Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Beryl Brinkman

Ref: 2014-0314 Date: 2 Jul 2014 Coroner: Lisa Hashmi Area: Manchester (North) Responses identified: 1 / 1 View PDF

Poorly located parking near a junction severely reduces driver visibility, creating a serious risk of harm or death for road users and pedestrians.

Date 2 Jul 2014

56-day deadline 27 Aug 2014 est.

Responses identified 1 of 1

Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary

Poorly located parking near a junction severely reduces driver visibility, creating a serious risk of harm or death for road users and pedestrians.

View full coroner's concerns

The MATTERS OF CONCERNare as follows:_ from they little,

The proximity of the parking to the junction, resulting in a marked reduction of driver visibility when emerging on to the Ab8/parked cars are present. The serious risk of harmldeath to road userslpedestrians_ The appropriateness of the parking
4. Whether 'the ramp' ought to be designated as an adopted highway

Responses

1 respondent

Rochdale Borough Council Local Authority / Fire Service

PDF

Action Planned

Rochdale Borough Council plans to remove parking bays and introduce 'At Any Time' restrictions on the A58 to improve visibility, with implementation expected within the next four months. They have no record of prior complaints about the location. (AI summary)

View full response

Dear Mr Nelson, Re: Road Traffic Collision Beryl Brinkman write in response to your Regulation 28 notice issued on Znd July 2014, As with any serious and fatal collision, it is normal protocol that on receipt of the Police Incident Report the Road Safety Team carries out a full review and site visit to determine any possible highway issues which may have had an impact on the accident In relation to this event; a copy of the Serious Incident Police Report was received on Friday the 1Oth January 2014,with a follow up Fatal Report on the 13th January 2014. In order to build up a picture of any previous incidents the accident database was reviewed and results showed that there had been only one recorded personal injury accident at this junction in the last 12 years, as such; the site was not on the priority list for action: Reviewing the report and looking at the junction in question; it appeared that parked vehicles could have played a part in restricting the visibility in the westerly direction After communication with (the church representative) and the Road Safety Officer met withl on site on the 22nd January to discuss the possibility of removing the parking bays and the introduction of 'At Any Time' restrictions on A58. commissioning form was submitted to Pennines Township for on the 23rd January and received approval on 18th February: The Network Management Team is currently working on the scheme and the introducing the waiting restrictions. Site visits have been undertaken and report is to be presented at the next available traffic Management Unit Meeting, legal orders will be drafted and advertised for a period of 28 after this meeting , Subject to any formal objections being received it is anticipated that this process Will be completed and proposed restrictions introduced within the next four months_ UJA 2098 Way July the funding the days

The proposals are to remove the existing parking and introduce 'At Any Time' restrictions for a minimum distance of 1Smetres on the A58 to the westerly side of the Similar restrictions are already in place on the easterly side of the access road access road. along the A58_ With regard to the Greater Manchester Police statement that approached the Local Authority prior to the incident;, have made enquiries within the department and we have no record to approaches being made with regard to problems at this location_ Therees moeecoracodthes any deonthly Traffic Management Unit Meetings (which the Police attendeoc anyoterchamnehento the department Greateeeviaachester Police raised the issue with the Highway Authority at the Traffic Management Unit Meeting on the ZOth February, after the incident

Report sections

Investigation and inquest

On the 10"h January 2014 commenced an investigation into the death of Miss Beryl Brinkman. Miss Brinkman died on the 10h January 2014 at the Royal Oldham Hospital The medical cause of death was Ia) multiple injuries and whilst not causative but contributory 2) ischaemic and valvular heart disease and bronchopneumonia.

Circumstances of the death

On the 8th January 2014 shortly before 8 pm, Miss Brinkman was driving her car and emerged side road (an un-adopted highway known locally as 'the ramp') onto the main road (an adopted highway known as the A58 Featherstall Road, Littleborough). She was subsequently involved in a serious road traffic collision; The deceased suffered catastrophic injuries, with another driver suffering serious but non-life threatening injuries; Two others people (including a child) were involved in the crash; they were unhurt It was found, on the balance of probabilities, that the deceased did not 'give way' due to the phenomenon of involuntary acceleration. Irrespective, during the course of the evidence at inquest and as a result of the serious collision unit investigation it became apparent that the driver's view from 'the ramp' of the oncoming traffic travelling on the A58 (particularly from the right hand side) would have been significantly impaired by the presence of a number of parked vehicles The vehicles in question were legitimately parked in pre-marked bays_ Greater Manchester Police explained that they were aware of this hazard and that had been trying to engage the Local Authority, with a view to reviewing the appropriateness/proximity of the parking bays in relation to the junction However; the Local Authority's view was that as 'the ramp' is an un-adopted highway there was if anything; that it could do For clarity, the parking bays in question are on the A58 which is an adopted highway: The area itself is busy, residential and the ramp leads to community facilities including a Church and a Hall. There are also small retail businesses in the vicinity.

Action should be taken

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report; namely the 28" August 2014. the Assistant 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

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Report details

Reference: 2014-0314
Date of report: 2 July 2014
Coroner: Lisa Hashmi
Coroner area: Manchester (North)

Responses identified

Responses identified 1 of 1

All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 27 Aug 2014 (estimated).

Sent to

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

Source links

Judiciary.uk page → Report PDF →

Data: judiciary.uk under OGL.