Recurring concern

Inadequate vehicle restraint protection at hazardous edges

First to latest report 9 Jul 2014 — 6 Jul 2026

Reports that mention this concern: 4
Times this concern has been raised: 4
Stated actions linked to this concern: 7

What this concern includes

Includes failures of dedicated vehicle restraint or containment measures intended to prevent or materially reduce vehicle over-run or departure at hazardous road, driveway or carriageway edges, including inadequate barriers, retaining protection, containment assessment or inspection of changing roadside conditions.

What is not included

Excludes vehicle under-run protection devices fitted to lorries, which address collision intrusion beneath a vehicle rather than vehicles leaving a road or driveway.
Excludes general road-surface, signage, lighting, traffic-management or driver-behaviour concerns unless the asserted unsafe condition is inadequate vehicle restraint at a hazardous edge.
Excludes ordinary driveway, verge or roadside maintenance deficiencies where no vehicle over-run or vehicle-containment risk is identified.
Excludes generic vehicle safety or crashworthiness concerns unrelated to preventing or reducing vehicle departure over a hazardous edge.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, 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.

Department for Transport2

National Highways2

Clough Williams-Ellis Foundation1

Family of the deceased1

Greater Manchester Police1

Gwynedd Council1

Howarth Properties LTD1

Reports and published responses 4 reports

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

6 Jul2026
Buckinghamshire
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to provide effective protection against vehicle over-run at the driveway drop
This report raised 2 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

Howarth Property Ltd
Stated actions 2
1. Howarth Property Ltd
  Close the driveway to prevent vehicle over-run while safety measures are addressed.
2. Howarth Property Ltd
  Install an engineered vehicle-stop barrier alongside the handrail to prevent vehicle over-run and reduce crush risk.
AI-generated summary

Eleisha Skinner · 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

Eleisha Skinner died in hospital from crush injuries sustained when her car slipped down an icy, inclined driveway and trapped her against a house while she was unloading it. Concerns included the absence of effective barriers against vehicle over-run, uncertainty about arrangements for gritting or salting the driveway, and a lack of guidance on safely unloading vehicles on the incline.

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 effective protection against vehicle over-run at the driveway drop
Wider context from the report
“(1) The driveway had a clear downwards incline towards a sheer drop of around 3 feet with no upward-projecting protective retaining wall, armco barrier or other method of preventing vehicle over-run. Railings have been installed at the top of the sheer drop, but the inquest was not able to examine whether or not these would address the issue or if they have created a new potential crush risk. ”
Source location
Eleisha Skinner · 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
Close the driveway to prevent vehicle over-run while safety measures are addressed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the incident, the driveway was immediately closed.”

Source location
Response from Howarth Properties LTD
Page 1 · response
Published 21 August 2026
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 an engineered vehicle-stop barrier alongside the handrail to prevent vehicle over-run and reduce crush risk.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Arising from that assessment, Howarth Property Ltd will additionally install a dedicated vehicle stop barrier alongside the handrail, as set out in Section 5 below. This is because a handrail alone could itself create a crush risk to a pedestrian if a vehicle were to run against it; the vehicle stop barrier will therefore act as the primary means of restraint and has been designed by an engineer.”

Source location
Response from Howarth Properties LTD
Page 2 · response
Published 21 August 2026
Open published response
17 Oct2024
North West Wales
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of roadside barrier or fence preventing vehicles entering the ditch
This report raised 3 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked responses

Gwynedd Council
the Trustees of the Ymddiriedolaeth Clough Williams-Ellis Foundation
Stated actions 2
1. Gwynedd Council
  Complete a site-specific assessment of whether a road restraint system should be provided at the collision site.
2. Gwynedd Council
  Review future options for installing a road restraint system as maintenance or wider highway improvements affect the relevant considerations.
Respondent positions 4
1. Gwynedd Council
  Implemented signage and passive roadside measures may be sufficient to negate the need for a road restraint system.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
1. Gwynedd Council
  Road restraint installation is limited by substantial funding, resource, physical, engineering, legal, environmental, land ownership and maintenance constraints.
  Unable to act
2. the Trustees of the Ymddiriedolaeth Clough Williams-Ellis Foundation
  Stock fencing is not intended or designed as highway safety infrastructure and would not withstand a vehicle collision at speed.
  Disputes the concern
3. the Trustees of the Ymddiriedolaeth Clough Williams-Ellis Foundation
  Safety works on or adjacent to the public highway are the responsibility of the relevant authority, not the adjoining landowner.
  Redirects responsibility
AI-generated summary

Wilfred John Fitchett 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

On 19 November 2023, a vehicle carrying four young men left the A4085, entered a water-filled drainage ditch and all four died from drowning; the vehicle was found on 21 November 2023. The report raises concerns about the absence of legal restrictions on young or newly qualified drivers carrying young passengers and the risk of further deaths in similar circumstances.

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 roadside barrier or fence preventing vehicles entering the ditch
Wider context from the report
“b. A stock fence had been erected (likely by the private landowner) concerning the lane of the road in question. It is understood that Cyngor Gwynedd had no responsibility for this given that it was on private land. The stock fence had been damaged and had not been replaced prior to the collision on 19 November 2023. c. Whilst the evidence could not determine whether or not the fence, had it been repaired and in situ at the time of the collision, would have altered the outcome the risk to road users who leave the road accidentally is that they may land in the ditch below the road level. d. Cyngor Gwynedd has installed a chevron board at the bend but there is no barrier or fence otherwise to prevent motor vehicles leaving the road into the ditch at this bend in the event of leaving the carriageway accidentally. ”
Source location
Wilfred John Fitchett and 3 others · 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
Complete a site-specific assessment of whether a road restraint system should be provided at the collision site.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4.2 an assessment for the provision of a Road Restraint System (RRS) at the site has been undertaken.”

Source location
Response from Cyngor Gwynedd Council
Page 8 · response
Published 17 October 2024
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 future options for installing a road restraint system as maintenance or wider highway improvements affect the relevant considerations.

Verbatim wording from the response
“4.10 On the basis of the above, taking into account the enhancements already implemented, options in the short term to install a RRS are limited in respect of both scope and justification. However, this will be subject to review as there are other factors which may influence this. These could include future maintenance and/or wider and more significant improvements to the highway which may affect the determining considerations in relation to installing a RRS.”

Source location
Response from Cyngor Gwynedd Council
Page 10 · response
Published 17 October 2024
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
Implemented signage and passive roadside measures may be sufficient to negate the need for a road restraint system.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The guidance for medium priority sites state that a road restraint system may be justified however a non-RRS approach to reducing the risk may prove sufficient to negate the need for a RRS.”

Source location
Response from Cyngor Gwynedd Council
Page 9 · response
Published 17 October 2024
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
Road restraint installation is limited by substantial funding, resource, physical, engineering, legal, environmental, land ownership and maintenance constraints.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Due to lack of level verge a new restrain system cannot be easily installed without major works to create a verge which would have significant costs.”

Source location
Response from Cyngor Gwynedd Council
Page 9 · response
Published 17 October 2024
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
Stock fencing is not intended or designed as highway safety infrastructure and would not withstand a vehicle collision at speed.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3.2 In any case stock fencing is not meant to be a feature of highway safety and is not designed to withstand the force of a car hitting it at speed, and if that was its intended purpose something more robust ought to have been considered.”

Source location
Response from Clough Williams-Ellis Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 October 2024
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
Safety works on or adjacent to the public highway are the responsibility of the relevant authority, not the adjoining landowner.

Verbatim wording from the response
“3.4 Any works on or adjacent to a public highway to enhance safety for road users are the responsibility of the relevant Authority and not the adjoining Landowner.”

Source location
Response from Clough Williams-Ellis Trust
Page 1 · response
Published 17 October 2024
Open published response
22 Sep2017
Nottinghamshire
Concerns raised1
1. Gap in the vehicle restraint barrier permitting unimpeded vehicle passage from the carriageway
This report raised 1 other concern. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

National Highways
Stated actions 3
1. National Highways
  Progress the drainage scheme, including ditch clearance, pipe repairs or replacement, cleaning, and additional drainage installation.
2. National Highways
  Continue discussions with the landowner and agent to secure removal of the field access and closure of the barrier gap.
3. National Highways
  Assess options for removing the field access and determine associated costs and a reasonable land-access value for an offer to the landowner.
Respondent positions 1
1. National Highways
  Vehicle restraint barrier alterations cannot be implemented until agreement is reached with the landowner to close the field access.
  Unable to act
AI-generated summary

Shahbaz Salim Bhim and Shana Sutaria · 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

Shahbaz Salim Bhim and Shana Sutaria were travelling in a BMW on the A46 during heavy rain when standing water caused the vehicle to leave the carriageway and enter Fairham Brook. They likely survived the initial collision but were subsequently struck by a van and sustained fatal injuries; concerns included blocked drainage causing standing water and a gap in the vehicle restraint barrier that allowed vehicles to leave the carriageway.

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
Gap in the vehicle restraint barrier permitting unimpeded vehicle passage from the carriageway
Wider context from the report
“d. The gap in the vehicle restraint barrier (Highways England’s location code X-465224,Y-328926) at the entrance to the land owned and/or occupied by ████████ (and registered at the Land Registry under title number TN514257) is a hazard to traffic in that it permits vehicles to pass unimpeded from the carriageway. ”
Source location
Shahbaz Salim Bhim and Shana Sutaria · 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
Progress the drainage scheme, including ditch clearance, pipe repairs or replacement, cleaning, and additional drainage installation.

Verbatim wording from the response
“a. The drainage scheme is progressing as planned through the design and development phases with an estimated start date on the A46 in February 2018. The work will take place over a period of approximately 20 weeks with a planned completion date of June 2018.”

Source location
Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 3 October 2017
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 discussions with the landowner and agent to secure removal of the field access and closure of the barrier gap.

Verbatim wording from the response
“b. Highways England are in discussions with ████████ his land agent ████████ Shouler & Son) regarding the removal of the access to the field which will allow us to install a continuous vehicle safety restraint barrier. Communication was made with ████████ during week commencing 25 September 2017 immediately following the inquest. As a result, discussions with ████████ began on the 4 October 2017 and continued on the 23 October 2017.”

Source location
Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 3 October 2017
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
Assess options for removing the field access and determine associated costs and a reasonable land-access value for an offer to the landowner.

Verbatim wording from the response
“████████ and his land agent understand the Coroner’s reasons for raising the entrance to the field as a matter of concern and are open to discussions on how the closure of the access can be achieved. Highways England will assess the options to remove the access to the field and close the corresponding gap in the centre reservation. Highways England Land Team will assist in assessing the relevant costs and allow us to place a reasonable monetary value on the land access so that we are able to offer this to ████████ in return for closing the existing access.”

Source location
Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 3 October 2017
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
Vehicle restraint barrier alterations cannot be implemented until agreement is reached with the landowner to close the field access.

Verbatim wording from the response
“████████ and his land agent understand the Coroner’s reasons for raising the entrance to the field as a matter of concern and are open to discussions on how the closure of the access can be achieved. Highways England will assess the options to remove the access to the field and close the corresponding gap in the centre reservation. Highways England Land Team will assist in assessing the relevant costs and allow us to place a reasonable monetary value on the land access so that we are able to offer this to ████████ in return for closing the existing access.”

Source location
Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 3 October 2017
Open published response
9 Jul2014
Manchester North
Concerns raised1
1. Lack of inspection of developing soft estate to assess vehicle restraint protection requirements
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

Georgina Lauren Taylor · 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

Georgina Lauren Taylor died following a road traffic collision on the A627(M), in which a vehicle lost control at excessive speed, struck a tree and rolled. The report raised concerns about trees and other roadside features near the carriageway, including whether they were adequately protected or should have been removed, and about the lack of requirements to reassess protection as roadside vegetation developed.

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 inspection of developing soft estate to assess vehicle restraint protection requirements
Wider context from the report
“2. The introduction of the interim requirements for road restraint systems in 2002 identified that all trees with a girth exceeding 500mm (or several closely spaced trees) located within a distance of 4.5m from the paved carriageway require protection. The re-issued requirements in 2004 identified that trees above 300mm in girth should be protected by a suitable vehicle restraint system. 3. Current design standard TD19/06 includes a site specific risk process where topographical features, together with adjacent sources of risk are reviewed in order to identify the most appropriate restraint facility and containment levels and that in relation to the presence of trees adjacent to the nearside verge and protection requirements, it is unclear as to when these regimented and it is likely that they are all ‘self-seeded’ with the larger specimens being over 10 years old. Whilst the vehicle restraint systems in place comply with identified requirements at the time of the construction of the route, there are no current requirements to inspect soft estate as it develops in terms of assessing protection requirements. The application of more recent design standards would have required some of the trees at this location to be protected (as well as the lighting columns) or removed within the 4.5m threshold. ”
Source location
Georgina Lauren Taylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 1 · concerns
Open source report

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Trends

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Concerns raised1

Failure to provide effective protection against vehicle over-run at the driveway drop

Linked response

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

Concerns raised1

Lack of roadside barrier or fence preventing vehicles entering the ditch

Linked responses

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

Respondent positions A position is what a respondent says about the concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

Concerns raised1

Gap in the vehicle restraint barrier permitting unimpeded vehicle passage from the carriageway

Linked response

Stated actions An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

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

Concerns raised1

Lack of inspection of developing soft estate to assess vehicle restraint protection requirements

Stated actions 2

Stated actions 2

Respondent positions 4

Stated actions 3

Respondent positions 1