Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Mitchell Clifton

Ref: 2014-0227 Date: 13 May 2014 Coroner: Andrew Haigh Area: Staffordshire South Responses identified: 2 / 1 View PDF

The wide access way to a car park, shared by pedestrians and vehicles, has a potentially unsafe layout that could be improved with better markings or physical dividers.

Date 13 May 2014

56-day deadline 8 Jul 2014 est.

Responses identified 2 of 1

Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary

The wide access way to a car park, shared by pedestrians and vehicles, has a potentially unsafe layout that could be improved with better markings or physical dividers.

View full coroner's concerns

_ The access way is a wide one to the Co-operative car It is likely that pedestrians and vehicles use this access way on regular basis_ wonder if you could give consideration as to if the lay-out of this access way might be improved. Possibilities might include tactile or coloured paving, extension of the double yellow lines (or other road markings) , or the insertion of a central island.

Responses

2 respondents

Staffordshire County Council Local Authority / Fire Service

11 Jun 2014 PDF

Action Taken

Staffordshire County Council reports that the Co-operative introduced road humps, lane markings, and a pedestrian route after the accident. The Co-operative has agreed to renew worn road markings, and the council will add further markings on the highway. (AI summary)

View full response

Dear Mr Haigh, Re: Mitchell Clifton (Deceased) refer to your Regulation 28 Report, regarding the Inquest into the death of Mitchell Clifton and your comments concerning the location. Following the accident involving Mitchell Clifton , the Co-operative introduced a number of measures at the car park entrance including road humps, lane markings and a central hatched area_ A marked pedestrian route from Landywood Lane to the shop entrance was also provided . Some of the road markings have become worn and the Co-operative has agreed to renew them. In addition, have made arrangements for further markings to be provided on the highway to compliment the markings provided on the car park. This will involve returning the double yellow lines to the rear of the footway, extending the central hatching to the edge of the carriageway and providing a give way markingledge of carriageway marking at the junction of the car park with Landywood Lane_ These measures should highlight the presence of the Co- operative entrance for both pedestrians and vehicles _ Ihe' knot uniles 02 Rutrtt JII

Staffordshire County Council trust this is satisfactory. Please let me know if you require anything further:

Department for Transport Central Government

5 Sep 2014 PDF

Noted

The Department for Transport acknowledges the concerns but states that changes to vehicle requirements are not proposed, as they are not convinced that changes to existing requirements would necessarily prevent similar incidents. (AI summary)

View full response

From the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Claire Perry MP Department Great Minster House 33 Horsefemry Road for Transport London SWIP 4DR Tel: 0300 330 3000 Andrew A Haigh Fax: 020 7944 4521 E-Mail: HM Senior Coroner Web site: Ww.gov.ukldft Staffordshire South Staffordshire Place Our Ref: MC/106669 Stafford ST16 2LP 0 5 SEP 2014 Qa Ae Thank you for your Regulation 28 Report of 13th to prevent future deaths, setting out the findings of the inquest_on the circumstances surrounding the death of Mitchell Harvey Clifton, aged 7 , The vehicle involved was a Mercedes Sprinter which was being used as a security van, and you have asked the Department to consider what action, if any, should be taken. This letter is my response on behalf of the Department: The circumstances of this tragic collision reinforce in my mind that we must not be complacent about road safety, and both the Government and the Department takes the safety of all road users very seriously The Department has published a Strategic Framework for Road Safety, which sets out general safety measures_ My officials have established that the Mercedes Sprinter which is the subject of your report has a European Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA) compliance with which serves as confirmation that the vehicle can be registered in the UK. There is no specific requirement in ECWVTA regarding the driver's field of view to the side of a light commercial vehicle other than the ability to see a specific area around the vehicle using the vehicle's mirrors However national approval schemes for this category of vehicle produced in small numbers do require a similar direct view to the side as that required for passenger cars. May

Vehicles of the type involved in this incident are specially modified for their industrial purpose after registration and there is no requirement for them to undergo further inspection or approval following modification. Once in use the vehicle is subject to the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 (C&U): Regulation 30 of C&U requires the driver to have a view both of the road and traffic ahead of the vehicle, and of the mirrors; it does not require a specific view to the side: Regulation 33 requires mirrors that satisfy the technical requirements of European Directive 2003/97/EC or UNECE Regulation 46, and that the driver is able to see the mirrors either through the side window or through the area swept by the windscreen wipers. The modifications to this vehicle did not affect adversely either of these provisions. You have asked me to consider whether adaptations to the window or the mirror requirements are appropriate. As have indicated, take the matter of vehicle safety seriously and have considered the national road casualty data for light commercial vehicles to understand better the contribution of a reduced view of the road to collisions, compared to other factors such as driver error Or inattention, and the potential for making regulation to improve the situation: The circumstances of this case are tragic but am not convinced that making changes to the existing requirements would necessarily prevent such an incident from happening again. On this basis do not propose adaptations to the current requirements. am grateful to you for raising this incident with me, and would appreciate you conveying my condolences to Mitchells family: Wiih STnlulk reaay( "_

Report sections

Investigation and inquest

On 5 October 2012 commenced an investigation into the death of Mitchell Harvey Clifton The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 29 April 2014. The conclusion of the inquest was Road Traffic Collision. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH Mitchell Clifton died at the scene of a road traffic collision at Landywood Lane_ Cheslyn on 3 October 2012. He was travelling down the footpath on a scooter and was struck by a van on an access way to a parking area. Neither Mitchell nor the van driver was aware of each ther's proximity until it was too late. CORONER'S 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 will occur unless action is taken: In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you: The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows_ The access way is a wide one to the Co-operative car It is likely that pedestrians and vehicles use this access way on regular basis_ wonder if you could give consideration as to if the lay-out of this access way might be improved. Possibilities might include tactile or coloured paving, extension of the double yellow lines (or other road markings) , or the insertion of a central island. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you and your organisation have the power to take such action. aged Hay park.

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you and your organisation have the power to take such action. YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 of the date of this report; namely by 11 July 2014. 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 have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons: (Mother of the Deceased) (Father of the Deceased) Traffic Process Office Staffordshire Police) Fentons Solicitors) (Clyde & Co Solicitors) Local Safeguarding Board) ((Clerk to Cheslyn Parish Council) am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response_ The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form: He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner; 13 May 2014 Ah Andrew A Haigh HM Senior Coroner Staffordshire (South) days Hay Hm

Circumstances of the death

Mitchell Clifton died at the scene of a road traffic collision at Landywood Lane_ Cheslyn on 3 October 2012. He was travelling down the footpath on a scooter and was struck by a van on an access way to a parking area. Neither Mitchell nor the van driver was aware of each ther's proximity until it was too late.

Action should be taken

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you and your organisation have the power to take such action. aged Hay park.

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Related inquiry recommendations

Report details

Reference: 2014-0227
Date of report: 13 May 2014
Coroner: Andrew Haigh
Coroner area: Staffordshire South

Responses identified

Responses identified 2 of 1

All listed responses identified

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 8 Jul 2014 (estimated).

Sent to

Casualty Reduction Team

Source links

Judiciary.uk page → Report PDF →

Data: judiciary.uk under OGL.