Concerns raised 1
Lack of warning of the concealed driveway 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
Daniel Mark HUGHES · 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
Daniel Mark HUGHES died at the scene after his motorcycle collided with a motorcar on the A483 at Sweeney near Oswestry on 4 June 2017. The report raised concerns about visibility from a driveway near a blind bend, the appropriateness of the speed limit, and whether a warning of the concealed driveway should be displayed.
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 warning of the concealed driveway
Wider context from the report “The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern:
1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred.
2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate.
3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed.
” Source location Daniel Mark HUGHES · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Highways England cannot install a concealed entrance warning sign because it is not authorised under applicable traffic-sign regulations.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England has powers to place signs on the Strategic Road Network under Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but signs placed on the Strategic Road Network must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 as directed by the Secretary of State for Transport.” Source location 2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Open published response
1 Dec 2020 Ibrahima YAHAIA · Prevention of Future Deaths report Bedfordshire and Luton
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Inadequate signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway View source
This report raised 3 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. 2
Luton Borough Council
Replace faded or missing signs on the Hatters Way section of the Busway.
View source
Luton Borough Council
Review the remaining Busway for upgraded signage at emergency access points and other locations where additional warning signs may assist.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Ibrahima YAHAIA · 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
Ibrahima YAHAIA, who had memory issues and was a French non-English-speaking national, was fatally struck by a bus while walking along the designated busway in Luton on 15 January 2020. The concerns included unrestricted pedestrian access to the busway, gaps in fencing and inadequate signage, previous serious incidents, alleged design flaws, and no evidence of steps to prevent further injuries or deaths.
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 signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway
Wider context from the report “(1) There is a pedestrian footway which runs parallel to the Busway in places and pedestrians have access to the Busway at bus stops. Pedestrians may cross the Busway at the bus stops and there is no physical prevention for pedestrians to enter the Busway lanes. There is no signage on the Busway, itself stating pedestrians should not enter and only a small sign on a post by the footpath which states pedestrians should not trespass on the Busway . Although the footpaths which run parallel to the Busway are separated by fences, there are a number of places where pedestrians may freely enter the Busway. Hatters Way, Luton has many gaps in the fence, with no gate, giving pedestrians free access to roam in and out of the Busway lanes. There are no signs of bus stops near these gaps in the fences and, at the Bury Park end of Hatters Way, there is no fencing which again means pedestrians are free to enter the Busway lanes. Unlike train tracks, where the only way to get access is via a station, the Busway is easily accessed, yet it is just as dangerous;
” Source location Ibrahima YAHAIA · 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 Replace faded or missing signs on the Hatters Way section of the Busway.
Verbatim wording from the response “On the section at Hatters Way any faded or missing signs have been replaced and the rest of the Busway is in the process of being reviewed for upgrading of signage at emergency access points and any other locations, including Jeans Way, where additional signage may be thought to assist in emphasizing that access to the Busway is not permitted.” Source location 2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
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 the remaining Busway for upgraded signage at emergency access points and other locations where additional warning signs may assist.
Verbatim wording from the response “On the section at Hatters Way any faded or missing signs have been replaced and the rest of the Busway is in the process of being reviewed for upgrading of signage at emergency access points and any other locations, including Jeans Way, where additional signage may be thought to assist in emphasizing that access to the Busway is not permitted.” Source location 2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Open published response
16 Nov 2020 Daniel Waite · Prevention of Future Deaths report Mid Kent and Medway
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of coning or signage requirements for stopped works vehicles on the A20 Ashford Road View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Daniel Waite · 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
Daniel Waite was riding a pedal cycle on the A20 Ashford Road when he collided with the rear of a stationary convoy of eight tipper trucks, sustaining fatal injuries and dying at the scene on 3 July 2019. The substantive concern was that the trucks had been directed to stop on the road without parking restrictions, coning, or signage to alert other road users, and that no clearway or similar restriction was in place.
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 coning or signage requirements for stopped works vehicles on the A20 Ashford Road
Wider context from the report “(1) The A20 Ashford Road has no parking restrictions in force for this stretch of road. A total of 8 tipper lorries had been directed to stop on the A20 Ashford Road, Hollingbourne, close to the Mercure Hotel to await the deployment of motorway works on the M20 Motorway. The evidence at the inquest revealed that there was no requirement for coning or signage that may have alerted other road users to their presence .
(2) There is not at present any restriction to parking or a requirement for signage on this section of the road such as a clearway and this is of particular concern.
” Source location Daniel Waite · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Traffic restrictions, signage and traffic management changes were outside Tarmac’s power to implement directly.
Verbatim wording from the response “Taking both of the Coroner’s concerns, it is Tarmac’s respectful position that the parking restrictions and requirements for signage are matters that are within the power of the relevant Highways Authority. Indeed, any requirement to install signage or other forms of traffic management on the road would have required the approval of the Local Authority. For these reasons, it is not within the power of Tarmac to be able to make direct changes as a result of the matters raised by the Coroner.” Source location 2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.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 Responsibility for approving and implementing road signage, traffic restrictions and traffic management rested with the relevant Highways Authority.
Verbatim wording from the response “Taking both of the Coroner’s concerns, it is Tarmac’s respectful position that the parking restrictions and requirements for signage are matters that are within the power of the relevant Highways Authority. Indeed, any requirement to install signage or other forms of traffic management on the road would have required the approval of the Local Authority. For these reasons, it is not within the power of Tarmac to be able to make direct changes as a result of the matters raised by the Coroner.” Source location 2020-0241-Responses-from-Director-Highways-Transportation-Waste-and-TARMAC-A-CRH-Company-Redacted.pdf
Open published response
Concerns raised 2
Lack of warning signs at a reduced-visibility bend View source Failure to ensure consistent speed-limit messaging through road markings and signs View source
This report raised 1 other concern. 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. 2
Durham County Council
Erect bend warning signs on both approaches to the bend.
View source
Durham County Council
Remove the two SLOW road markings.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Frazer GOLDEN · 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
Frazer Golden, aged 30, died on 9 April 2017 after his motorcycle collided with another motorcycle on the A689 road near Whit’s Hill, County Durham. Concerns included potentially confusing “SLOW” road markings alongside a change from a 30 mph to a 60 mph limit, and the absence of warning signs or double white hazard lines at a bend where forward visibility was reduced.
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 warning signs at a reduced-visibility bend
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from 2 police collision experts who could not explain in their examination of the A689 road between Ireshopeburn & St Johns Chapel why SLOW road markings were displayed on the carriageway when immediately leaving these 2 villages and the 30mph limit and entering a 60mph limit.
The evidence heard was that it would appear to be confusing that a warning to SLOW was displayed when the immediately adjacent signs were confirming a change in speed limit from 30 to 60 mph.
Evidence was also heard that at the collision location near Whit’s Hill on the A689 road between the 2 villages there is a bend where forward visibility is reduced . This is accepted in a Durham County Council Highways report read as evidence at the inquest. There are no warning signs or double white hazard warning lines approaching the bend or at the bend in either direction.
The police experts further opined that a speed travelled by one of the motorcyclists into the bend of 51mph was not supported when considering the reduced view created by the bend. The speed limit in this area of the A689 is 60 mph.
” Source location Frazer GOLDEN · 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 ensure consistent speed-limit messaging through road markings and signs
Wider context from the report “I heard evidence from 2 police collision experts who could not explain in their examination of the A689 road between Ireshopeburn & St Johns Chapel why SLOW road markings were displayed on the carriageway when immediately leaving these 2 villages and the 30mph limit and entering a 60mph limit .
The evidence heard was that it would appear to be confusing that a warning to SLOW was displayed when the immediately adjacent signs were confirming a change in speed limit from 30 to 60 mph .
Evidence was also heard that at the collision location near Whit’s Hill on the A689 road between the 2 villages there is a bend where forward visibility is reduced. This is accepted in a Durham County Council Highways report read as evidence at the inquest. There are no warning signs or double white hazard warning lines approaching the bend or at the bend in either direction.
The police experts further opined that a speed travelled by one of the motorcyclists into the bend of 51mph was not supported when considering the reduced view created by the bend. The speed limit in this area of the A689 is 60 mph.
” Source location Frazer GOLDEN · 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 Erect bend warning signs on both approaches to the bend.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Bend warning signs: a bend warning sign will be erected on both approaches to the bend;” Source location 2020-0197-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Redacted.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 Remove the two SLOW road markings.
Verbatim wording from the response “• The two SLOW road markings: there is no valid road safety / traffic management reason for these road markings. As such, I will arrange to have the two road markings removed;” Source location 2020-0197-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Redacted.pdf
Open published response
9 Jun 2020 Mitica Mihaita Ladunca · Prevention of Future Deaths report Surrey
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Absence of signage warning drivers on the A322 of the pedestrian crossing point linking to Swift Lane across both carriageways 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
Surrey County Council
Install advance signage at the uncontrolled crossing to warn drivers that pedestrians may cross.
View source
×
AI-generated summary
Mitica Mihaita Ladunca · 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
Mitica Mihaita Ladunca died at St. George’s Hospital on 8 November 2019 after unintentionally stepping into the path of a large vehicle while attempting to cross the A322 in Surrey. The report raised concern that the absence of signage warning drivers about the uncontrolled pedestrian crossing could give rise to a risk of future deaths.
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 signage warning drivers on the A322 of the pedestrian crossing point linking to Swift Lane across both carriageways
Wider context from the report “- There is an absence of signage warning drivers on the A322 that there is a crossing point for pedestrians which links to Swift Lane across both carriageways.
- Consideration should be given to introducing such signage.
” Source location Mitica Mihaita Ladunca · 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 Install advance signage at the uncontrolled crossing to warn drivers that pedestrians may cross.
Verbatim wording from the response “In light of your report the Area Highway Manager has reviewed the location and while it is clear that your findings are that lack of signage did not contribute to this fatality he will install advance signage at this location. He is pleased to confirm that this work will go ahead on 29/30 September. This will be coordinated with the County’s high speed Traffic Management programme.” Source location Response from Surrey County Council
Open published response
23 Dec 2019 Adam Wilcox · Prevention of Future Deaths report Hampshire (Central)
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Failure to warn motorists of pedestrian and cyclist crossings on the A27 Mansbridge Road View source
This report raised 1 other concern. 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
Adam Wilcox · 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
Adam Wilcox was struck by a motorcycle while crossing the A27 Mansbridge Road on 7 March 2019 and died in hospital from his injuries. The report raised concerns that this stretch of road had no safe pedestrian or cycle crossing, no warnings to motorists, and that pedestrians and cyclists were likely to cross where the footpath ended and barriers began. It also identified the road as busy and noted previous collisions, including incidents involving 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 warn motorists of pedestrian and cyclist crossings on the A27 Mansbridge Road
Wider context from the report “(1) The A27 Mansbridge Road at the stretch of carriageway from well before the White Swan pub to beyond the scene of this incident (as far as Gaters Hill) does not provide any form of (safe) pedestrian or cycle crossing or any warnings to motorists that pedestrians or cyclist are crossing along its length .
(2) For pedestrians walking (or cyclists not on the carriageway heading) east on the southern side, the only option to travel beyond the scene of this incident is on the northern side of the A27 carriageway. As such, anyone who has not sought to cross the carriageway at a much earlier juncture is either forced to retrace their steps to find another point to cross or (as is more likely) to attempt to cross the carriageway once the path way runs out, where it tapers and stops at the metal barriers and at its junction with the Itchen Navigation. In either event, neither pedestrians nor cyclists have a defined or safe means by which to cross the carriageway and no warnings are given to motorists that they may do so .
(3) The A27 Mansbridge Road is a busy, popular and major thoroughfare, running east-west and south of and parallel to the M27. As such it presents an increased risk to pedestrians and cyclists alike.
(4) I am advised by the Roads Policing Unit that during their visit to the scene (in the conduct of the forensic examination for this inquest) they themselves saw several pedestrians and cyclists crossing the road, at either end, often climbing the metal barrier where the pavement ended.
(5) I am advised that in the past 5 years there have been 15 collisions on the A27 between Itchen Side Close and Allington Lane, of which 5 were classed as serious collisions and 10 classed as slight, with 11 occurring within daylight hours. 2 specific incidents (excluding this fatality) involved pedestrians being struck by vehicles.
” Source location Adam Wilcox · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
12 Nov 2019 Jamie Staley · Prevention of Future Deaths report Gwent
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Lack of signage to alert pedestrians to the A40 and prevent entry onto the slip road View source
×
AI-generated summary
Jamie Staley · 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
Jamie Staley died immediately after being struck by a van when he accidentally wandered onto the A40 near Monmouth after drinking with friends. The inquest identified relatively easy pedestrian access to the A40 and a lack of signs warning pedestrians about or preventing entry onto the slip road as matters for consideration, although the lack of signage was not considered to have contributed to his 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 Lack of signage to alert pedestrians to the A40 and prevent entry onto the slip road
Wider context from the report “The inquest determined that Jamie died after he accessed the A40 from Monmouth Town, near the Gibraltar tunnels. In considering Jamie’s movements on the night he died, the inquest determined that Jamie’s mistake had been caused by a combination of not knowing the area and being under the influence of alcohol, however access generally to the A40 in the area of was considered. Police Constable 217████████ gave evidence to the inquest and presented the findings of the Collision Investigation Report. He indicated that there is relatively easy access onto the A40 in this area and was surprised that there were no signs which could alert pedestrians to the A40, or to prevent them from entering onto the slip road .
Although lack of signage did not contribute to Jamie’s death I consider that this is a matter for consideration in preventing pedestrians from straying inadvertently onto this busy road in future .
The junction in question is the exit from the A40 travelling northbound immediately having travelled through the Gibraltar tunnels onto the B4233. The co-ordinates are 51.805620, -2.716463.
” Source location Jamie Staley · 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 Continue working with SWTRA to identify additional safety measures for the junction.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst the report identifies that signage did not contribute to the accident we will continue to work with SWTRA to identify any additional measures that may improve safety on this junction.” Source location 2019-0463-Response-from-Monmouthshire-County-Council-Redacted
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 Complete installation of pedestrian prohibition signs on the existing signing infrastructure.
Verbatim wording from the response “Further to our letter of 10 February, I can confirm that our South Wales Trunk Road Agent (SWTRA) has now completed the installation of Pedestrian Prohibition signs on the existing signing infrastructure.” Source location 2019-0463-Response-from-Monmouthshire-County-Council-update_Redacted
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 Responsibility for the A40 lies with the Welsh Government and South Wales Trunk Road Agency.
Verbatim wording from the response “The A40 is the responsibility of Welsh Government and South Wales Trunk Road Agency (SWTRA). I have copied SWTRA colleagues into this response should they wish to add any further comments.” Source location 2019-0463-Response-from-Monmouthshire-County-Council-Redacted
Open published response
2 Oct 2019 Saeid Hedayat · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 1
Failure to provide warning signs for recurring zone 1 road-flooding risk View source
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
West Sussex County Council
×
AI-generated summary
Saeid Hedayat · 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
Saeid Hedayat lost control of his vehicle on the B2112 after encountering floodwater caused by a blocked drain, and the vehicle overturned, causing multiple injuries. He suffered a hypoxic brain injury and died. Concerns included risk assessments that did not account for recurring zone 1 drain blockages, were not regularly reviewed, and did not respond to relevant flooding reports, as well as the absence of warning signs despite recurring road flooding.
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 warning signs for recurring zone 1 road-flooding risk
Wider context from the report “(4) I found that drain numbered B9913 was blocked on a regular basis due to debris and silt collecting in zone 1. There are no warning signs (temporary or permanent) drawing drivers’ attention to the flood risk despite this . I heard evidence that signs would not normally be installed unless the highways authority were not able to immediately resolve the flooding if they attended . This approach does not appear to adequately deal with the risks posed where road flooding occurs regularly due to a zone 1 blockage .
” Source location Saeid Hedayat · Prevention of Future Deaths report
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 Existing flood-signing practice was considered sufficient because the authority was unaware of an ongoing zone 1 blockage at the location.
Verbatim wording from the response “If we attend site and are unable to resolve a flooding issue immediately and this is impacting safe passage of the highway, our normal practice is to place temporary Flood Signs to warn motorists until we can resolve the issue.” Source location 2019-0327-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Open published response
5 Jul 2019 Keith Winston Battman · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Sussex
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Insufficient speed-limit signage warning approaching traffic of the bend View source Insufficient black and white chevron signage warning drivers of the sharp bend View source
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response
West Sussex 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. 6
West Sussex County Council
Appraise safe siting and trigger speed for a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic.
View source
West Sussex County Council
Install a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic north of the bend.
View source
West Sussex County Council
Provide an additional bend-warning sign with a “Reduce speed now” supplementary plate.
View source
West Sussex County Council
Reduce the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph and install a vehicle-activated speed-warning sign near the village school.
View source
West Sussex County Council
Install a larger yellow-bordered chevron to provide additional warning of the bend to southbound motorists.
View source
West Sussex County Council
Discuss installing a banner-type sign over the Seaford College gateway to interrupt the straight-on view for southbound drivers.
View source See 3 more actions
×
AI-generated summary
Keith Winston Battman · 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
Keith Winston Battman was seriously injured when his motorcycle collided with a minibus on the A285 on 10 October 2018, and he died in hospital on 28 October 2018. The report raised concerns that the bend was insufficiently warned by chevrons, the speed-limit sign and faded road markings, and that further improvements to the road may be needed.
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 speed-limit signage warning approaching traffic of the bend
Wider context from the report “2. There is a speed limit sign approximately 350 metres back from the bend as you travel south. I am concerned this does not in itself give sufficient warning and perhaps a vehicle activated flashing warning sign should be installed to detect the speed of approaching traffic and alert drivers to slow down.
” Source location Keith Winston Battman · 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 black and white chevron signage warning drivers of the sharp bend
Wider context from the report “1. I am concerned that the number of black and white chevrons installed immediately outside the entrance to Seaford College are insufficient . There are now two small raised chevrons to allow for the dip in the road but they do not appear to adequately draw the attention of drivers approaching the bend to the fact that there is a sharp hand bend ahead . Consideration must be given to how many are needed and their location taking into account the topography and sight lines.
” Source location Keith Winston Battman · 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 Appraise safe siting and trigger speed for a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic.
Verbatim wording from the response “Analysis of the recorded injury collision history, as part of our investigation, has identified an emerging trend of southbound motorcyclists failing to negotiate the bend. It is anticipated that the installation of the larger chevron warning sign will, in combination with the other warning signs, help address this issue, however, we are cognisant that some drivers and riders who use a route on a regular basis do not notice standard warning signs and road markings as they may believe they are familiar with the conditions they are likely to encounter. To mitigate this risk it is our intention to install a vehicle activated flashing bend warning sign for southbound traffic at an appropriate distance to the north of the bend.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 a vehicle-activated flashing bend-warning sign for southbound traffic north of the bend.
Verbatim wording from the response “Analysis of the recorded injury collision history, as part of our investigation, has identified an emerging trend of southbound motorcyclists failing to negotiate the bend. It is anticipated that the installation of the larger chevron warning sign will, in combination with the other warning signs, help address this issue, however, we are cognisant that some drivers and riders who use a route on a regular basis do not notice standard warning signs and road markings as they may believe they are familiar with the conditions they are likely to encounter. To mitigate this risk it is our intention to install a vehicle activated flashing bend warning sign for southbound traffic at an appropriate distance to the north of the bend.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 Provide an additional bend-warning sign with a “Reduce speed now” supplementary plate.
Verbatim wording from the response “In your report you suggested that consideration should be given to whether this stretch of road needs further improvement and I wanted to assure you that this section of road and the A285 as a whole have been the subject of a significant amount of study in recent years and have received many road safety intervention treatments. Previous works for this bend include an additional bend warning sign with a “Reduce speed now” sub plate; resurfacing with a high quality high skid resistant road surface; a reduction of the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph including Vehicle Activated Sign installed close to the village school to warn drivers and riders if they exceed the speed limit.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 Reduce the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph and install a vehicle-activated speed-warning sign near the village school.
Verbatim wording from the response “Firstly I should clarify that the chevron was removed around the time the 2010/11 road safety scheme was installed, this scheme lowered the speed limit to 30mph and removed many of the warning signs through the village - a concept known as self-explaining roads.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 a larger yellow-bordered chevron to provide additional warning of the bend to southbound motorists.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. Following the police notification of Mr Battman’s collision the authority began its own now well established investigation procedure and acting on additional information from the police that Mr Battman may have mistook the school drive for the main road it was decided that further signage should be added. Two small stock chevrons were temporarily erected while a larger yellow bordered chevron was being manufactured; the new larger chevron was erected on the 2nd May 2019. We consider that this new signage, which reinforces the existing bend warning and map type direction sign, along with the measures detailed in paragraphs 2 and 3 below will overcome the topography issues and provide additional warning of the nature of the bend to southbound motorists.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 Discuss installing a banner-type sign over the Seaford College gateway to interrupt the straight-on view for southbound drivers.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are also in dialogue with Seaford College regarding the potential to interrupt the “straight on” view for southbound drivers by installing a banner type sign over their gateway. Again this measure is not within our control, but again I can advise that Seaford College have responded positively to the proposal.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 Existing 30mph signs and road markings are considered sufficient to alert drivers to the speed limit.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. There is a double side 30mph repeater sign 210m to the north of the bend, this is supplemented and reinforced with two 30mph road marking roundels (one in each lane). Drivers travelling south through the village of Duncton will have been travelling in a posted 30mph speed limit for over half a mile and will have passed four 30 mph repeater signs with associated 30mph roundels and a vehicle activated flashing 30mph speed limit reminder sign before reaching the bend. It is considered that these signs and road markings are sufficient to alert drivers to the 30mph speed limit.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 chevron was removed during the 2010/11 road safety scheme, rather than being absent without explanation.
Verbatim wording from the response “Firstly I should clarify that the chevron was removed around the time the 2010/11 road safety scheme was installed, this scheme lowered the speed limit to 30mph and removed many of the warning signs through the village - a concept known as self-explaining roads.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-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 Installing a banner sign over the gateway is the responsibility of Seaford College, not the authority.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are also in dialogue with Seaford College regarding the potential to interrupt the “straight on” view for southbound drivers by installing a banner type sign over their gateway. Again this measure is not within our control, but again I can advise that Seaford College have responded positively to the proposal.” Source location 2019-0231-Response-by-West-Sussex-County-Council
Open published response
3 Jul 2019 Mr Thomas Andrew Reid · Prevention of Future Deaths report Derby and Derbyshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 2
Failure to implement a response to the known junction warning risk View source Insufficiently visible advance warning of the road junction View source
This report raised 1 other concern. 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
Mr Thomas Andrew Reid · 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 Thomas Andrew Reid, aged 27, died at the roadside from injuries sustained in a road traffic collision on 21 September 2018 while riding his motorbike along the A515 near Sudbury in Ashbourne. The collision occurred as he overtook queued traffic and collided with a tractor turning right into the B5033. Concerns included the possibility that the only advance warning sign for the junction could be obscured by large vehicles, worn junction markings, previous incidents at the location, and uncertainty about action to address the known risk.
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 implement a response to the known junction warning risk
Wider context from the report “3. Evidence also emerged at the inquest that Derby County Council was aware of the issue and were looking at more signage, larger signs and additional pre-warning signs. This was discussed last October at a Derbyshire County Council meeting. It was not known what, if anything, Derbyshire County Council would do about this known risk .
” Source location Mr Thomas Andrew Reid · 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 Insufficiently visible advance warning of the road junction
Wider context from the report “2. The route marker board 155 meters from the junction, is the only advanced warning of the junction ahead . The location and scale of the sign mean that it could be obscured by passing large vehicles, such as LGV’s, especially if they are slow moving . This happens often given the presence of the junction .
” Source location Mr Thomas Andrew Reid · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Open source report
Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.