6 Apr 2026 Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report Suffolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 7
Failure to provide Network Inspectors with information about deviations from the original temporary traffic scheme plan View source Lack of a defect-notice mechanism for dangerous special-signage deficiencies View source Lack of enhanced safety review for complex temporary road traffic plans flipped at short notice View source
Delayed and indirect replacement pathway for temporary traffic management signage View source Failure to consider required special signage after a temporary traffic plan is flipped View source Failure to answer the temporary traffic management defect line promptly View source Lack of spare signage for correcting identified temporary road traffic scheme errors View source See 4 more concerns
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Anglian Water Department for Transport Recipient name withheld Suffolk County Council
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 8
Department for Transport
Review the Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice, including cyclist safety and clearer temporary traffic arrangements.
View source
Department for Transport
Consult on proposed updates to the Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice.
View source
Recipient name withheld
Require customer confirmation of TM plans, review and redraw requested changes, and obtain approval before work proceeds.
View source
Recipient name withheld
Formalise and disseminate TM change-management requirements, including permitted changes, documented approvals, supervisor escalation and disciplinary consequences.
View source
Recipient name withheld
Continue responding proportionately and promptly to defects reported to the business.
View source
Recipient name withheld
Share special-signage requirements with local depots in advance so stock can be checked and necessary orders placed before works.
View source
Anglian Water
Implement the SKEWB Permit Manager System to import defect data automatically and route failures or defects to appropriate teams.
View source
Anglian Water
Continue accepting urgent telephone defect notifications and manually enter them into SKEWB when digital permit updates are unavailable.
View source See 5 more actions
×
AI-generated summary
Allan STEVENSON · 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
Allan Stevenson, a 73-year-old cyclist, died from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision involving an HGV at a roundabout with a temporary traffic management system. The inquest concluded that his death was contributed to by the temporary road layout. Concerns included the flipping of a complex traffic management plan without an enhanced safety review, inadequate or missing signage, limited escalation and inspection processes, delayed responses to reported defects, and the absence of spare signage for immediate changes.
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 provide Network Inspectors with information about deviations from the original temporary traffic scheme plan
Wider context from the report “5. I am concerned that there is no apparent system in place to inform Network Inspectors that a traffic scheme has been laid out, contrary to the original plan that was in place (as in this case when a plan has been flipped).
As a result of the Network Inspector having no access to, or sight of the original plan , he was unaware that the original plan had been flipped, unaware of the suspension of the cycle lanes approaching the roundabout and unaware that the special signage deemed necessary in the original plan, was completely absent in the flipped scheme that was put in place.
As such the Network Inspector’s ability to check the safety of the flipped scheme was seriously compromised .
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × 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 defect-notice mechanism for dangerous special-signage deficiencies
Wider context from the report “3. I am concerned that the correct ‘special signage’ that would have undoubtedly made this scheme safer, was not even considered in this case (as a direct result of the flipping of the original plan).
I am further concerned that Network Inspectors have no power to declare a special sign (or the lack of a special sign) as a defect , as these signs fall outside the mandatory signage shown in the Red Book.
As such, even if a Network Inspector identified what they believed to be a dangerous temporary traffic management scheme, any danger being caused by the lack of special signage (or caused by special signage on site that is incorrect), there is no mechanism available for a Network Inspector to issue a defect notice to raise their concern .
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × 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 enhanced safety review for complex temporary road traffic plans flipped at short notice
Wider context from the report “1. I am concerned that what was agreed by witnesses to be a complex temporary road traffic plan, can be ‘flipped’ on the ground on the day it is installed without any identifiable process being in place to ensure the scheme is subsequently safe .
The court heard that some schemes (such as a single carriage way scheme controlled by only two sets of traffic lights) were straight forward to flip if required, but that no additional or enhanced review system was in place when a complex scheme needed to be flipped at short notice .
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Delayed and indirect replacement pathway for temporary traffic management signage
Wider context from the report “4. I am concerned of that the only recourse for a Network Inspector to get temporary traffic management signage replaced, is an apparently protected procedural route involving multiple individuals remote from the site , with the Network Inspector having limited or no contact with the Traffic Management Operatives at the site itself .
I am further concerned that there is no requirement for spare signage to be carried on vehicles used for setting up the schemes, for obvious or frequently occurring errors identified on temporary road traffic schemes (such as in this case the road narrow signs being the wrong way around).
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × 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 consider required special signage after a temporary traffic plan is flipped
Wider context from the report “3. I am concerned that the correct ‘special signage’ that would have undoubtedly made this scheme safer, was not even considered in this case (as a direct result of the flipping of the original plan ).
I am further concerned that Network Inspectors have no power to declare a special sign (or the lack of a special sign) as a defect, as these signs fall outside the mandatory signage shown in the Red Book.
As such, even if a Network Inspector identified what they believed to be a dangerous temporary traffic management scheme, any danger being caused by the lack of special signage (or caused by special signage on site that is incorrect), there is no mechanism available for a Network Inspector to issue a defect notice to raise their concern.
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × 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 answer the temporary traffic management defect line promptly
Wider context from the report “6. I am concerned that the ‘defect line’ operated by Anglian Water was not answered or responded to on the day of this incident , adding unnecessary delay to the changes required to the scheme signage . It is acknowledged that the signage defect identified on the 24th October 2022 would not have affected the tragic outcome of this case, however that may not be the case in future incidents
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × 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 spare signage for correcting identified temporary road traffic scheme errors
Wider context from the report “4. I am concerned of that the only recourse for a Network Inspector to get temporary traffic management signage replaced, is an apparently protected procedural route involving multiple individuals remote from the site, with the Network Inspector having limited or no contact with the Traffic Management Operatives at the site itself.
I am further concerned that there is no requirement for spare signage to be carried on vehicles used for setting up the schemes , for obvious or frequently occurring errors identified on temporary road traffic schemes (such as in this case the road narrow signs being the wrong way around).
” Source location Allan STEVENSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice, including cyclist safety and clearer temporary traffic arrangements.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department considers that, when applied effectively, this framework provides a robust basis for the safe management of works on the highway. We are currently reviewing the Code of Practice and intend to consult on proposed updates later this year. This work will build on the existing framework, including strengthening expectations in relation to cyclists and improving the clarity of temporary traffic arrangements, and will take into account the concerns raised in your report.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Consult on proposed updates to the Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department considers that, when applied effectively, this framework provides a robust basis for the safe management of works on the highway. We are currently reviewing the Code of Practice and intend to consult on proposed updates later this year. This work will build on the existing framework, including strengthening expectations in relation to cyclists and improving the clarity of temporary traffic arrangements, and will take into account the concerns raised in your report.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Require customer confirmation of TM plans, review and redraw requested changes, and obtain approval before work proceeds.
Verbatim wording from the response “████████ now requires written customer confirmation that TM plans meet requirements before work commences which significantly reduces the potential for changes to be required on the day. In the absence of such confirmation, the job will not proceed.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 Formalise and disseminate TM change-management requirements, including permitted changes, documented approvals, supervisor escalation and disciplinary consequences.
Verbatim wording from the response “Further, ████████ has formalised its established processes around changes to TM on site, clarifying permissible on-site changes and the appropriate level of documented approval required for changes to plans. It also reinforces that, if in any doubt, staff should contact their supervisor. A failure to follow the process as set out in the policy document will result in disciplinary action.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 Continue responding proportionately and promptly to defects reported to the business.
Verbatim wording from the response “However, ████████ does and will continue to respond to any defects reported to it in a proportionate and timely manner.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 Share special-signage requirements with local depots in advance so stock can be checked and necessary orders placed before works.
Verbatim wording from the response “When plans require special signage, the Planners will share this request with the relevant local depot in advance of the job. The local depot considers if the signs are in stock or if they need to be ordered in advance of the works. If they are, they will be ordered.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 Implement the SKEWB Permit Manager System to import defect data automatically and route failures or defects to appropriate teams.
Verbatim wording from the response “17. Since early 2023, Anglian has tested and implemented the SKEWB Permit Manager System, which interfaces directly with the Street Manager platform and automatically imports incoming defect data into its database. Within the SKEWB system, Automated Working Groups are mapped to specific business cohorts, enabling the system to relay any identified failures or defects to the appropriate teams. While this represents a significant improvement over previous processes, the effectiveness of the system remains contingent upon the timely upload of defect information by the inspector to the Street Manager system. Consequently, the overall success of the system continues to depend on the SCC inspector’s ability to upload defects promptly to the Street Manager platform.” Source location Response from Anglian Water
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 Continue accepting urgent telephone defect notifications and manually enter them into SKEWB when digital permit updates are unavailable.
Verbatim wording from the response “18. In order to ensure a rapid response to urgent issues and to prevent delays that could compromise safety, Anglian continues to accept direct telephone notifications from the Highway Authority. If a telephone notification is received before the corresponding digital permit update is available in Street” Source location Response from Anglian Water
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 Network Inspectors’ access to traffic management information is a matter for Central Government.
Verbatim wording from the response “5. Communication with customers, permit holders and, where relevant, network inspectors:” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 absence of advance notification about a changed layout did not prevent identification of non-compliance or appropriate enforcement action.
Verbatim wording from the response “The concern raised suggests that the absence of a process to notify the highway authority of changes to a complex scheme (including the “flipping” of the layout) compromised the safety assessment. However:” Source location Response from Suffolk County Council
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 Works promoters and highway authorities are responsible for designing, approving, monitoring and implementing temporary traffic management arrangements.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department’s role is to set the overarching legal and policy framework for road safety and to provide guidance. Responsibility for the design, approval and monitoring of temporary traffic management arrangements sits with those undertaking the works and the relevant highway authority. These parties are responsible for ensuring that arrangements are appropriate for the specific circumstances on site.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Network Inspector powers are set by Central Government and are outside the respondent’s control.
Verbatim wording from the response “Further, the powers of Network Inspectors are set by Central Government and outside of ████████ control.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 Network Inspectors cannot raise defects solely for non-prescribed or advisory signage that is not mandatory under the Red Book.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. Concern 3: ‘I am concerned that the correct ‘special signage’ that would have undoubtedly made this scheme safer, was not even considered in this case (as a direct result of the flipping of the original plan).
I am further concerned that Network Inspectors have no power to declare a special sign (or the lack of a special sign) as a defect, as these signs fall outside the mandatory signage shown in the Red Book.
As such, even if a Network Inspector identified what they believed to be a dangerous temporary traffic management scheme, any danger being caused by the lack of special signage (or caused by special signage on site that is incorrect), there is no mechanism available for a Network Inspector to issue a defect notice to raise their concern’.” Source location Response from Suffolk County Council
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 Approving or redesigning undertakers’ temporary traffic management is outside the highway authority’s statutory role.
Verbatim wording from the response “Role of the highway authority” Source location Response from Suffolk County Council
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 Statutory undertakers and their appointed contractors are responsible for designing, implementing and safely operating temporary traffic management.
Verbatim wording from the response “Under Section 48 of NRSWA, “street works” include not only the placement and maintenance of apparatus but also works required for or incidental to those activities, which includes the provision and management of temporary traffic management necessary to undertake the works safely.” Source location Response from Suffolk County Council
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 principles-based Code provides a robust basis for safely managing temporary traffic management, including adapting arrangements to site conditions.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department considers that, when applied effectively, this framework provides a robust basis for the safe management of works on the highway. We are currently reviewing the Code of Practice and intend to consult on proposed updates later this year. This work will build on the existing framework, including strengthening expectations in relation to cyclists and improving the clarity of temporary traffic arrangements, and will take into account the concerns raised in your report.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Spare signage should not be used to redesign schemes on site because selection, vehicle capacity and personnel competence create practical safety constraints.
Verbatim wording from the response “████████ does not consider it safe or appropriate to require operatives or Network Inspectors to utilise ‘spare signage’ to re-design TM schemes on site. It would be impossible to select the correct signs in advance as any issue with the TM is unclear until operatives are at site. This presents practical difficulties in terms of vehicle weight limits which may necessitate further operatives and vehicles increasing the footprint of the TM set up itself.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 respondent has no involvement in operating or using Anglian Water’s Defect Line.
Verbatim wording from the response “████████ has no involvement in the operation or use of Anglian Water’s ‘Defect Line’ and is therefore unable to comment on its functionality or use at the material time.” Source location Response from Clyde & Co
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 defect line did not fail or cause delay; established procedures operated as intended for the identified risk level.
Verbatim wording from the response “12. Following additional internal investigation, we were able to confirm in the witness evidence that no phone call was made or expected, as the issues were not classified as high risk. Our Compliance Team received and acted upon the notifications as required, in accordance with Anglian’s established assignment and reporting procedures and SCC’s assessment of the risk profile.” Source location Response from Anglian Water
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 Anglian Water is responsible for its internal defect-reporting arrangements, which Suffolk County Council cannot comment on.
Verbatim wording from the response “6. Concern 6: ‘I am concerned that the ‘defect line’ operated by Anglian Water was not answered or responded to on the day of this incident, adding unnecessary delay to the changes required to the scheme signage. It is acknowledged that the signage defect identified on the 24 October 2022 would not have affected the tragic outcome of this case, however that may not be the case in future incidents’.” Source location Response from Suffolk County Council
Open published response
Concerns raised 1
Failure of national temporary-signage regulations to ensure adequate warning at collision sites View source
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 1
Department for Transport
Consider the highlighted temporary-signage issue while updating the Code of Practice.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Patricia Heidi BUSHELL · 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
Patricia Heidi BUSHELL was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle that was struck by a car at a junction on 9 September 2023. She sustained fatal injuries and died in hospital the same day. The principal concern was that temporary signage regarded as compliant with national guidance was nevertheless inadequate to alert drivers to the junction, raising a potentially wider national issue about temporary signage regulations.
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 of national temporary-signage regulations to ensure adequate warning at collision sites
Wider context from the report “I indicated at the conclusion of the inquest that I will not be making a report in respect of the missed opportunities identified in relation to Leicestershire County Council employees. Significant changes have been made. I am however concerned that in respect of the national regulations, I am told that the temporary signage installed at the collision site was compliant with the guidance. Reference was made to The Road Traffic Regulations and the Traffic Signs Manual and it remains the view of LCC that the single temporary sign in place on the road was appropriate and complied with the guidance. It was nevertheless inadequate.
I refer specifically to Chapter 16 paragraph 20 of the Coroners Bench Book, ”Where the identified risk to life has already been ameliorated by local changes the coroner may wish to consider whether the matter is an issue that only affects the relevant local organisation or is a wider or national issue. In the latter case then directing a report to a national, professional or regulatory body might enable them to also consider relevant changes that might protect lives.” I conclude that this is potentially a wider national issue and I am writing to you, as you have responsibility for ensuring the transport network is safe and I wish to highlight the issues raised during this investigation and at the inquest particularly in relation to the current regulations with regard to temporary signage.
” Source location Patricia Heidi BUSHELL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Consider the highlighted temporary-signage issue while updating the Code of Practice.
Verbatim wording from the response “However, my Department is currently undertaking work to update the Code of Practice and we will ensure that the issue you highlight is considered as part of that work.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Local highway authorities are responsible for deciding how to fulfil their statutory duty to maintain traffic signs.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department’s role is to set the overarching legal and policy framework, and to provide guidance to local highway authorities. All local highway authorities are required to ensure that traffic signs are maintained so that they can be seen by motorists. This stems from their general duty of care contained in Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, together with their statutory responsibility for maintaining the highway conferred in Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Existing departmental guidance and local authorities’ risk assessments are considered sufficient to ensure a safe road network.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department considers that with the guidance provided, and local authorities’ responsibility to undertake risk assessments, this should be sufficient to ensure the local authority can provide a safe road network.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
Open published response
20 Feb 2025 Paul Stephen Collingridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report Essex
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Failure to place road works warning signs without obscuring visibility of joining traffic View source
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses
Affinity Water Limited Department for Transport Essex County Council Hatton Traffic Management Limited
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 6
Hatton Traffic Management Limited
Complete a full review of emergency works procedures.
View source
Hatton Traffic Management Limited
Roll out new detailed design layouts and sign-placement guidance for all traffic-light schemes and road speeds.
View source
Hatton Traffic Management Limited
Devise and roll out a toolbox talk addressing sight-line issues and the procedure changes across the business.
View source
Hatton Traffic Management Limited
Add a process-flow question requiring operatives to record whether signage sight lines have been checked and assessed as appropriate.
View source
Affinity Water Limited
Strengthen planning and execution of emergency roadworks and implement stricter contractor-oversight protocols, supported by regular audits and assessments.
View source
Department for Transport
Update the Safety Code through consultation, incorporating the report’s findings and publishing a revised version.
View source See 3 more actions
×
AI-generated summary
Paul Stephen Collingridge · 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
Paul Stephen Collingridge, aged 28, died on 6 December 2022 from multiple traumatic injuries after his motorcycle high-sided near overnight roadworks and he was struck by oncoming traffic. The report raised concerns about the setting out and measurement of roadworks in darkness and on curved roads, the placement of a warning sign that obscured visibility, and the absence of a requirement to report a fatality on a retrospective permit application.
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 place road works warning signs without obscuring visibility of joining traffic
Wider context from the report “(3) A road works warning sign was placed at the junction that joined the carriageway of a road that obscured visibility of traffic joining the main carriageway . Whilst this did not cause or contribute to this incident this was not in accordance with the Code of Practice .
” Source location Paul Stephen Collingridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Complete a full review of emergency works procedures.
Verbatim wording from the response “Insofar as recommendation 5 (3) is concerned, HTML can confirm that it undertook a full review of emergency works procedures which resulted in new design layouts for all traffic light schemes on all road speeds. These provide additional more detailed guidance and direction on the placement of signs and were rolled out across the business on 23rd January 2025.” Source location Response from Hatton Traffic Management
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 Roll out new detailed design layouts and sign-placement guidance for all traffic-light schemes and road speeds.
Verbatim wording from the response “Insofar as recommendation 5 (3) is concerned, HTML can confirm that it undertook a full review of emergency works procedures which resulted in new design layouts for all traffic light schemes on all road speeds. These provide additional more detailed guidance and direction on the placement of signs and were rolled out across the business on 23rd January 2025.” Source location Response from Hatton Traffic Management
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 Devise and roll out a toolbox talk addressing sight-line issues and the procedure changes across the business.
Verbatim wording from the response “A specific toolbox talk addressing this issue and the above changes, was devised and rolled out across the business on 30th January 2025.” Source location Response from Hatton Traffic Management
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 Add a process-flow question requiring operatives to record whether signage sight lines have been checked and assessed as appropriate.
Verbatim wording from the response “In addition, an additional question has been added to the installation process flow which requires the relevant operative to answer and record whether sight lines to signage have been checked and assessed as appropriate.” Source location Response from Hatton Traffic Management
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 Strengthen planning and execution of emergency roadworks and implement stricter contractor-oversight protocols, supported by regular audits and assessments.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following Paul’s death, Affinity reviewed its traffic management practices including the strengthening of our planning and execution of emergency works and have already implemented stricter protocols with regard to oversight of our contractors. Regular audits and assessments are carried out to monitor adherence and identify areas for continuous improvement. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of street works requiring emergency permits.” Source location Response from Affinity Water
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 Update the Safety Code through consultation, incorporating the report’s findings and publishing a revised version.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Safety Code was last published in 2013 and is currently in the process of being updated, with a consultation due to take place in early summer. We are inviting comments on whether there are any parts of the Safety Code that can be improved to maximise safety, and we plan to publish an updated version by the end of 2025. I will ensure that we take into account your report when completing this work.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 local highway authority that granted the permit is responsible for deciding enforcement action concerning incorrectly placed signs.
Verbatim wording from the response “You raised a further concern regarding a sign that was placed incorrectly at a junction which obscured visibility but was not a contributing factor to Mr Collingridge’s death. It appears that the placement of the sign was not in accordance with the Safety Code. However, it is for the local highway authority that granted the permit to decide on any enforcement action. It would have been for them to do this at the time of the incident.” Source location Response from Department for Transport
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 Statutory undertakers and their contractors are responsible for safely setting up emergency works and ensuring Code compliance.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. Road Works Permits and Setup in Hours of Darkness. All work is more difficult during the hours of darkness. Undertakers and those working on their behalf are responsible for ensuring emergency works are set up safely and are required to have a trained and qualified person on site to ensure compliance with the Code. ECC does not have the ability to inspect all emergency roadworks as that does not form part of the safety system.” Source location Response from Essex County Council
Open published response
17 Jul 2024 Barry John HOWARD · Prevention of Future Deaths report Norfolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Insufficiency of temporary road-closure signs View source
This report raised 7 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 4
Norfolk County Council
Arrange replacement warning signs at locations with missing or damaged signs.
View source
Norfolk County Council
Install immovable barriers and associated robust closure measures at Shotesham Ford.
View source
Norfolk County Council
Install improved warning signage at multiple ford locations following site-specific safety reviews.
View source
Norfolk County Council
Make the ford safe with temporary signs and order replacement permanent signs after theft of warning signs.
View source See 1 more action
×
AI-generated summary
Barry John HOWARD · 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
Barry John Howard entered flood water at an unbridged ford on 13 December 2023, after warning signs were not visible, and his car was swept into the river. He was found deceased in the almost completely submerged car on 14 December 2023. Concerns included inadequate and poorly positioned warning signs, delayed or insufficient road-closure measures, and other risks associated with the ford and road surface.
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 Insufficiency of temporary road-closure signs
Wider context from the report “v. The insufficiency of the temporary road closed signs used and the lack of more permanent measures, in accordance with guidelines, once the closure lasted more than 24 hours. It was only a week prior to the inquest, some 7 months after this death, that action was taken. I am concerned that such lengthy delays to implement safety measures will lead to a risk in future incidents at this and possibly other locations.
” Source location Barry John HOWARD · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Arrange replacement warning signs at locations with missing or damaged signs.
Verbatim wording from the response “As the local highway authority for Norfolk, the Council is responsible for 47 fords across 6,200 miles of highway network. Within days of the incident on 13 December 2023, all these fords had been inspected by the local Highways teams to ensure vehicle users would encounter safe conditions. This initial review identified other locations where roads were closed due to higher than usual water levels, and replacements for any missing and damaged warning signs were also arranged. As a result of these actions, two further fords on the Norfolk network (at West Acre and Caste Acre) were closed and remain closed to ensure public safety.” Source location Response from Norfolk County Council
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 Install immovable barriers and associated robust closure measures at Shotesham Ford.
Verbatim wording from the response “i) As stated above, a detailed safety review of Shotesham Ford has been undertaken and a number of actions have already been completed, with further planned. In addition, regular inspections have been undertaken to assess the safety of reopening the ford on a weekly basis and the results of these, combined with the groundwater challenges explained above, have resulted in the ford remaining closed to traffic. Despite regular complaints from local residents and businesses, this remains the case. Given the longer than expected ongoing nature of this closure and evidence to suggest that the road closed warning signs and barriers were being ignored by motorists, the Council therefore recently improved the barriers, by way of installing immovable barriers, to ensure motorists could not continue ignoring the warning signs and barriers.” Source location Response from Norfolk County Council
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 Install improved warning signage at multiple ford locations following site-specific safety reviews.
Verbatim wording from the response “vi) As outlined earlier in this response, there have been lessons learned from this tragic incident. Safety inspections of all fords in Norfolk were undertaken immediately after the event. Subsequently, more detailed site by site safety reviews have also been undertaken, with measures such as improved signage installed at a number of locations, and even some further road closures where water levels were observed to be high.” Source location Response from Norfolk County Council
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 Make the ford safe with temporary signs and order replacement permanent signs after theft of warning signs.
Verbatim wording from the response “Regrettably, I report that since these more robust measures were installed in July 2024, the warning signs have been stolen on one side of the ford (identified on 1 August 2024) and the local Highway team have made safe with temporary signs and ordered replacement more permanent signs.” Source location Response from Norfolk County Council
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 Standard temporary road-closure signs and barriers are generally effective for implementing highway closures.
Verbatim wording from the response “v) The temporary road closed signs that have been used are the standard types of signs and barriers used across the country by highway authorities to implement closures such as these. They are usually effective. As explained above, water levels had been expected to return to their normal safe levels in spring. However, due to wider weather conditions, this has not been the case. Highway users have a statutory right to pass and repass on the highway and therefore a longer term closure requires consultation to ensure legitimate access to nearby properties and agricultural land is not impeded. Planning the measures that are currently in place, which included a localised consultation (given the complaints received that the ford was temporarily closed), was undertaken this spring and the measures installed on 9 July 2024.” Source location Response from Norfolk County Council
Open published response
25 Jul 2022 Stephen John COOMBES · Prevention of Future Deaths report Suffolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Inadequate provision of temporary reduced-speed signage View source Failure to obscure higher speed-limit signage when imposing temporary reductions View source
Linked response
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 6
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Maintain a traffic management design standard requiring checks and maintenance after installation throughout each scheme.
View source
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Review traffic management procedures and require opaque covering or removal of existing higher-speed signs and road-surface roundels when temporary speed limits are imposed.
View source
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Undertake daily checks of temporary traffic management, including weekends and bank holidays, and install additional or replacement measures when issues are identified.
View source
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Update WMS and implement an enhanced, audited procedure for scheduling, allocating and completing traffic management checks and maintenance from installation.
View source
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Develop guidance for works gangs to check and photograph temporary traffic management measures and record that they remain in place.
View source
Kier Integrated Services Limited
Deliver toolbox talks to contract work gangs on undertaking traffic management checks.
View source See 3 more actions
×
AI-generated summary
Stephen John COOMBES · 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
Stephen ‘John’ Coombes died at Addenbrookes Hospital on 3 September 2021 after a single-vehicle collision in which the Porsche he was driving left the road and overturned. The report identifies concern that inadequate signage failed to communicate a temporary 30 mph speed limit, leaving road users unaware of the reduced limit and potentially resulting in further fatalities if similar road defects occur.
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 Inadequate provision of temporary reduced-speed signage
Wider context from the report “The court heard that the depression was known to be present by the Highways
Authority, and a temporary 30 mph speed limit (instead of the usual 50mph) had been
put in place.
Evidence was heard from the Forensic Crash Investigation Officer from Suffolk
Constabulary, who conducted an investigation into the road traffic collision which
caused John’s death.
This officer told the court, how he and a colleague drove a police vehicle over the
depression in the road at various speeds to observe the reaction the vehicle had to
damaged road surface.
At 30 mph the police vehicle negotiated the depression in the road with relative ease.
At 50 mph, the police vehicle reacted significantly when negotiating the depression.
At the time of Johns collision, he had just overtaken another vehicle and therefore
crossed the depression a slight angle as he returned to his own side of the carriage
way.
When the police officers replicated this vehicle movement at 50 mph, the police
vehicle reacted violently, with one of the wheels leaving the surface of the road.
The officer driving that vehicle was not prepared to attempt the same manoeuvre at
any higher speed due to the risk involved.
The police officer then told the court that the attending officers themselves were
unaware of 30 mph speed limit on this stretch of road. The officer told the court that
the main 50 mph signs, the smaller repeater 50 mph signs and the 50 mph roundels
painted on the road surface were all clearly visible on this stretch of road.
Prior to the depression the officer saw one temporary 30mph partially obscured in the
verge, but assumed it was left over from previous works, as all of the 50mph signs
remained in view.
Evidence was heard that in the normal course of events, when a temporary reduction
in a speed limit is imposed on a stretch of road, any signage indicating a higher speed
limit should be covered by either securing a dark bag or sack over each sign, or spray
painting it out.
On the basis of the police officers’ evidence, that clearly did not occur in this case,
and this, coupled to there being only one 30mph temporary sign in place prior to the
depression in the road, left road users (and attending police officers) unaware of the
reduced speed limit in place.
I am therefore concerned that should further identified road defects require a
reduction in the speed limit, that any repeat of the provision of inadequate signage
and/or a failure obscure higher speed limits may result in further fatalities.
” Source location Stephen John COOMBES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × 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 obscure higher speed-limit signage when imposing temporary reductions
Wider context from the report “The court heard that the depression was known to be present by the Highways
Authority, and a temporary 30 mph speed limit (instead of the usual 50mph) had been
put in place.
Evidence was heard from the Forensic Crash Investigation Officer from Suffolk
Constabulary, who conducted an investigation into the road traffic collision which
caused John’s death.
This officer told the court, how he and a colleague drove a police vehicle over the
depression in the road at various speeds to observe the reaction the vehicle had to
damaged road surface.
At 30 mph the police vehicle negotiated the depression in the road with relative ease.
At 50 mph, the police vehicle reacted significantly when negotiating the depression.
At the time of Johns collision, he had just overtaken another vehicle and therefore
crossed the depression a slight angle as he returned to his own side of the carriage
way.
When the police officers replicated this vehicle movement at 50 mph, the police
vehicle reacted violently, with one of the wheels leaving the surface of the road.
The officer driving that vehicle was not prepared to attempt the same manoeuvre at
any higher speed due to the risk involved.
The police officer then told the court that the attending officers themselves were
unaware of 30 mph speed limit on this stretch of road. The officer told the court that
the main 50 mph signs, the smaller repeater 50 mph signs and the 50 mph roundels
painted on the road surface were all clearly visible on this stretch of road.
Prior to the depression the officer saw one temporary 30mph partially obscured in the
verge, but assumed it was left over from previous works, as all of the 50mph signs
remained in view.
Evidence was heard that in the normal course of events, when a temporary reduction
in a speed limit is imposed on a stretch of road, any signage indicating a higher speed
limit should be covered by either securing a dark bag or sack over each sign, or spray
painting it out.
On the basis of the police officers’ evidence, that clearly did not occur in this case ,
and this, coupled to there being only one 30mph temporary sign in place prior to the
depression in the road, left road users (and attending police officers) unaware of the
reduced speed limit in place.
I am therefore concerned that should further identified road defects require a
reduction in the speed limit, that any repeat of the provision of inadequate signage
and/or a failure obscure higher speed limits may result in further fatalities.
” Source location Stephen John COOMBES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Maintain a traffic management design standard requiring checks and maintenance after installation throughout each scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “Kier is committed to protecting road users and the workforce in relation to the installation of traffic management by or on behalf of Kier. To this end, Kier has in place a specific traffic management design standard setting out the necessary process, which includes the planning of traffic management checks and maintenance following installation on site the purpose of which is to maintain the safety and integrity of the traffic management measures for the duration of the scheme.” Source location Response from Kier Integrated Services
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 traffic management procedures and require opaque covering or removal of existing higher-speed signs and road-surface roundels when temporary speed limits are imposed.
Verbatim wording from the response “Since the incident Kier has reviewed its procedures relating to checks and maintenance of traffic management measures at unattended sites in Suffolk. In the event that Kier receives an instruction from Suffolk County Council that includes the imposition of a temporary reduced speed limit the existing speed limit signs are fully covered with an opaque material. In the event that there are roundels displaying the existing speed limit on the road surface these will also be appropriately obscured and/or removed.” Source location Response from Kier Integrated Services
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 Undertake daily checks of temporary traffic management, including weekends and bank holidays, and install additional or replacement measures when issues are identified.
Verbatim wording from the response “Checks of installed temporary traffic management measures, to include temporary speed limit signs, are undertaken on a daily basis, to include weekends and bank holidays, at all sites. In the event that an issue is identified with the traffic management measures on site requiring additional or replacement measures these are duly installed.” Source location Response from Kier Integrated Services
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 Update WMS and implement an enhanced, audited procedure for scheduling, allocating and completing traffic management checks and maintenance from installation.
Verbatim wording from the response “WMS has been updated to continue to ensure that traffic management checks are scheduled from the point of installation. This update of WMS has been underpinned by the implementation of an enhanced procedure, with an associated audit programme, to help ensure that traffic management checks and maintenance, to include signs showing temporary speed limits, are planned, scheduled, allocated and undertaken. All staff responsible for the planning, scheduling and allocation of traffic management works have been trained on and are working to this enhanced procedure. In addition, enhanced guidance has been developed for works gangs carrying out checks of traffic management measures on site, this includes the taking and recording of photographs to show that the measures remain in place.” Source location Response from Kier Integrated Services
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 Develop guidance for works gangs to check and photograph temporary traffic management measures and record that they remain in place.
Verbatim wording from the response “WMS has been updated to continue to ensure that traffic management checks are scheduled from the point of installation. This update of WMS has been underpinned by the implementation of an enhanced procedure, with an associated audit programme, to help ensure that traffic management checks and maintenance, to include signs showing temporary speed limits, are planned, scheduled, allocated and undertaken. All staff responsible for the planning, scheduling and allocation of traffic management works have been trained on and are working to this enhanced procedure. In addition, enhanced guidance has been developed for works gangs carrying out checks of traffic management measures on site, this includes the taking and recording of photographs to show that the measures remain in place.” Source location Response from Kier Integrated Services
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 Deliver toolbox talks to contract work gangs on undertaking traffic management checks.
Verbatim wording from the response “In conjunction with this guidance, toolbox talks on undertaking traffic management checks have been delivered to the work gangs engaged by Kier on the contract with Suffolk County Council.” Source location Response from Kier Integrated Services
Open published response
22 Sep 2014 Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET · Prevention of Future Deaths report Teesside
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Failure of temporary no-entry signs to remain noticeable at the slip road exit View source
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET · 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
On 2 May 2012, Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET was a passenger in a car involved in a head-on collision after a female driver travelled the wrong way along the A66 eastbound carriageway. Concerns included unclear advance signage for the no-entry slip road and temporary no-entry signs that could be knocked over and become unnoticeable; two further drivers reportedly later used the exit slip road in the same way.
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 of temporary no-entry signs to remain noticeable at the slip road exit
Wider context from the report “(2) At present there are temporary large ‘no entry’ signs at the exit of the slip road junction which have, on occasions, been knocked over and subsequently rendered unnoticeable .
” Source location Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Maintain supplementary illuminated “No entry” signs through regular inspection and prompt damage rectification.
Verbatim wording from the response “In response to the road traffic collision of 2 May 2012, and at Cleveland Police’s request, supplementary ‘No entry’ signs, which are in addition to those mandated under statutory requirements, have been installed. However, one of these signs has been placed in a block paved area of carriageway and this sign is at times knocked over by passing vehicles, as indicated by the Report.” Source location 2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
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 options for safety improvements at the interchange following reported wrong-way driving incidents.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. Two other incidents have been reported involving drivers travelling in the wrong direction on this exit slip road.” Source location 2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
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 Submit a proposal for interchange safety improvement works during the next improvement-scheme funding round.
Verbatim wording from the response “Both A-one+ and the Highways Agency have been made aware of one of these incidents by Cleveland Police. I can advise that an investigation has been undertaken to identify options for improvement at this interchange. The improvements which are being considered include installing demountable bollards or marker posts in the block paved area and installing additional road markings.” Source location 2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
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 Permanent signs cannot be installed in the block-paved area because escorted abnormal loads must pass through it.
Verbatim wording from the response “The block paved area at this location was installed to address problems associated with the lower than normal bridge deck level at Elton Interchange when the interchange was originally constructed. When abnormally tall and wide or long loads are being moved along the A66 eastbound carriageway, these vehicles are required to divert from the main carriageway of the A66 over the extents of this interchange. Some of these vehicles, under escort, need to pass through the block paved area and travel in an anticlockwise direction around the roundabout’s circulatory carriageway, in order to rejoin the A66.” Source location 2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
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 Proposed interchange improvements depend on securing funding through the Highways Agency's prioritised improvement-scheme bidding process.
Verbatim wording from the response “Both A-one+ and the Highways Agency have been made aware of one of these incidents by Cleveland Police. I can advise that an investigation has been undertaken to identify options for improvement at this interchange. The improvements which are being considered include installing demountable bollards or marker posts in the block paved area and installing additional road markings.” Source location 2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Open published response
6 Aug 2014 Lee Michael FRIEND · Prevention of Future Deaths report Surrey
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Lack of operative guidance or training on placing traffic lights near blind bends View source Insufficient visibility distance between approaching drivers and temporary traffic light heads View source
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
No linked response statements No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
×
AI-generated summary
Lee Michael FRIEND · 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
Lee Michael Friend died on 21 February 2013 after his motorcycle collided with stationary traffic near temporary road works on a blind bend. The report raised concerns about the positioning and visibility of temporary traffic lights, the adequacy of risk assessments and training for road works, the response to public safety concerns, and Surrey Police’s procedures for identifying and reporting risks created by road works.
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 operative guidance or training on placing traffic lights near blind bends
Wider context from the report “1. Action is required to ensure that when temporary traffic lights are placed there is a minimum distance of visibility (line of sight) between approaching drivers and the temporary traffic light heads. Further, guidance or training should be provided to operatives as to placing traffic lights near to blind bends or where waiting traffic will encroach upon blind bends .
” Source location Lee Michael FRIEND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient visibility distance between approaching drivers and temporary traffic light heads
Wider context from the report “1. Action is required to ensure that when temporary traffic lights are placed there is a minimum distance of visibility (line of sight) between approaching drivers and the temporary traffic light heads . Further, guidance or training should be provided to operatives as to placing traffic lights near to blind bends or where waiting traffic will encroach upon blind bends.
” Source location Lee Michael FRIEND · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.