Recurring concern

Failure to reassess safety risks from inadequate lighting

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 4 Dec 2013•Latest report 12 Nov 2019

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures to initiate, complete or use a safety reassessment or policy review specifically concerning inadequate, absent or poorly performing lighting in public or operational areas, including review after incidents, infrastructure changes, changes in use or evidence of impaired visibility.

Not included

Excludes the underlying absence, poor provision or maintenance of lighting where no failure to reassess the lighting-related safety risk is identified.
Excludes generic risk-assessment failures not specifically concerning lighting-related safety risks.
Excludes routine lighting maintenance, repair, inspection or installation failures unless the report also identifies failure to reassess the associated safety risk.
Excludes fire, vehicle, clinical or other hazard assessments where lighting is only incidental and is not the bounded safety concern.

Reports: 2
Individual concerns: 2
Date range: 2013–2019
Stated actions: 4

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 Highways1

Warwickshire County 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.

12 Nov2019
Cheshire
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to re-assess the risk arising from lack of motorway lighting
This report raised 2 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.
Actions described in response 2
1. Action
  Revise the smart motorways design standard to require review of night-time collisions and consideration of whether road lighting is justified.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated completed
2. Action
  Carry out a lighting assessment for the M6 motorway between junctions 16 and 19 to determine whether lighting is required.
  Stated by National HighwaysStated planned
Respondent positions 1
1. Position
  The revised lighting standard is not applied retrospectively; lighting review for this operational scheme is deferred to future renewal or improvement investment.
  Stated by National HighwaysUnable to act
AI-generated summary

Mr Costel Daniel Stancu · 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 Costel Daniel Stancu died at Royal Stoke University Hospital on 3 April 2019, aged 37, after sustaining injuries in a series of road traffic collisions on the M6 on 29 March 2019. The concerns identified were that the lack of lighting on that section of motorway contributed to the collisions and created an ongoing risk to life, and that the associated risk had not been reassessed following the motorway’s conversion to a smart motorway or the incident.

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 re-assess the risk arising from lack of motorway lighting
Wider context from the report
“I determined that the lack of lighting on this section of the motorway was a contributory factor to the Second Series of Collisions; the evidence at inquest was that this section of the motorway remains unlit at night and I am concerned that this creates an ongoing risk to life. Whilst I found that none of the collisions were caused by the conversion of this section of the motorway to a ‘smart motorway’ I am concerned that this change in layout may have increased the risks posed to users of the motorway including the risk arising from the lack of lighting. The evidence that I heard during the inquest suggested that the risk arising from the lack of lighting had not been re-assessed either as part of the conversion to a ‘smart motorway’ or following the incident on 29ᵗʰ March 2019. ”
Source location
Mr Costel Daniel Stancu · 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
Revise the smart motorways design standard to require review of night-time collisions and consideration of whether road lighting is justified.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We revised our smart motorways design standard in 2015. The 2015 design standard has an updated lighting requirement instructing schemes to review the number of night-time personal injury collisions, and to determine whether there is any justification for introducing road lighting as part of the scheme. Subsequent changes to design standards are not applied retrospectively to operational schemes but would be considered as part of a corporate standard programme of investment for the renewal or improvement of the strategic road network at a future date.”

Source location
2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2019
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
Carry out a lighting assessment for the M6 motorway between junctions 16 and 19 to determine whether lighting is required.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Given the concerns expressed following this particular incident, we will carry out a lighting assessment to determine whether lighting would now be required on this section of motorway.”

Source location
2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2019
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

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

PFD Monitor interpretation
The revised lighting standard is not applied retrospectively; lighting review for this operational scheme is deferred to future renewal or improvement investment.

Verbatim wording from the response
“(c) The M6 motorway, junctions 16 to 19 ‘smart motorway’ scheme was designed to the smart motorway design standard in place at the time published in 2013. The 2013 design standard stated that, where the motorway is not currently lit, lighting shall not be considered. Therefore, the scheme did not undertake a lighting assessment because this section of the M6 motorway was not lit prior to the smart motorway scheme being designed.”

Source location
2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 4 · response
Published 27 December 2019
Open published response
4 Dec2013
Warwickshire
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to review night-lighting policy with regard to pedestrian use and footpath visibility during unlit hours
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
  Review the night-lighting policy against pedestrian use and awareness of the footpath termination.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated completed
2. Action
  Keep the street light nearest the crossing point illuminated throughout the night.
  Stated by Warwickshire County CouncilStated planned
AI-generated summary

Archibald WELLBELOVE · 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

Archibald Wellbelove died in the early hours of 7 December 2012 after being struck by a taxi on the Kenilworth-bound carriageway of the A452, which was unlit at the time following a change in the County Council’s night-lighting policy. The principal concern was that the Council had not reviewed its night-lighting policy in light of pedestrian use of the road and possible lack of awareness of a footpath.

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 review night-lighting policy with regard to pedestrian use and footpath visibility during unlit hours
Wider context from the report
“(1) failure of the Council to review its night-lighting policy with specific regard to the circumstances of Mr Wellbelove’s death; to include consideration of: • evidence that pedestrians regularly use the road during the unlit hours; and • evidence that pedestrians, during the unlit hours, may not be aware of the presence of a footpath on the Leamington-bound side of the road, at the point of discontinuation of the footpath on the Kenilworth-bound side of the road. ”
Source location
Archibald WELLBELOVE · 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
Review the night-lighting policy against pedestrian use and awareness of the footpath termination.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Failure of the Council to review its night-lighting policy with specific regard to the circumstances of Mr Wellbelove's death; to include consideration of:”

Source location
2013-0324-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 October 2013
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
Keep the street light nearest the crossing point illuminated throughout the night.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The Council had scheduled a review of the policy for the early Summer but has brought forward this particular element in light of the Regulation 28 Report. Attached to this letter is a note of the investigations carried out by our highway engineers and their conclusions. From this it will be seen that it has been decided to make a number of changes at the point where the Kenilworth-bound footway terminates in order to reduce the risk of any future deaths. These changes are as follows:”

Source location
2013-0324-Response-by-Warwickshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 October 2013
Open published response

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to re-assess the risk arising from lack of motorway lighting

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.1

Concerns raised1

Failure to review night-lighting policy with regard to pedestrian use and footpath visibility during unlit hours

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

Actions described in response 2

Respondent positions 1

Actions described in response 2