Recurring concern

Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads

First to latest report 11 Mar 2014 — 9 Jan 2025

Reports that mention this concern
11
Times this concern has been raised
11
Stated actions linked to this concern
10

What this concern includes

Includes inappropriate speed limits and absent or inadequate traffic-calming measures on roads whose residential, commercial or pedestrian-generating features require lower or better-controlled vehicle speeds.

What is not included
  • Excludes road-surface, lighting, junction-layout or signage defects where traffic-speed control is adequate.
  • Excludes high-speed roads without residential, commercial or pedestrian-generating roadside activity.
  • Excludes individual speeding offences where the systemic limit or calming arrangements are adequate.

Reports and published responses 11 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Newcastle and North Tyneside

    AI-generated summary

    John Michael Liddle · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    John Michael Liddle was cycling on the A694 when he was hit by an overtaking minibus and suffered unsurvivable head injuries. The substantive concern was that the 40 miles per hour speed limit was unsafe for that stretch of road, which was residential, included bends and junctions, and had previously experienced other collisions involving cyclists, pedestrians and motor vehicles.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unsafe 40 miles per hour speed limit for the road stretch

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) At the time of the collision the area of the A694 upon which Mr Liddle was cycling was subject to a 40 miles per hour speed limit; (2) The speed limit on this area of road has now (temporarily) been reduced to 30 miles per hour; (3) The road is within a residential area; (4) The road encompasses bends and junctions; (5) There have been a number of other collisions along the stretch of road involving pedal cycles, pedestrians and motor vehicles; and (6) A 40 miles per hour speed limit is unsafe for this stretch of road. ”

    Source location

    John Michael Liddle · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement an experimental traffic order reducing the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph across approximately 1.5 km including the collision area.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In response to the concerns raised, a decision was made to investigate the effect of a reduction to the speed limit from 40 to 30 mph using an experimental traffic regulation order, pursuant to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. This order stretches approximately 1.5km in length and incorporates the area where the fatal road traffic collision occurred.”

    Source location

    Response from Gateshead Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Monitor traffic speeds and investigate any further road traffic collisions during the experimental order period.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This Order commenced 7th November 2024 and will be in effect for a period of up to 18 months, during which time traffic speeds will be monitored and any further road traffic collisions will be investigated.”

    Source location

    Response from Gateshead Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Collect public comments during the first six months on whether the speed-reduction scheme is working.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The first six months of that period will be used for the public to comment on whether the scheme is working, or not. The Council will then review all the comments and decide how to proceed.”

    Source location

    Response from Gateshead Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review public comments and decide how to proceed with the scheme.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The first six months of that period will be used for the public to comment on whether the scheme is working, or not. The Council will then review all the comments and decide how to proceed.”

    Source location

    Response from Gateshead Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

  2. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Anthony John PAINE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Anthony Paine died at the scene after being struck by a car while crossing the A361 in Banbury on 24 March 2023. Concerns were expressed that the 30 mph speed limit may be too high for the road’s characteristics and pedestrian volume, and that a slower vehicle speed might have allowed more time to react or reduced the severity of the impact.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Potentially excessive 30 mph speed limit on a pedestrian-heavy town-centre road

    Wider context from the report

    “The speed limit on the A361 North Bar Street at the location of the collision is 30 mph. There was a concern expressed at the Inquest that this speed limit may be too high, given the characteristics of the road and the volume of pedestrian traffic in the area. The A361 at this location is a long, straight, single carriageway with one lane in each direction. Travelling southbound, the pedestrian crossing is approached from a gradual rise in the road from Banbury Cross Roundabout, some 150 meters away. There is in the road obscures the view of the pedestrian crossing to approaching vehicles. There are a number of pubs and restaurants on both sides of the road and a number of pedestrians in the area late into the evening. The Forensic Collision Investigator concluded that in the short window of time in which Mr. Paine was likely visible to the driver, they failed to see him. The Investigator’s evidence was that even if the driver had seen Mr. Paine, there would have been insufficient time to react and avoid the collision. However, the Investigator’s evidence also stated that if the vehicle had been traveling at a slower speed, this may have provided the driver with sufficient time to react and either avoid the collision or reduce the severity of the impact. In the opinion of the Forensic Collision Investigator, the speed of the driver’s vehicle was 32.6 mph ± 3.6 mph and was a contributing factor to the severity of the collision and that, as a general point, the slower the vehicle is travelling the less severe the effects of any impact. It was further noted that other nearby town/city centres (eg Oxford) have introduced 20 mph speed limits on roads in the city centre. ”

    Source location

    Anthony John PAINE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Allocate funding through the 2025/26 Vision Zero road safety programme for proposed speed-limit improvement measures.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “That said, it should also be noted that following a community consultation, in line with our 20mph policy, an allocation has been made in the 2025/26 Vision Zero road safety programme for the design and implementation of improvement measures including (subject to consultation and subsequent approval) a 20mph speed limit at the location of the traffic collision resulting in the death of Mr Paine. If approved, the intention is that the scheme will be completed by the end of the 2025/26 financial year. Until this scheme is implemented there is no plan to change to the current and appropriate speed limit of 30mph.”

    Source location

    Response from Oxfordshire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Design and seek approval for a proposed 20mph speed limit at the collision location through the 2025/26 programme.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “That said, it should also be noted that following a community consultation, in line with our 20mph policy, an allocation has been made in the 2025/26 Vision Zero road safety programme for the design and implementation of improvement measures including (subject to consultation and subsequent approval) a 20mph speed limit at the location of the traffic collision resulting in the death of Mr Paine. If approved, the intention is that the scheme will be completed by the end of the 2025/26 financial year. Until this scheme is implemented there is no plan to change to the current and appropriate speed limit of 30mph.”

    Source location

    Response from Oxfordshire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The current 30mph speed limit is considered appropriate and sufficient until any approved 20mph scheme is implemented.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Thank you for your letter of 9 January and Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths. In response to the matters of concern raised, I can confirm that the current speed limit (30mph), is in line with current national guidance and standards.”

    Source location

    Response from Oxfordshire County Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 13 January 2025

    Open published response

  3. Black Country

    AI-generated summary

    Mr David WELLINGTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mr David Wellington died at the scene after being struck by a reversing Renault box van while he was a pedestrian on a service road in Walsall on 12 December 2023. The concerns included the absence of a designated pedestrian route, road markings, pedestrian separation, warning signs and a speed limit, as well as obstructions affecting pedestrian visibility and emergency-service access.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a speed limit for vehicles using the service road

    Wider context from the report

    “6. There appear to be no signs alerting anyone using the access road to the potential presence of pedestrians within the service road area and no speed limit for vehicles using the service road. In my view this presents a risk of future deaths. ”

    Source location

    Mr David WELLINGTON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The council cannot legally impose an enforceable speed limit because the service road is not a highway.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Speed limit As the service road is not a highway the council cannot impose a legally enforceable speed limit along the service road.”

    Source location

    2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
    Page 4 · response
    Published 9 May 2024

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    There is no evidence that excessive speed caused the accident or that maximum-speed signs would reduce the risk of future deaths.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The council notes that the most unfortunate accident which led to the death of Mr Wellington was caused by a van reversing along the service road behind the shops. The council does not have any evidence of the speed at which the van was being reversed, so it has assumed that it was being driven at a very low speed. It has also assumed that it was being driven at a speed below any speed limit which could reasonably have been imposed if the council had the power to impose a speed limit. In the absence of any evidence of vehicles being driven along the service road at excessive speed, or of speed having played any part in the accident which led to the most unfortunate death of Mr Wellington, the council does not have any material which would indicate that signs indicating a maximum speed would reduce the risk of future deaths.”

    Source location

    2024-0233 Response from Walsall MBC
    Page 5 · response
    Published 9 May 2024

    Open published response

  4. Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Millie TAYLOR-NOONAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Millie TAYLOR-NOONAN, aged 18, was struck by a car while crossing the A607 near The Sir William Robertson School on 4 December 2018. She suffered an unsurvivable head injury and died following the collision; concerns included inadequate pedestrian protections, lighting and crossing arrangements near the school.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a temporary 20-mile-per-hour speed limit during school start and finish periods

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The location of the collision is in the immediate vicinity to the access and exit entrances to a large secondary school; 2. Whilst motorists have the benefit of advanced warning triangles indicating to road users that there is a school 100 ahead along with a speed limit repeater the location of the incident took place near a dropped kerb with a section of tactile pavement on the footpaths either side of the road, there is no indication to road users as to the imminence of what, was in reality a school crossing area and the area is also unlit; 3. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased may have been distracted by other road traffic users and in particular a school bus emerging from the school premises in the immediacy of the collision that serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of pedestrians in this location at such a time; 4. There are no other measures that exist to protect pedestrians such as: a. Railings; b. Street lighting; c. An automated zebra or other form of crossing to allow a priority to be given to pedestrians; d. A school crossing patrol officer; e. A temporary reduction in the speed limit to 20 miles per hour at the beginning and end of the school day; ”

    Source location

    Millie TAYLOR-NOONAN · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A temporary 20 mph limit will not be implemented because evidence of speed reduction is debated and the County Council has no such policy.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “e. The benefits of a temporary speed limit are a matter of debate nationally as evidence suggests such a measure may not have the effect of reducing average speeds. The County Council does not therefore have a policy of implementing temporary speed limits of 20 mph in place. However, as mentioned above it is agreed that the conspicuity of the school entrance can be enhanced. Therefore, we will carry out works this year to place improved roadmarkings including SLOW and yellow SCHOOL zig-zag markings adjacent to the entrance. We will also install additional school warning signs and finally we will provide school amber flashing lights to raise awareness at start and finish times.”

    Source location

    2020-0097-Response-from-Lincolnshire-County-Council_Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 18 May 2020

    Open published response

  5. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    David Stewart MOORE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    David Stewart Moore died after being struck by a motor car while crossing an unlit section of the A693 at around 1830hrs on 28 January 2019. The principal concerns were that the location was a natural pedestrian crossing point without street lighting, was in complete darkness, and had a 60mph speed limit, leaving drivers insufficient distance to detect and stop for pedestrians.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to set a vehicle speed limit compatible with pedestrian detection and stopping distances

    Wider context from the report

    “The section of the A693 where the collision occurred is: • a de facto pedestrian crossing point connecting footpaths intersecting that road; • an area to which the national speed limit applies (60mph for cars); • very dark at night, being unaffected by ambient illumination; • without street lighting The material section of road is a natural crossing point for pedestrians travelling between two footpaths leading between the collision site: and (i) the village of No Place, to the south of the A693 and (ii) the village of Kip Hill, to the north of the A693. I accepted the following evidence about the material section of road (given by a police Collision Investigator): (i) the road is approximately 12m wide, and after nightfall is “in complete darkness”, being bordered by dense trees and unaffected by discernible ambient light; (ii) drivers are entirely reliant on headlamp illumination to detect pedestrians; (iii) in reliance on his own dipped headlamps, a driver could gain first sight of a static pedestrian in the carriageway at a distance of no more than 40m from that pedestrian; and (iv) a motor car travelling at 60mph would require significantly more than 40m (around 80m) to come to a halt (taking into account driver reaction time and mechanical stopping distance). In this case, the driver first saw the deceased “just prior to the collision” when the latter was running “with large strides” towards the southern side of the A693. Despite emergency braking, he failed to avoid the collision. It was impossible to stop in the available distance. ”

    Source location

    David Stewart MOORE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Additional street lighting or engineering measures were not considered appropriate because risk assessment, accident history, visibility and warning signage indicated existing controls were sufficient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The A693 is a principal road through the County which is primarily rural in nature and follows the topography of the land through which it passes. The road bisects many Public Footpaths, Bridleways and footways linking communities. Along the route there are sections of the road which have systems of street lighting where there are areas of conflict such as at junctions and roundabouts. However, the street lighting does not cover all pedestrian or bridleway crossing points. The non-provision of street lighting along the route was considered and examined through a robust Risk Assessment process between 2013 and 2015, with this location being assessed in 2013.”

    Source location

    Response from Durham County Council
    Page 4 · response
    Published 29 December 2019

    Open published response

  6. Cumbria

    AI-generated summary

    Mrs Doreen Fell · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mrs Doreen Fell died at the scene after being struck by a car while crossing the A590 in Backbarrow on 17 January 2018. The report raised concerns about the 60mph national speed limit, inadequate lighting, and the safety of pedestrians—including elderly people, children, and those with impairments—using the crossing in darkness.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The application of the national speed limit for this short section of trunk road whilst it passes through the village of Backbarrow directly impacts on: a) reaction times for pedestrians b) reaction times for drivers c) the size of gap in traffic required to execute a safe pedestrian crossing ”

    Source location

    Mrs Doreen Fell · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As requested by the Coroner in his Regulation 28 Report dated 22 February 2019, Highways England have reviewed the speed limit, the street lighting, the safety of pedestrians and the provision of signing to the underpass at the location of the accident on 17 January 2018.”

    Source location

    2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The existing 60 mph national speed limit is considered appropriate and consistent with current guidance for this stretch of the A590.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits advises that speed limits should reflect the function of the road and its environment. They should also reinforce people’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. The A590 is part of the Strategic Road Network and as such its primary function is to cater for through traffic between the M6 motorway and Barrow-in-Furness. Whilst the A590 trunk road bisects the village of Backbarrow into two distinct sections, practically none of the village itself fronts directly onto the road. The western and eastern sides of the village are accessed via two junctions situated to the north and south of the pedestrian refuge island. Much of the village is screened from the A590 by trees and the only frontage development is a small parking area to the rear of Brow Edge Road and the driveway to South Lakes Boarding Kennels.”

    Source location

    2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 June 2019

    Open published response

  7. Dorset

    AI-generated summary

    Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Aaron George Nordass-Lacey died on 13 October 2016 after falling from his bicycle on the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, and being struck by a motor vehicle. The principal concerns relate to the safety of pedestrians and cyclists on Barrack Road, including road-crossing behaviour, vehicle speeds, barriers, and unclear cycle-lane signage.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to control excessive vehicle speeds on Barrack Road

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. The road where the incident occurred that lead to Aaron’s death, the A35 Barrack Road, Christchurch, Dorset is a road which has a speed limit of 30 miles per hour. Evidence was given that people regularly drive at excessive speeds on this road. The location of the incident is near to a school and evidence was given that people, especially school children, do not always use the designated crossing just prior to the junction of Clarendon Road and Barrack Road. Evidence was given that school children often flood out of the school and run into the road. Evidence was given that this was perceived to be a danger and that there could be the death of a person in the future. ii. The placement of barriers along this section of road would assist in reducing the access to the road and encouraging pedestrians to use the crossing to cross the road safely, reducing the potential dangers and risk to life. It was also suggested that a fixed speed camera may assist in regulating the speed of vehicles that use the road. iii. Evidence was also given in relation to the cycle lane along Barrack Road. The cycle lane along Barrack Road heading towards Christchurch is on the footpath and is a shared cycle lane and footpath. The cycle lane comes to an end just before the junction of Clarendon Road and evidence was given by the Collision Reduction Team Manager that the expectation is that when the cycle lane comes to an end, cyclists will cross the road and use the cycle path on the footpath on the other side of the road. Although there is a sign at the end of the cycle lane it is not clear that the expectation is for the cyclist to cross over the road at the crossing. The lack of signage is therefore very confusing and could lead to a further collision. 2. I have concerns with regard to the following: i. The safety of pedestrians and cyclists who use Barrack Road, Christchurch where the incident that led to Aaron’s death occurred. I would therefore request that there is a review of the safety measures in place and consideration is given to the erection of barriers along the pavement and also along the central reservation to discourage pedestrians and cyclists from crossing the road in a dangerous manner. ii. I would also request that a review is undertaken regarding the signage given to cyclists at this location and consideration be given to having a fixed speed camera at this location. ”

    Source location

    Aaron George Nordass-Lacey · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  8. Staffordshire South

    AI-generated summary

    Frederick George DUDLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Frederick George Dudley, aged 90, was struck by a vehicle while crossing the A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point after alighting from a bus. The vehicle was travelling above the speed limit, failed to stop, and the driver's view may have been obstructed by other vehicles. Concerns included the crossing's location on a bend, obstructions to visibility, high speed limit, and proximity to several facilities and road users, including an elderly care home and a bus layby.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Speed limit increase before the pedestrian crossing

    Wider context from the report

    “(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point. The crossing is : 1. On a bend 2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway. 3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing. 4. Uncontrolled. 5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate, a bus layby and a road junction. In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location. ”

    Source location

    Frederick George DUDLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  9. Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Florence Margaret Lowe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Florence Margaret Lowe, aged 85, died from multiple chest injuries after being struck by a vehicle while attempting to cross the A519 Clayton Road on 18 November 2014. The substantive concerns related to the road’s 60 mph statutory limit despite nearby residential properties and busy facilities, and the lack of a pedestrian crossing on the south side of a nearby roundabout.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to impose a speed limit appropriate to roadside residential, commercial and pedestrian-generating features

    Wider context from the report

    “1. During the course of the evidence my attention was drawn to the fact that the road is only subject to the statutory limit of 60mph whilst it has residential properties at places along its length, a busy petrol station and large lay-by southbound and a busy hotel northbound on joining the A519 upon leaving the M6 at junction 15. ”

    Source location

    Florence Margaret Lowe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

  10. South Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Ian Hunt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Thomas Ian Hunt died shortly after a road collision on 10 August 2014, after losing control of his vehicle on a wet road in Brothertoft. Concerns included the sub-optimal road surface, previous non-injury collisions not recorded on the local authority database, and whether the 60 mph speed limit was appropriate for the road through the village.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inappropriately high 60mph speed limit on the B1192 through Brothertoft village

    Wider context from the report

    “During the inquest evidence was presented describing how there have been a number of non-injury collisions at the scene of the collision where Thomas died. These would not have been recorded on the local authority's database. The national speed limit of 60mph applies to the B1192 as it passes through Brothertoft village. Evidence was presented to the effect that a 50mph limit would be more appropriate given that the B1192, as it passes through Brothertoft, is bordered by residential properties and farm entrances. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Ian Hunt · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review the Lincolnshire Speed Limit Policy and take the revised policy through scheduled scrutiny consideration.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of our Speed Management Review in Lincolnshire, we are currently in the process of reviewing our existing Speed Limit Policy. The revised new Policy is due to be considered by the Council's Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee on 9 March 2015. Subject to the outcome at this meeting, we will proceed to the public consultation on the revised new Policy. It is anticipated that any new revised Policy will be formally adopted by the Council in the Autumn.”

    Source location

    2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Investigate and assess whether the road section meets criteria for reducing its speed limit, including under any adopted revised policy.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “An assessment for reducing the current speed limit along this section of the road will be actioned once the outcome of the current review has been completed and any revised new Policy is adopted by the Council. In the meantime, we intend to commence the investigation and assessment process to determine whether this site meets the current policy criteria.”

    Source location

    2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 January 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    A speed-limit reduction assessment cannot be completed until the revised Speed Limit Policy is reviewed and adopted; interim investigation will assess current criteria.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “As part of our Speed Management Review in Lincolnshire, we are currently in the process of reviewing our existing Speed Limit Policy. The revised new Policy is due to be considered by the Council's Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee on 9 March 2015. Subject to the outcome at this meeting, we will proceed to the public consultation on the revised new Policy. It is anticipated that any new revised Policy will be formally adopted by the Council in the Autumn.”

    Source location

    2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
    Page 1 · response
    Published 9 January 2015

    Open published response

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026