Recurring concern

Inadequate road-traffic-collision reporting for highway safety management

First to latest report 19 Nov 2014 — 23 Jun 2025

Reports that mention this concern
6
Times this concern has been raised
6
Stated actions linked to this concern
7

What this concern includes

Includes failures of dedicated road-traffic-collision recording, transmission or reporting processes used by highway or road-safety authorities, including omitted non-injury collisions and delayed reporting of injury or fatality collisions relevant to highway conditions.

What is not included
  • Excludes generic database, record-keeping or information-management deficiencies not specifically tied to road-traffic-collision safety management.
  • Excludes failures concerning road-safety equipment deployment criteria, highway asset inventories or physical highway defects unless the reported deficiency is the recording or reporting of collisions.
  • Excludes police, healthcare or other incident-reporting processes unrelated to highway safety management.

Reports and published responses 6 reports

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

  1. Greater Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    David Lee WALSH · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

    David Lee Walsh died at the scene after the Mercedes GLC300 he was travelling in left the road at Whitegates Farm, Tetney Lock Road, Tetney, and entered the Louth Canal on 6 January 2024. The concern was that highway-related collisions are not reported directly to the Highways Department immediately, meaning incidents may occur before the annual review and potentially before preventative action is taken.

    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 immediately report highway-condition-related injury or fatality collisions to the Highways Department

    Wider context from the report

    “During the evidence provided by the Highways Department, the Highways Officer reported that road traffic collisions, where there are injuries or fatalities that may have been contributed to by the condition of the highway, are not immediately reported directly to the Highways Department by the Police. The Police complete a Stat 19 Form which is then sent to the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership. The information from the Stat 19 Form is then collated and placed onto the WINGS software programme which is a Council owned software programme. This information is reviewed on an annual basis where the types of incidents are considered along with the traffic flow on that road and it gives a score. Based on the score there is then a ranking of sites where there has been more than one collision within a set area (known as a Cluster). The score is used to decide where the Highways Department should intervene first on looking at potential safety improvements. The Accident Investigation Team and the Road Safety Partnership then look at each of those Cluster Sites and investigate those sites. Consideration will then be given to what improvements could be made to the highway to reduce the risk of future incidents. As these reports are only considered annually there is the possibility that other incidents can occur prior to the annual review that could have been prevented had a report been made to the Highways Department at the time of the incident. ”

    Source location

    David Lee WALSH · 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

    Operate the improved fatal collision notification process, distributing reports, recording potential highway issues, checking records, notifying relevant teams and considering preventive actions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regarding the reporting of potential highway issues in fatal collisions more widely, I am pleased to confirm that LCC systems have recently been improved to ensure that any possible highway issues are identified at the earliest opportunity.”

    Source location

    Response from Lincolnshire County Council & Lincolnshire Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 July 2025

    Open published response

  2. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Mary Frances Cunningham and 3 others · 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

    Mary Frances Cunningham, Grace Foulds, Anne Elizabeth Ferguson and Peter Anthony Westwell died in separate road traffic collisions involving drivers whose eyesight was below the legal standard for driving. The report raises concerns about the UK licensing system, including reliance on self-reporting, the lack of periodic visual checks, and the limitations of the number-plate test. It states that the DVLA continued to license the drivers involved despite their impaired vision.

    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

    Non-standardised collision data collection obscuring defective-eyesight involvement

    Wider context from the report

    “The latest government figures record 1624 fatalities, 28,087 life changing serious injuries and 103,266 slight injuries accounting for 60,000 hospital admissions a year. Due to the Stats 19 data recording parameters, it is likely this is a substantial underestimate the actual number of road collisions from the National Travel Survey being approximately 600,000 and from the Department of Work and Pensions Compensation Recovery Unit 446,976. Data collection is further complicated by historical IT issues between constabularies resulting in a non-standardised reporting software. According to the Department for Transport uncorrected defective eyesight only occurred in 56 of the 15,355 road deaths recorded between January 2014 and January 2023, or 0.224% of all deaths. ”

    Source location

    Mary Frances Cunningham and 3 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 5 · 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

    Work with SCRICS to review and improve the collection and collation of STATS19 data on vision-related collision factors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My officials have advised that the STATS19 system for collecting and reporting road traffic collision data is unable to capture detailed information that identifies the causes of collisions. Many vision-related conditions may not manifest in ways that are immediately apparent following a road traffic collision. My Department will work with the Standing Committee on Road Injury Collision Statistics (SCRICS) to review and improve the collection and collation of STATS19 data. Officials will also continue to engage with police forces to develop a more standardised approach to roadside eyesight testing at the scene of the accident or shortly after to ensure that all relevant data is captured and reported accurately.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 25 April 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continue engaging police forces to develop a more standardised approach to roadside eyesight testing at or shortly after collisions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My officials have advised that the STATS19 system for collecting and reporting road traffic collision data is unable to capture detailed information that identifies the causes of collisions. Many vision-related conditions may not manifest in ways that are immediately apparent following a road traffic collision. My Department will work with the Standing Committee on Road Injury Collision Statistics (SCRICS) to review and improve the collection and collation of STATS19 data. Officials will also continue to engage with police forces to develop a more standardised approach to roadside eyesight testing at the scene of the accident or shortly after to ensure that all relevant data is captured and reported accurately.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 25 April 2025

    Open published response

  3. Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen

    AI-generated summary

    Sheila Margaret Edwards · 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

    Sheila Margaret Edwards was a front-seat passenger in a car whose driver became unresponsive, leading to a head-on collision on 8 January 2023. The report identified concerns that drivers with dementia and other conditions may not recognise or report them to the DVLA, creating risks to other road users, and that such conditions may be under-recorded in collision data.

    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

    Under-recording of dementia in collision statistics

    Wider context from the report

    “4. As a result of the way in which collision data is collected using Stats 19, there is a significant likelihood that dementia is under recorded in collision statistics. The nation this point regarding collision data regarding the visual aspect of collisions, the PFD report into the deaths of Mary Cunningham, Grace Foulds, Anne Ferguson and Peter Westwell should be consulted. ”

    Source location

    Sheila Margaret Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    STATS19 cannot capture all medical contributory factors because detailed identification would impose practical burdens on police officers.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I note that you have raised concerns about the STATS19 system used in GB for collecting and reporting road traffic collision data. The Department acknowledges that STATS19 has limitations in identifying the causes of collisions in detail, particularly regarding the recording of medical conditions such as dementia or cognitive impairment as a contributory factor. These limitations are set out in the guidance provided (for example, the guidance on contributory factors). Contributory factors are based on the judgement of police officers at the scene of an accident or shortly afterwards. As a result, conditions such as those affecting cognitive function may go unrecorded, especially if the impairment is not immediately apparent or if the officer is unaware of the driver’s medical history.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 24 April 2025

    Open published response

  4. West Yorkshire (West)

    AI-generated summary

    Nicholas Gary Stocks · 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

    Nicholas Gary Stocks was struck and fatally injured by a vehicle after a collision at the junction of Dry Hill Lane and the A635 Barnsley Road in Huddersfield on 27 September 2012. The report raised concerns about damaged and poorly maintained give-way signs and road markings, inadequate reporting and repair systems, highway inspection practices, risk assessment, and coordination between West Yorkshire Police and Kirklees Council.

    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 fully report matters of concern identified at road traffic collision scenes

    Wider context from the report

    “West Yorkshire Police (1) I am concerned with the system that was in place to ensure that matters of concern identified by Officers of West Yorkshire Police who attend the scene of Road Traffic Collision in November 2011 were not fully reported to Kirklees Council. I would ask you to review the system presently in place to ensure that all future reports are made and fully reported (2) On the afternoon of the 27th September 2012 following the earlier road traffic incident, a Police Officer identified the need for a repair to the Give Way sign which had been demolished. The Police Officer in attendance would have been able to also identify that the road markings at the scene were no longer visible and therefore any road user who was travelling along Dry Hill Lane would have had no visible signs or road markings on the approaching Give Way junction. In essence the Officer would have been able to undertake a risk assessment and identify the level of urgency for remedial repair works to be undertaken. I would invite West Yorkshire Police to liaise with the relevant department of Kirklees Council and undertake a new review and consider whose responsibility it should be to undertake a risk assessment at the scene of a road traffic collision in order to determine the level of urgency of remedial work which is required to be carried out so as to ensure the safety of road users and to develop a system so as to ensure that risk assessment process is implemented and carried out. (3) I would also ask you to liaise with the relevant departments of Kirklees Council in order to carry out investigations to determine which departments of Kirklees Council was contacted on the afternoon on 27th September 2012 to report the damage to the give way sign. I heard evidence that Kirklees Council Customer Services, the relevant department which should have been contacted, and who are contactable between the hours of 8.00 and 18 hours. Outside of these hours an answer machine message provides an emergency contact number. If the control room unit had contacted the customer service centre then this telephone line should have been manned and a response received rather than sending an email which was acknowledged by an automated response. I wish to ensure that firstly West Yorkshire Police have the relevant contact number which needs to be used in the future and secondly if the Customer Service centre at Kirklees Council was contacted it clearly was not manned at the appropriate time, I wish to ensure this is rectified. Kirklees Council (1) I have concerns with the regard to the wide variation of how road inspections are undertaken by your Safety Inspectors. During the course of the enquiries undertaken by West Yorkshire Police a number of interviews were conducted with a number of safety inspectors. I have reviewed those interviews and note that there was a wide variation on how Safety Inspectors undertook inspections of a highway.. One Inspector indicated that they would inspect one side of the road one month, and when inspecting the road the following month would inspect the other side of the carriageway. Another Inspector indicated that they would inspect the whole of the carriageway on each inspection. Another Safety Inspector stated that the driver also had a role to place in inspecting the road in addition to driving the vehicle which transported the Safety Inspector who would be seated in the front passenger seat. (2) I have concerns with regard to how Safety Inspectors identify issues at the junction of two roads and which inspection has responsibility to consider matters at the actual junction. There appeared to have been vague and unclear responses from the Inspectors who gave evidence, as to whose responsibility it would be to actually inspect the junction of the two roads. (3) I was concerned that neither of the two Safety Inspectors who gave evidence, considered that the lack of road markings at the junction of Barnsley Road and Dry Hill Lane, and upon Dry Hill Lane itself posed a safety risk to road users and applying appropriate risk assessment should have been repaired I heard evidence from a highly qualified independent expert who was fully familiar with the Kirklees inspection policy and who stated that the lack of road markings at the junction with Barnsley Road and upon Dry Hill Lane itself, were identifiable and reportable defects applying Kirklees Council Policy criteria and should have been reported by the Safety Inspectors and repaired. In addition the independent expert stated that the poor state of the road markings would have been present for a considerable and significant period of time. Certainly, when each of the roads had last been inspected by a Safety Inspector from Kirklees Council. (4) I also have concern that there is no ongoing training and assessment of Safety Inspectors after initial training has been given so as to ensure consistency and appropriate standard levels of inspections are maintained. I would invite Kirklees Council to undertake a comprehensive review of the training of all of their Safety Inspectors and consider what further retraining requirements are required now and in the future. (5) I would refer you to the comments I have made in the West Yorkshire Police section of this report in respect of the operation of Kirklees Council’s Customer Service Centre. I would ask you to liaise directly with West Yorkshire Police and review and ensure the Customer Centre Service facility is fully operational at all relevant times (6) I would also ask you to liaise with West Yorkshire Police in respect of the comments made in the West Yorkshire Police Section of this report concerning risk assessments when a road traffic collision occurs and West Yorkshire Police in attendance and identify the need for repair works to be undertaken, so as to ensure that an immediate risk assessment is undertaken to safeguard members of the public. (7). From details provided in the course of this investigation, it appears that remedial work was required to be undertaken by Yorkshire Water at the junction with Barnsley Road and Dry Hill Lane. This work was to identified on 13th March 2010 and the 5th March 2012, but there was no record that such work had been undertaken, and no follow up was implemented by Kirklees Council, so as to ensure that this work was carried out. I would invite you to review your systems so as to ensure that work is undertaken by other agencies and checks made to ensure that all necessary works are completed. (8) Evidence at the inquest also revealed that members of the public had reported the lack of road markings to Kirklees Council, some months prior to this incident occurring. Although Kirklees Council records show no further action required. I am concerned with regard to this finding in light of the evidence provided to me by the independent expert who confirmed that the lack of road markings was clearly a defect which fell within the Councils existing guidance as an identifiable defect which required rectification. I would invite you to review the present system that Kirklees Council has in place with addressing complaints made by members of the public in respect of the roads and highways which fall within your designated area. 9. I understand that major road works have been undertaken by Kirklees Council at the scene of this incident. However, at the inquest it was clear that the speed limit still remains to be 50 mph. I would invite you to review the speed limit not only on Dry Hill Lane, but also Barnsley Road and Lower Denby Lane. I would request you to review the street lighting along Lower Denby Lane and Dry Hill Lane at their approach to the junction with Barnsley Road and whether any additional lighting is required. ”

    Source location

    Nicholas Gary Stocks · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review and update reporting processes, including authority contact details and a monitored generic mailbox for defect reports.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I have taken this opportunity to review our reporting processes in regard to reports made to all five local authorities within our area. This review will involve ensuring that the postal/email addresses automated by our current systems are up to date and that there is the facility to send reports to a generic mailbox which is monitored by several people rather than an individual thereby ensuring the reports are received and dealt with in a timely manner.”

    Source location

    2015-0200-Response-by-West-Yorkshire-Police
    Page 1 · response
    Published 27 May 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Preload local-authority contact telephone numbers into the Force Communications system for accessible 24/7 reporting.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I am currently in liaison with the five local authorities to ensure that the contact details we hold, both email and telephone, will direct the information/report to the correct department to enable an appropriate response. Furthermore, I will ensure that contact telephone numbers for the”

    Source location

    2015-0200-Response-by-West-Yorkshire-Police
    Page 1 · response
    Published 27 May 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Circulate force-wide guidance reminding staff to submit timely defect reports after collisions and record the requirement in Force collision policy.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I will ensure that a Force wide communication is circulated to ensure that staff are reminded of the importance of submitting this information in a timely manner and that it is mandatory after the attendance at a road traffic collision where defects are identified. This will also be entered into Force Policy on dealing with collisions.”

    Source location

    2015-0200-Response-by-West-Yorkshire-Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 May 2015

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Require officers to risk-assess collision scenes, remain until safety is addressed, and prevent log closure until safety and defect-reporting questions are answered.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All officers will be reminded of the need to conduct a thorough risk assessment of the location prior to leaving the scene and will not resume until either; i) it is deemed safe to do so, or, ii) the local authority has attended, or, iii) the local authority have assessed the risk against their protocols or, iv) remedial works have been implemented to remove any risk to the safety of other road users. This will be endorsed on the log by the communications staff. The log will not be closed unless the following questions are answered”

    Source location

    2015-0200-Response-by-West-Yorkshire-Police
    Page 2 · response
    Published 27 May 2015

    Open published response

  5. South Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Ian Hunt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

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

    Report summary

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

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to record non-injury collisions on the local authority database

    Wider context from the report

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

    Source location

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

    Open source report

  6. Northamptonshire

    AI-generated summary

    Leanne Carmen Gower · 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

    Leanne Carmen Gower was a passenger in a car that lost control and collided with an oncoming vehicle; she died at the scene. The report raised concerns that damage-only road collision data was not routinely checked or recorded and may not have been considered when assessing whether highway works were 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

    Failure to record damage-only incidents

    Wider context from the report

    “It emerged in evidence that the police do not routinely check all provided data in relation to damage only incidents to the Council, MGWSP or any other party responsible for the maintenance of roads. It was the evidence of PC ████████ that such damage only incidents stopped being recorded in January 2011, although the reason for that decision was unclear. In this particular case, the damage only collisions data was as follows:- 2010 – 5 2011 – 7 2012 – 3 2013 – 8 2014 – 13 to date Although there were no reported incidents since the returturing of the relevant stretch of road, there is evidence of further incidents as one of the bollards has been displaced since. ████████ of the Police’s Safer roads team agreed in evidence that damage only collisions that are reported should be taken into consideration when determining whether any works are required to a particular stretch of highway. ████████ Principal Asset Engineer at Northamptonshire County Council also believed that collision only data would be helpful. ”

    Source location

    Leanne Carmen Gower · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Non-injury collision data is too incomplete, unreliable and scientifically weak to identify sites confidently or determine meaningful safety interventions.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Non-injury collision data held by the police is retained in a form that is of no evidential value for analysis purposes and is therefore not considered by the Panel. An explanation of the police non-injury collision recording policy is provided later in this report.”

    Source location

    2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-County-Council
    Page 3 · response
    Published 19 November 2014

    Open published response

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

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026