential road with two lanes, one in either direction, and is subject to & statutory limit of 3Omph. There are a number of roads leading off Albert Road, one of which is Highmoor Road. The junction of Highmoor Road with Albert Road is marked by a stop sign, solid white lines and a section of red tarmac_ The junction has restricted visibility due Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Lang day day speed
Classification: OFFTCTAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS to houses on either side, fences and trees_ Vehicle was driving Albert Road, in the direction of Mr Langford_ Vehicle was within the limit. Vehicle 2 approached the junction with Albert Road from Highmoor Road. Vehicle 2 started to pull out of the junction and collided with vehicle 1, causing it to veer off course_ Vehicle crossed the carriageway, mounted the pavement and collided with Mr Langford, knocking him into the road. He sustained non-survivable head injury and died the same day: 5_ CORONERS CONCERNS During the course of the Inquest; the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern: In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows During the inquest; the court heard evidence from] Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police: He attended the scene shortly after the collision and examined the junction. His evidence was that visibility at the junction is restricted, particularly when looking to the right, due to house with large fence and trees The following four important points were elicited during the inquest: vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the front offside corner of a vehicle travelling north Albert Road at a distance of about 35 metres; (2) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the full width of the front of a vehicle travelling north Albert Road at a distance of about 24 metres; (3) if a vehicle is travelling at 3Omph along Albert Road, it will take only 2.6 seconds from completely of view of drivers on Highmoor Road to reaching the junction: It will take only 1.8 seconds from the time that the front of the vehicle is visible until it reaches the junction; given typical rate of acceleration, it is not possible for a *normal' driver in a `normal car t0 pull safely out of Highmoor Road junction even when Albert Road appears to be clear. The only way to negotiate the junction safely is to edge forwardmaintaining & constant look-out: Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE along driving speed opposite duty along along being out
Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS Mr Henderson was of the opinion that the junction could be improved by bringing it forward, thereby increasing visibility Albert Road, and reducing the likelihood of further collisions. 6_ ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and [ believe your organisation has the power to take such action: YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond t0 this report within 56 days of the date of this report; namely by 12th June 2017. I,the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken; setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed COPIES and PUBLICATION Ihave sent a copy of my report to the following: the Chief Coroner of England & Wales wife of Malcolm Langford am also under duty to send the Chief Coroner copy of your response The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in complete or redacted or summary form. He may send copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest You may make representations to me; the Senior Coroner; at the time-of your response, about the release or the publication of your response/y the Chief Coroner_ Dated this 31s day of March 2017 Cn Vahy AMC Zincs Peter J. Bedford Senior Coroner for Berkshire Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE along
Classification: OFFTCTAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS to houses on either side, fences and trees_ Vehicle was driving Albert Road, in the direction of Mr Langford_ Vehicle was within the limit. Vehicle 2 approached the junction with Albert Road from Highmoor Road. Vehicle 2 started to pull out of the junction and collided with vehicle 1, causing it to veer off course_ Vehicle crossed the carriageway, mounted the pavement and collided with Mr Langford, knocking him into the road. He sustained non-survivable head injury and died the same day: 5_ CORONERS CONCERNS During the course of the Inquest; the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern: In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths could occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory to report to you: The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows During the inquest; the court heard evidence from] Forensic Collision Investigator for Thames Valley Police: He attended the scene shortly after the collision and examined the junction. His evidence was that visibility at the junction is restricted, particularly when looking to the right, due to house with large fence and trees The following four important points were elicited during the inquest: vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the front offside corner of a vehicle travelling north Albert Road at a distance of about 35 metres; (2) a vehicle stopped at the stop line on Highmoor Road is first able to see the full width of the front of a vehicle travelling north Albert Road at a distance of about 24 metres; (3) if a vehicle is travelling at 3Omph along Albert Road, it will take only 2.6 seconds from completely of view of drivers on Highmoor Road to reaching the junction: It will take only 1.8 seconds from the time that the front of the vehicle is visible until it reaches the junction; given typical rate of acceleration, it is not possible for a *normal' driver in a `normal car t0 pull safely out of Highmoor Road junction even when Albert Road appears to be clear. The only way to negotiate the junction safely is to edge forwardmaintaining & constant look-out: Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE along driving speed opposite duty along along being out
Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS Mr Henderson was of the opinion that the junction could be improved by bringing it forward, thereby increasing visibility Albert Road, and reducing the likelihood of further collisions. 6_ ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and [ believe your organisation has the power to take such action: YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond t0 this report within 56 days of the date of this report; namely by 12th June 2017. I,the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken; setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed COPIES and PUBLICATION Ihave sent a copy of my report to the following: the Chief Coroner of England & Wales wife of Malcolm Langford am also under duty to send the Chief Coroner copy of your response The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in complete or redacted or summary form. He may send copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest You may make representations to me; the Senior Coroner; at the time-of your response, about the release or the publication of your response/y the Chief Coroner_ Dated this 31s day of March 2017 Cn Vahy AMC Zincs Peter J. Bedford Senior Coroner for Berkshire Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE along
Circumstances of the Death
On the 14th of May 2016, at approximately 10.30am, Mr Langford was walking along Albert Road, Caversham, Berkshire, with his wife_ Albert Road is a residential road with two lanes, one in either direction, and is subject to & statutory limit of 3Omph. There are a number of roads leading off Albert Road, one of which is Highmoor Road. The junction of Highmoor Road with Albert Road is marked by a stop sign, solid white lines and a section of red tarmac_ The junction has restricted visibility due Classification: OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Lang day day speed
Classification: OFFTCTAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS to houses on either side, fences and trees_ Vehicle was driving Albert Road, in the direction of Mr Langford_ Vehicle was within the limit. Vehicle 2 approached the junction with Albert Road from Highmoor Road. Vehicle 2 started to pull out of the junction and collided with vehicle 1, causing it to veer off course_ Vehicle crossed the carriageway, mounted the pavement and collided with Mr Langford, knocking him into the road. He sustained non-survivable head injury and died the same day: 5_
Classification: OFFTCTAL-SENSTTTVE REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS to houses on either side, fences and trees_ Vehicle was driving Albert Road, in the direction of Mr Langford_ Vehicle was within the limit. Vehicle 2 approached the junction with Albert Road from Highmoor Road. Vehicle 2 started to pull out of the junction and collided with vehicle 1, causing it to veer off course_ Vehicle crossed the carriageway, mounted the pavement and collided with Mr Langford, knocking him into the road. He sustained non-survivable head injury and died the same day: 5_
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.