John Hickmott

I received evidence from witnesses who had attended the scene of the collision soon afterwards or driven past shortly beforehand, commenting on how dark it was and how difficult it would have been to see a pedestrian. I also received evidence from a Highways Strategic Asset Manager at Milton Keynes City Council, together with documents, indicating that a number of streetlights on this stretch of road had previously been reported as not working. These included a streetlight almost immediately above where the collision with Mr Hickmott took place and other adjacent/nearby streetlights. Specifically, there had been reports on 6 October 2024 of three individual streetlights not working, then on 20 November 2024 a report of a block of five more streetlights not working. It was stated in the Council's enquiry document that, "Several lamps on both sides of V11 are permanently out between the two Northfield Drive turnings" and that, "This is making this already accident-prone stretch of road more dangerous as the turnings are very dark." According to the Council's procedure at the time, the block of five lights should have been repaired within 14 days of having been reported defective and the three individual lights within 28 days. These lights had not been repaired at the time of the collision involving Mr Hickmott, nor when the Forensic Collision Investigator undertook a reconstruction 21 days later (see below). The evidence from the Highways Strategic Asset Manager was that six of the streetlights were repaired on 19 March 2025 and two more on 16 April 2025. I received a Collision Investigation Report from a Forensic Collision Investigator at Thames Valley Police's Forensic Collision Investigation Unit. This included detailed evidence about conspicuity, and how Mr Hickmott would have been especially inconspicuous in the dark, in the absence of working streetlighting proximate to the incident. This evidence included photographs from a reconstruction undertaken at the site in hours of darkness 21 days after the incident. The streetlights were still not working at that time. This evidence was striking in demonstrating how a pedestrian would be almost invisible to a driver (even when one knows they are present and are looking for them) until the driver is within 20 - 30 metres of the pedestrian, at which point they would start to be illuminated by car headlights. The Council’s Highways Strategic Asset Manager also stated that, following an inspection of the same stretch of road, undertaken on 19 November 2025 following questions received from me, six streetlights were found not to be working (not previously reported to the Council as faulty). This may suggest a more fundamental technical problem with the streetlights on this stretch of road. The evidence of the Highways Strategic Asset Manager was that the priorities and timescales for repairs of faulty streetlights were already, as at November 2024, set out in the Council's contract with its principal highway services contractor, as well as the Code of Practice for Highways Electrical Maintenance. Despite this, the faults reported on 6 October and 20 November 2024 were not repaired until 19 March and 16 April 2025. I am concerned at:
1) The timeliness of repairs being undertaken when streetlights are reported as not being lit;
2) The extent of monitoring of scheduled repairs to ensure timely repair;
3) The extent to which proactive inspections are undertaken by the Council to identify faulty streetlights, or blocks of lights, that may not have been reported to the Council.