Francis Golding

Date: 
Enquiries to: 
Telephone: 

May 2014 

Ms M E Hassell 
Senior Coroner 
Inner London North 
St Pancras Coroner’s Court 
Camley Street 
London   
N1C 4PP 

Dear Ms Hassell, 

Culture and Environment 
London Borough of Camden 
Camden Town Hall 
Argyle Street 
London WC1H 8EQ 

Tel 020 7974 4444 
Fax 020 7974 4015 
DX 2106 Euston 
Typetalk Friendly 
www.camden.gov.uk 

Ref:  Regulation  28:  Report  on  prevention  on  future  deaths  (1)  following  the  inquest 
touching the death of Francis Nelson Golding 

I write in response to the Regulation 28-Report to Prevent Future Deaths that you served on 
London Borough of Camden, dated 14th April 2014, following the inquest into the death of 
Francis Nelson Golding.  We note that the conclusion of the inquest was “road traffic 
collision”.   

I was very sorry to hear of the death of Mr Golding and of the circumstances leading to his 
death. 

Road safety, particularly that of vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists, is a 
strong priority in Camden and our transport investment programme.  The Camden Transport 
Strategy (CTS) places pedestrians and cyclists at the top of the road user hierarchy and 
road safety is a priority of this strategy.   

Please treat this letter as Camden’s written response to your Report and in particular our 
response to your concerns, including that the location of Vernon Place / Southampton Row 
would benefit from early consideration. 

Although your concerns relate to a single junction, I have taken this opportunity to explain 
how the Council sets its priorities for investment across the borough and the process 
involved in delivering significant and transformational change. I hope this context will be 
useful not just in this case but in general.  If anything in this response is unclear please feel 
free to contact 
who will be able to help further. 

, Camden’s Assistant Director for Environment and Transport, 

Policy context  
Camden is responsible for approximately 286km or 89% of the total road network in the 
borough that vary from quiet residential roads to the very busy central London streets such 
as those around Holborn. It is necessary to have a solid policy basis and then an evidence 
led approach to optimise the value of investment. Camden ensures that it maximises the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 value of the capital programme of road improvements by working with a number of partners, 
and gaining developer contributions to assist in improving our streets. 

The CTS sets out Camden’s overall transport strategy for the borough for a 20 year period 
(until 2031), a copy of which is available on the Council’s website at 
http://camden.gov.uk/ccm/content/transport-and-streets/transport-strategies/camdens-local-
implementation-plan.en.  The CTS also forms Camden’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP), 
as required by the Greater London Authority Act 1999.  The focus of the CTS is on making 
travel and transport in the borough as sustainable, healthy and safe as possible.  To that 
end it includes objectives, targets and policies to help guide a programme of investment, 
which includes capital projects (making physical changes on street) and revenue 
expenditure (training, education and awareness).  The scale of Camden’s ambition in terms 
of what we would want to see delivered across the borough in terms of improvements to 
transport is unfortunately not matched by the level of funding available. It is therefore 
necessary to take a long term strategic approach to developing the programme of 
investment and prioritise the funding so that it is directed to the areas of greatest need.    

The areas of greatest need are identified through consideration and analysis of a range of 
data, including casualty data. This results in a rolling three year programme of investment, 
which is updated annually and extensively reviewed every three years in order to take 
account of and respond to changing context and emerging trends and patterns in things 
such as safety and travel behaviour.   

In general the intensity of demand from all types of road users in the south of the borough – 
a busy part of central London that is experiencing significant growth – means that there are 
more opportunities for collisions and therefore more pressure to optimise designs to 
minimise risk. It is no surprise that the borough’s investment programme concentrates on 
areas south of the borough as they are more intensely used. As part of this the entire 
Holborn gyratory had already been identified for an Area Based Scheme to look at how 
improvements could be made to deliver a safer and more fitting road environment. Casualty 
statistics played a strong role in this. 

Collision statistics 
As part of Camden’s approach to improving road safety, officers undertake a robust analysis 
of casualty data for the whole borough, to identify those locations (corridors and 
neighbourhoods) with the highest number of KSI (killed and seriously injured) over the most 
recent three year period.  This analysis includes looking at a level of detail that will enable 
officers to identify patterns or common issues, such as being a ‘left hook’ issue or all 
collisions occurring at a particular time of day (light or dark). This is the standard industry 
approach and is considered a sufficient period of time to pick up trends and identify areas of 
concern, not least to reflect that as traffic and vehicle movement patterns change over time, 
situations can be very different from longer periods ago.    

Officers have analysed the collision statistics (Stats 19 data provided by the Police) for this 
location and this shows that there have been 24 recorded injury collisions at the junction of 
Vernon Place, Southampton Row and Theobalds Road in the three years to October  2013,  
prior to the incident involving Mr Golding.  Of these collisions, four were classed as serious 
and resulted in injury to five people (two pedestrians, one cyclist and one passenger on 
bus/coach and one driver were seriously injured), the remainder recorded as resulting in 
slight injury. There were no fatal collisions recorded during this three year period.  

Of the 24 collisions, nine involved injury to cyclists, although none occurred on the 
northwest corner of this junction, and none involved left turning vehicles. One of the nine 
involved serious injury to a cyclist, which resulted from a cyclist who did not comply with 

 
 
 
 
 
 traffic signals and collided with another cyclist.  The remaining eight resulted in slight injury 
to cyclists; of these one involved a pedestrian who ran into the road and into the path of a 
cyclist, four involved a vehicle driving too close to a cyclist and struck the cyclist from 
behind, one involved a cyclist who disobeyed traffic signals and collided with a car, one 
involved a cyclist who went into the back of another cyclist.  One involved a vehicle who 
struck a cyclist whilst trying to overtake it, and the final one involved a cyclist who turned 
into the path of a vehicle. Examination of the collision data on all 24 collisions at this 
junction shows no consistent pattern.   

In relation to the ten year data that was referred to in the report and at the inquest this 
shows that, prior to the collision involving Mr Golding, there were two other collisions which 
resulted in the death of two cyclists.  The previous fatal collisions occurred in 2008 and 
2009.  Of those two fatalities one involved a cyclist in collision with a left turning vehicle. As 
the investigation into the circumstances leading to the collision did not result in any 
recommendations put forward by the Police, officers did not need to take any immediate 
action.  However following a study on the Bloomsbury Way / Theobald’s Road corridor that 
was undertaken in 2011 officers did make recommendations to address collisions and these 
measures, laying anti-skid material across the junction, were completed in 2012.  
Casualty statistics relate to the intensity of use of a location, with more users meaning that 
there are more opportunities for collisions. However, to make real improvements requires 
the identification of a pattern that can be addressed. Where that is the case, action is more 
directed and more effective.   

Details of action taken or proposed to be taken 
It states in the Prevention of Future Deaths report that you believe that action should be 
taken to prevent future deaths and that Camden has the power to take such action, but it is 
not clear from the report what specific action you expect Camden to take.  However, from 
the content of the report we have taken the action to be early consideration of the Vernon 
Place / Southampton Row junction for improvement.   

As stated in the Council’s evidence provided to the inquest, following the incident on 5 
November 2013 a site meeting was held on 26th November and was attended by the 
Council and the Metropolitan Police.  There were no significant issues identified with the 
layout of the junction that contributed to the incident on 5 November 2013 and no further 
actions were recommended by the Police.  If the Police had identified any action to be taken 
this would have been prioritised by the Council and implemented at the earliest opportunity.   

The report states that this junction leaves cyclists particularly vulnerable.  As noted above, 
this location is a constrained central London location and the demand from motor traffic, 
cyclists and pedestrians is high and competing for limited space.  The Council is legally 
obliged to consider all of these demands and provide arrangements and facilities that best 
balance these competing uses. 

The road network in Camden is large and complex with a number of different demands and 
it is necessary for Camden to take a strategic view of that network when implementing 
change and developing proposals.  Implementing changes to any signal junction on the 
central London network impacts upon the wider area, and the result is that no significant 
change at any one location can or should be considered in isolation.  Furthermore, the 
introduction of such changes is not solely within the control of Camden as it would require 
working closely with and approval from TfL, particularly in relation to what the wider impacts 
would be.  I explain the different roles of each authority below. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Where it is possible for Camden to implement changes we do so.  One of the most recent 
examples, which is also referred to in the report, is allowing cyclists to use the contra-flow 
bus lane on Bloomsbury Way.  When the bus priority scheme was first implemented, in 
2009, cyclists were not permitted to use the contra-flow bus lane as, due to lack of road 
space and issues with junction capacity, the bus lane could not be widened to safely 
accommodate cyclists passing buses.  This resulted in cyclists travelling west having to use 
the Holborn gyratory via Drake Street, Proctor Street and High Holborn to re-join the 
corridor at New Oxford Street, which has been raised as a concern by cyclists.   

In response to these concerns officers undertook site visits and commissioned an 
independent safety assessment of the two routes, which also involved representatives of 
Camden Cycling Campaign (CCC).  The assessment concluded that that the existing route 
via High Holborn / Procter Street placed cyclists at greater risk when compared to the 
contra-flow bus lane on Bloomsbury Way corridor. Although there were hazards associated 
with the contra-flow bus lane, it was accepted that they present less of a risk than the 
existing route.  The findings of the assessment were discussed with the Police to reach 
agreement of how the findings of the report could be implemented whilst addressing the 
continued safety concerns regarding the width of the carriageway and cyclists overtaking 
buses at bus stops. A series of bollards were therefore placed just prior to the two bus 
stops, with additional other measures like signing and a clear box junction. It was agreed 
that with these measures in place the ban on cyclists could be lifted and this was 
implemented under an experimental order which came into effect on 31 January 2014.   

I include this example within the Council’s response not only to demonstrate that Camden 
does take action where possible, but also to illustrate that there is often not a 
straightforward solution to issues that addresses all concerns.  When this is the case we 
take a considered and informed decision in relation to the best course of action taking into 
account all of the available information and evidence.  

Roles of the borough and TfL 
By law the Council is responsible for the creation, maintenance, improvement and stopping 
up of the highway. The Council is therefore the traffic and highway authority for 
Southampton Row and Vernon Place. However the operation of signals across London is 
the responsibility of TfL, as Traffic Signal Authority, and any changes that a London 
Borough wants to make to signals on their road network needs to be agreed and 
implemented by TfL. 

In addition, under the Traffic Management Act (TMA) 2004, both Camden and TfL have a 
Network Management Duty to manage their road network with a view to achieving, so far as 
may be reasonably practicable having regard to their other obligations, policies and 
objectives, the following objectives— 

(a) securing the expeditious movement of traffic on the authority's road network; and 
(b) facilitating the expeditious movement of traffic on road networks for which another 
authority is the traffic authority. 

(note that “traffic” in the Duty is taken to include pedestrians). 

Therefore, although Camden seeks to provide the best facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, 
it does need to take into account its responsibility under the TMA. Additional traffic queues 
need to be considered sensitively because it can result in safety concerns as, for example, 
road users may then take risks if they have to wait a longer period at junctions. 

The TMA also provides for the designation of strategic roads in London. Boroughs remain 
the highway authority for these roads but they need to seek the consent of TfL to carry out 
highway works that might affect a strategic road. Southampton Row is part of the Strategic 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 Road Network (‘SRN’). Therefore any changes proposed which has an impact on the TLRN 
or SRN requires approval from Transport for London and they have the power of veto on 
this.  

This interaction of powers and responsibilities, along with the potential safety impacts of 
action at any one location, mean that investigating and planning for such change needs to 
be considered jointly and carefully. 

Holborn Area Based Scheme 
The Holborn area based scheme was already part of our work programme before Mr 
Golding’s death, driven in significant part by concerns for cyclist safety across the area. 
Funding had been allocated to develop options for transformative change in the area and 
deliver significant improvements for pedestrians and cyclists.   A scheme of this scale and 
complexity will necessarily take a significant amount of time to complete in order to 
understand the wider impacts.  Those impacts are not only about delays and congestion but 
in themselves can have safety implications at other sites, so it is right and proper that we 
consider matters in this wider holistic way. 

Officers have been working with the CCC to develop a strategy for the area and have also 
begun to collect data to inform the development of proposals.  To date traffic counts for the 
whole of the Holborn area based scheme project area, including High Holborn / Theobalds 
Road / Kingsway / Southampton Row and Clerkenwell Road have been collected. We have 
also collected cycle count data and pedestrian data within this study area at all junctions.  
Collision data is already always available to the Council and doesn’t specifically need to be 
collected. 

A brief will be issued to traffic consultants by the end of May 2014 to invite tenders for the 
next stage of development. Consultants will be commissioned to undertake traffic signal 
modelling for the whole Holborn area based scheme area, which includes the Southampton 
Row/Vernon Place junction.  Under the current programme it is anticipated that consultants 
will be appointed in mid June 2014.  A range of options will be considered as part of this 
commission which will explore possibilities to significantly improve facilities for cyclists. This 
stage of the process is expected to take 9 months.  

Once this phase of project development has been completed the options will continue to be 
discussed with TfL and agreement reached with regard to which option(s) should be taken 
forward.  The proposals would then have to be subject to a public consultation which would 
include residents, businesses and stakeholders such as the emergency services, CCC and 
London Buses, to name a few.  A decision on the scheme is therefore not likely to be taken 
until next financial year and implementation will follow, subject to the outcome of the 
consultation, acquisition of funding from a variety of sources, and coordination with other 
significant projects in the area. If large scale changes are proposed then we would seek to 
phase implementation over a number of years. 

Release of publication of our response 
The Council does not object to the release or publication of this response. 

I trust that this letter provides you with sufficient information with regard to how Camden will 
be responding to the report on prevention on future deaths and demonstrates that Camden 
takes cyclist safety very seriously and will continue to do so. 

Yours sincerely 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Director of Culture and Environment