Recurring concern

Inadequate central-reservation controls for errant vehicles

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 22 Dec 2015•Latest report 2 Jun 2025

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes deficiencies in the design, clearance, containment, barrier provision or other dedicated safety controls of central reservations where they affect vehicles that may legitimately or accidentally enter, cross or veer toward the reservation, including insufficient depth to accommodate a vehicle, hazardous fixed obstacles and gaps in vehicle-containment barriers.

Not included

Excludes general road-junction, road-bend or vehicle loss-of-control hazards where the central reservation is not the shared safety boundary.
Excludes ordinary road-surface, lighting, signage, vegetation or drainage deficiencies unless they directly concern the safety of a central reservation for errant vehicles.
Excludes pedestrian access or crossing controls in central reservations where vehicle containment or safe accommodation is not the identified concern.
Excludes generic roadside barrier deficiencies outside central reservations and exclude vehicle design or driver-behaviour failures that are not tied to the central-reservation control.

Reports: 4
Individual concerns: 4
Date range: 2015–2025
Stated actions: 3

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

National Highways2

Cumbria County Council1

Office of Highways 17 (Krabi)1

Phuket Highway District1

Stockport Borough Council1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

2 Jun2025
South Yorkshire (Eastern)
Concerns raised1
1. Continuing hazard from a mound of earth on a motorway central reservation
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 1
1. Action
  Level the central reservation to eliminate the level difference between the running lanes and central reservation.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated completed
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  No other safety actions are considered necessary at this location.
  Stated by National HighwaysNo action considered necessary
AI-generated summary

Patrick Anthony MONGAN · 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

Patrick Anthony MONGAN, an 18-year-old male, died after a road traffic collision on the M18 on 7 September 2024. The vehicle struck a mound of earth on the central reservation, became airborne, and Patrick was ejected; he was pronounced dead at 03:10 hours. The concern identified was that the mound remained a hazard capable of causing vehicles to lose control and putting road users at risk of death.

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
Continuing hazard from a mound of earth on a motorway central reservation
Wider context from the report
“The Forensic Collision Investigator advised that the aforementioned mound of earth creates a continuing hazard to motorway users and any vehicle which might have legitimate cause to veer to the central reservation and in doing so strikes the mound, even when travelling within the speed limit, would be subjected to the same effect on the vehicle (in that control of the vehicle would be lost) with potentially catastrophic effects. The continued presence of this hazard (the mound of earth on a tarmac construction) places road users at risk of death ”
Source location
Patrick Anthony MONGAN · 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
Level the central reservation to eliminate the level difference between the running lanes and central reservation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“i) Levelled the central reservation in this specific location so that there is no deviation in level between the carriageway running lanes and the central reservation”

Source location
Response from National Highways Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 10 June 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
No other safety actions are considered necessary at this location.

Verbatim wording from the response
“There are no other actions to be carried out at this location.”

Source location
Response from National Highways Agency
Page 1 · response
Published 10 June 2025
Open published response
3 Feb2022
Cumbria
Concerns raised1
1. Insufficient central-reservation width for large vehicles
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  General widening of the central reservation is not feasible because it would require extensive carriageway realignment and is complicated by adjacent land levels.
  Stated by National HighwaysUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Stephen Cloudsdale · 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 Cloudsdale died at the scene after his car collided with an LGV encroaching into the eastbound lane of the A66 in darkness and heavy rain. The concerns identified were the lack of lighting and warning signage, the speed of traffic, and whether the central reservation was wide enough to accommodate large vehicles safely.

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
Insufficient central-reservation width for large vehicles
Wider context from the report
“1) The lack of lighting near to or at the point of the A66 dual carriageway where the collision occurred which renders the presence of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café difficult to see by approaching drivers during the hours of darkness and/or during adverse weather conditions. 2) The lack of appropriately positioned signage, warning approaching drivers of the possibility of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café. 3) The speed of traffic on this stretch of the A66. 4) The sufficiency of the width of the central reservation to accommodate large vehicles fully without the danger of encroaching into either of the opposing carriageways. ”
Source location
Stephen Cloudsdale · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · 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
General widening of the central reservation is not feasible because it would require extensive carriageway realignment and is complicated by adjacent land levels.

Verbatim wording from the response
“General widening of the central reserve area is not feasible as it would require the realignment of a considerable length of the mainline carriageway, to both the east and west of the café site. This being further complicated by the varying vertical levels of the adjacent agricultural land to the south. We believe that the proposed electronic, interactive signing will increase driver awareness of the operation of the junction and the café exit and specifically the presence of turning vehicles crossing the central reserve.”

Source location
Response from National Highways Ltd
Page 3 · response
Published 4 February 2022
Open published response
3 Mar2016
Manchester South
Concerns raised1
1. Absence of a protective barrier on the central reservation
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Submit a proposed Crookilley Way central barrier scheme for consideration among possible improvements to the key route network.
  Stated by Stockport Borough CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Make a funding bid for installing a central barrier on Crookilley Way during 2016/2017.
  Stated by Stockport Borough CouncilStated planned
Respondent positions 2
1. Position
  TfGM must support any central-barrier installation because Crookilley Way forms part of the key route network.
  Stated by Stockport Borough CouncilRedirects responsibility
1. Position
  Installation of a central barrier cannot proceed without external funding because road-safety improvement funds are limited and already committed.
  Stated by Stockport Borough CouncilUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Aleeza Ahmed · 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

Aleeza Ahmed was being carried unrestrained in a car driven by her father when the vehicle left the carriageway, overturned and threw her from the vehicle, causing severe head injuries. Concerns included the possible contribution of chamfered kerbs and the absence of a protective barrier on the central reservation to the vehicle’s overturning and trajectory.

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
Absence of a protective barrier on the central reservation
Wider context from the report
“2. There would appear to be no protective Armco type barrier on the central reservation at this point. The evidence suggested that had such been present the trajectory of the vehicle might have been different and less danger caused to all road users. ”
Source location
Aleeza Ahmed · 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
Submit a proposed Crookilley Way central barrier scheme for consideration among possible improvements to the key route network.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the establishment of Transport for Greater Manchester (“TfGM”) from the former Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (“GMPTE”) in April 2011 the remit of the new organisation was expanded to include, among other things, joint highway responsibility with the local authorities over a network of strategic roads known as the key route network (“KRN”). Parts of the A560 within Stockport are identified as being part of the KRN, including Crookilley Way.”

Source location
2016-0089-Response-by-Stockport-Borough-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 3 March 2016
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 a funding bid for installing a central barrier on Crookilley Way during 2016/2017.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Among the schemes proposed for consideration was inclusion of a possible central barrier on Crookilley Way. No details of the form of the barrier were known or detailed on the list. This was proposed on the basis that at the time of the review there was no such barrier in place on Crookilley Way and installing such a barrier would potentially avoid cross over type collisions and bring the road up to modern standards.”

Source location
2016-0089-Response-by-Stockport-Borough-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 3 March 2016
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
TfGM must support any central-barrier installation because Crookilley Way forms part of the key route network.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the establishment of Transport for Greater Manchester (“TfGM”) from the former Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (“GMPTE”) in April 2011 the remit of the new organisation was expanded to include, among other things, joint highway responsibility with the local authorities over a network of strategic roads known as the key route network (“KRN”). Parts of the A560 within Stockport are identified as being part of the KRN, including Crookilley Way.”

Source location
2016-0089-Response-by-Stockport-Borough-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 3 March 2016
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
Installation of a central barrier cannot proceed without external funding because road-safety improvement funds are limited and already committed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“As Crookilley Way is part of the KRN any installation or amendments to the carriageway would need the support of TfGM. No response has been received from TfGM to the submitted list of potential improvements to the KRN and no funding has been received from TfGM for this installation. It is estimated that the cost of such a barrier would be in excess of £50,000. SMBC has extremely limited funding for road safety improvements and the budget for 2016/2017 is already committed so funding will have to come from some other source for this installation to be made. There is potential for a bid to be made to the Greater Manchester Casualty Reduction Partnership (“GMCRP”) and we anticipate making such a bid during the course of 2016/2017.”

Source location
2016-0089-Response-by-Stockport-Borough-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 3 March 2016
Open published response
22 Dec2015
West Yorkshire (Western)
Concerns raised1
1. Insufficiently deep central reservation to fully accommodate a vehicle
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Rebecca Leanne Shaw · 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

Rebecca Leanne Shaw was riding as a passenger on a motor scooter in Thailand when it was struck by an oncoming pickup truck, and she died from the injuries sustained. Evidence at the inquest raised concerns that the view of oncoming traffic was obstructed and that the road layout lacked a sufficiently deep central reservation, prompting concern about road safety at the location.

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
Insufficiently deep central reservation to fully accommodate a vehicle
Wider context from the report
“During the inquest I heard evidence to suggest that ████████ view of the oncoming traffic to her left was obstructed by a road sign and trees, itself on a bend, before commenced her right turn from the entrance of Soi Khuan Yang Charoen. I also heard that the lay out of the road had no central reservation deep enough to full accommodate a vehicle ”
Source location
Rebecca Leanne Shaw · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Continuing hazard from a mound of earth on a motorway central reservation

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.1

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Insufficient central-reservation width for large vehicles

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

Concerns raised1

Absence of a protective barrier on the central reservation

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.2

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

Concerns raised1

Insufficiently deep central reservation to fully accommodate a vehicle

Actions described in response 1

Respondent positions 1

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 2